What am I missing ?
-
I thought I'd have fun figuring out the "real" unemployment figure in the US. Here's what I've come up with: [edit](various edits as I realize I can't do math. It's amazing I can program.)[/edit] US population: 314 million Normal retirement age: 67 People age 65 or older: 41 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ Disabled, under age 65: 14 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ People under 18, 23% or 7 million approx http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html Full time employees: 117 million http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ Part time employees: 24 million (16 and older): http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ 314 - 41 retired (oops, was 67, used retirement age by mistake!) ---- 273 - 14 disabled ---- 259 - 72 under 18 (arg, I can't do math!!! This was 7!) ---- 187 <--- this should be the # of employable people. FT + PT employed = 141 million % unemployed = (187 - 141) / 187, or ~ 25% [edit] comparing apples and oranges, yes I know, thank you everyone [edit]: Unemployment: supposedly 7.6 % (these are the number of people out of work that are seeking work) Yeah, I know I'm using 16 and above and under 18 but the different is negligible. So what portion of the population am I forgetting to subtract from the "employable"? Marc
-
Aren't you just using a comparing two completely different stats? "Unemployment (or joblessness) occurs when people are without work and actively seeking work." Not the same as "percentage not-working out of employable people".
harold aptroot wrote:
Aren't you just using a comparing two completely different stats?
Well, the term "unemployment rate" is typically interpreted as "people not working" by the layman, but yes, the stat is as you stated, which deceives us in thinking this is the actual % of people unemployed. I doubt many people actually understand the difference. Marc
-
That is why the government drops people off after they "quit looking".
djj55 wrote:
That is why the government drops people off after they "quit looking".
Exactly what I was trying to get at, is the total number of people that could be working, whether they're looking for work or not. Marc
-
"Define your terms gentlemen. It saves time arguing." Near as I recall the Unemployment number is "people currently collecting unemployment benefits." NOT "the number of employable people that are not working."
mikepwilson wrote:
"Define your terms gentlemen. It saves time arguing."
Yeah yeah, I edited my post. :) What I'm looking for is whether I've forgotten to exclude certain groups from the population of employable, not my semantic interpretation of terms. ;) Marc
-
Reality Check: upvote!
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Aren't you just using a comparing two completely different stats?
Well, the term "unemployment rate" is typically interpreted as "people not working" by the layman, but yes, the stat is as you stated, which deceives us in thinking this is the actual % of people unemployed. I doubt many people actually understand the difference. Marc
The layman is an idiot, I grant you, but if they really think the number could be that low with that interpretation, I'm surprised they remember to breathe. I mean come on, 7.something%? That might account for a couple of not-working groups, but certainly not for all the "other adult members of a household with a single source of income" (mainly housewives and whatever the male version is called, and some students).
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Aren't you just using a comparing two completely different stats?
Well, the term "unemployment rate" is typically interpreted as "people not working" by the layman, but yes, the stat is as you stated, which deceives us in thinking this is the actual % of people unemployed. I doubt many people actually understand the difference. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:Well, the term "unemployment rate" is typically interpreted as "people not working" by the laymanNo, it's not. My wife switched to full-time mother when we had our first child. She wasn't "unemployed". I was in (1) university, and (2) graduate school for the majority of a decade: I was not "unemployed" How do those in military service fit into your figures - if at all? There are doubtless many other scenarios where those in your pool of people who you count as unemployed are, in fact, properly not classified as such.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
I thought I'd have fun figuring out the "real" unemployment figure in the US. Here's what I've come up with: [edit](various edits as I realize I can't do math. It's amazing I can program.)[/edit] US population: 314 million Normal retirement age: 67 People age 65 or older: 41 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ Disabled, under age 65: 14 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ People under 18, 23% or 7 million approx http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html Full time employees: 117 million http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ Part time employees: 24 million (16 and older): http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ 314 - 41 retired (oops, was 67, used retirement age by mistake!) ---- 273 - 14 disabled ---- 259 - 72 under 18 (arg, I can't do math!!! This was 7!) ---- 187 <--- this should be the # of employable people. FT + PT employed = 141 million % unemployed = (187 - 141) / 187, or ~ 25% [edit] comparing apples and oranges, yes I know, thank you everyone [edit]: Unemployment: supposedly 7.6 % (these are the number of people out of work that are seeking work) Yeah, I know I'm using 16 and above and under 18 but the different is negligible. So what portion of the population am I forgetting to subtract from the "employable"? Marc
Politicians!
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.1 ToDo Manager Extension The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard. -Steven Wright
-
I thought I'd have fun figuring out the "real" unemployment figure in the US. Here's what I've come up with: [edit](various edits as I realize I can't do math. It's amazing I can program.)[/edit] US population: 314 million Normal retirement age: 67 People age 65 or older: 41 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ Disabled, under age 65: 14 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ People under 18, 23% or 7 million approx http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html Full time employees: 117 million http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ Part time employees: 24 million (16 and older): http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ 314 - 41 retired (oops, was 67, used retirement age by mistake!) ---- 273 - 14 disabled ---- 259 - 72 under 18 (arg, I can't do math!!! This was 7!) ---- 187 <--- this should be the # of employable people. FT + PT employed = 141 million % unemployed = (187 - 141) / 187, or ~ 25% [edit] comparing apples and oranges, yes I know, thank you everyone [edit]: Unemployment: supposedly 7.6 % (these are the number of people out of work that are seeking work) Yeah, I know I'm using 16 and above and under 18 but the different is negligible. So what portion of the population am I forgetting to subtract from the "employable"? Marc
The real problem is that vast number of unemployables who are employed nonetheless. We need to replace them with unemployeds, that should help a bit, even though I'd expect that the replacement would be only about one unemployed employable to ten employed unemployables, but it's a start. :shrug:
-
I thought I'd have fun figuring out the "real" unemployment figure in the US. Here's what I've come up with: [edit](various edits as I realize I can't do math. It's amazing I can program.)[/edit] US population: 314 million Normal retirement age: 67 People age 65 or older: 41 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ Disabled, under age 65: 14 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ People under 18, 23% or 7 million approx http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html Full time employees: 117 million http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ Part time employees: 24 million (16 and older): http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ 314 - 41 retired (oops, was 67, used retirement age by mistake!) ---- 273 - 14 disabled ---- 259 - 72 under 18 (arg, I can't do math!!! This was 7!) ---- 187 <--- this should be the # of employable people. FT + PT employed = 141 million % unemployed = (187 - 141) / 187, or ~ 25% [edit] comparing apples and oranges, yes I know, thank you everyone [edit]: Unemployment: supposedly 7.6 % (these are the number of people out of work that are seeking work) Yeah, I know I'm using 16 and above and under 18 but the different is negligible. So what portion of the population am I forgetting to subtract from the "employable"? Marc
I don't know how you'd get this stat, but you are missing a large percentage of people who don't work and don't need/want to... (and I mean paycheck type work, so don't yell at me for the next sentence, I know they work a lot more than I do), stay at home parents, independently wealthy, day traders, drug dealers, etc.
-
I thought I'd have fun figuring out the "real" unemployment figure in the US. Here's what I've come up with: [edit](various edits as I realize I can't do math. It's amazing I can program.)[/edit] US population: 314 million Normal retirement age: 67 People age 65 or older: 41 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ Disabled, under age 65: 14 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ People under 18, 23% or 7 million approx http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html Full time employees: 117 million http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ Part time employees: 24 million (16 and older): http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ 314 - 41 retired (oops, was 67, used retirement age by mistake!) ---- 273 - 14 disabled ---- 259 - 72 under 18 (arg, I can't do math!!! This was 7!) ---- 187 <--- this should be the # of employable people. FT + PT employed = 141 million % unemployed = (187 - 141) / 187, or ~ 25% [edit] comparing apples and oranges, yes I know, thank you everyone [edit]: Unemployment: supposedly 7.6 % (these are the number of people out of work that are seeking work) Yeah, I know I'm using 16 and above and under 18 but the different is negligible. So what portion of the population am I forgetting to subtract from the "employable"? Marc
I'm not completely following the logic of your numbers, but I think I can identify two side issues with the approximations that I think you are trying to make: (1) You haven't identified all groups (eg. military, at-home/spouses, students, US payroll but working out of the country, volunteer...) (2) Some people can be in multiple groups (eg. over 65/67 but working, disabled but working, people working multiple jobs, employed but "off work" on disability...) Myself? I am under 65, retired, not disabled but working part time. Also doing volunteer work.
-- Harvey
-
The real problem is that vast number of unemployables who are employed nonetheless. We need to replace them with unemployeds, that should help a bit, even though I'd expect that the replacement would be only about one unemployed employable to ten employed unemployables, but it's a start. :shrug:
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
one unemployed employable to ten employed unemployables
Sounds like most places where I've, umm, worked. You could easily replace 10 managers with one! ;) Marc
-
I thought I'd have fun figuring out the "real" unemployment figure in the US. Here's what I've come up with: [edit](various edits as I realize I can't do math. It's amazing I can program.)[/edit] US population: 314 million Normal retirement age: 67 People age 65 or older: 41 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ Disabled, under age 65: 14 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ People under 18, 23% or 7 million approx http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html Full time employees: 117 million http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ Part time employees: 24 million (16 and older): http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ 314 - 41 retired (oops, was 67, used retirement age by mistake!) ---- 273 - 14 disabled ---- 259 - 72 under 18 (arg, I can't do math!!! This was 7!) ---- 187 <--- this should be the # of employable people. FT + PT employed = 141 million % unemployed = (187 - 141) / 187, or ~ 25% [edit] comparing apples and oranges, yes I know, thank you everyone [edit]: Unemployment: supposedly 7.6 % (these are the number of people out of work that are seeking work) Yeah, I know I'm using 16 and above and under 18 but the different is negligible. So what portion of the population am I forgetting to subtract from the "employable"? Marc
There is a figure somewhere. I was reading it in the paper (some one publishes) it's called underemploymnet which is people of working age who are not employed full-time.
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost "All users always want Excel" --Ennis Lynch
-
I don't know how you'd get this stat, but you are missing a large percentage of people who don't work and don't need/want to... (and I mean paycheck type work, so don't yell at me for the next sentence, I know they work a lot more than I do), stay at home parents, independently wealthy, day traders, drug dealers, etc.
DeDawg wrote:
stay at home parents, independently wealthy, day traders, drug dealers, etc.
Funny you mention that, I had just looked up the stats on stay at home parents: Stay at home moms: 5 million http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts\_for\_features\_special\_editions/cb11-ff07.html Stay at home dads: 154,000 https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts\_for\_features\_special\_editions/cb11-ff11.html And there's also prisoners (2011): 1,571,013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/us/us-prison-populations-decline-reflecting-new-approach-to-crime.html?pagewanted=all&\_r=0 (wow!) And yes, the "independently wealthy" category (however that occurs, hahaha) is a good one to look up too. Not sure how to figure out the more colorful "careers". Thanks! Marc
-
I thought I'd have fun figuring out the "real" unemployment figure in the US. Here's what I've come up with: [edit](various edits as I realize I can't do math. It's amazing I can program.)[/edit] US population: 314 million Normal retirement age: 67 People age 65 or older: 41 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ Disabled, under age 65: 14 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ People under 18, 23% or 7 million approx http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html Full time employees: 117 million http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ Part time employees: 24 million (16 and older): http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ 314 - 41 retired (oops, was 67, used retirement age by mistake!) ---- 273 - 14 disabled ---- 259 - 72 under 18 (arg, I can't do math!!! This was 7!) ---- 187 <--- this should be the # of employable people. FT + PT employed = 141 million % unemployed = (187 - 141) / 187, or ~ 25% [edit] comparing apples and oranges, yes I know, thank you everyone [edit]: Unemployment: supposedly 7.6 % (these are the number of people out of work that are seeking work) Yeah, I know I'm using 16 and above and under 18 but the different is negligible. So what portion of the population am I forgetting to subtract from the "employable"? Marc
-
I'm not completely following the logic of your numbers, but I think I can identify two side issues with the approximations that I think you are trying to make: (1) You haven't identified all groups (eg. military, at-home/spouses, students, US payroll but working out of the country, volunteer...) (2) Some people can be in multiple groups (eg. over 65/67 but working, disabled but working, people working multiple jobs, employed but "off work" on disability...) Myself? I am under 65, retired, not disabled but working part time. Also doing volunteer work.
-- Harvey
H.Brydon wrote:
You haven't identified all groups (eg. military, at-home/spouses, students, US payroll but working out of the country, volunteer...)
Good points. I just looked up stay at home parents. Military would be considered employed and fit in the "employable" group, right?
H.Brydon wrote:
Some people can be in multiple groups (eg. over 65/67 but working, disabled but working, people working multiple jobs, employed but "off work" on disability...)
Yes, I'm not going for total accuracy - I'm assuming that the inaccuracies account for a percent or two at most. Marc
-
I thought I'd have fun figuring out the "real" unemployment figure in the US. Here's what I've come up with: [edit](various edits as I realize I can't do math. It's amazing I can program.)[/edit] US population: 314 million Normal retirement age: 67 People age 65 or older: 41 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ Disabled, under age 65: 14 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ People under 18, 23% or 7 million approx http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html Full time employees: 117 million http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ Part time employees: 24 million (16 and older): http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ 314 - 41 retired (oops, was 67, used retirement age by mistake!) ---- 273 - 14 disabled ---- 259 - 72 under 18 (arg, I can't do math!!! This was 7!) ---- 187 <--- this should be the # of employable people. FT + PT employed = 141 million % unemployed = (187 - 141) / 187, or ~ 25% [edit] comparing apples and oranges, yes I know, thank you everyone [edit]: Unemployment: supposedly 7.6 % (these are the number of people out of work that are seeking work) Yeah, I know I'm using 16 and above and under 18 but the different is negligible. So what portion of the population am I forgetting to subtract from the "employable"? Marc
Late to the party, but here's my two cents. The 'unemployment' rate SHOULD be the percentage of people who WANT to work but can't find work when compared to the number of people who want to work. Part of the problem with the current system is it doesn't account for people who are 'retired', but are also working. For example, I know people who have 'retired' two or more times, are over 65 and still work. Also, as other's have said, my wife CHOOSES to be a stay-at-home wife and mother. Since she does not WANT to work for a paycheque, she shouldn't be including in the 'unemployed' figure. A friend's son recently lost his job, he has been accepted into the navy, but won't report for some time. So, is he 'unemployed'? Perhaps... He can look for work, but since it will be only a matter of months before he reports, will he? As my high school French teacher said (he has previously a statistician), "Statistics are like a bikini; what they reveal is interesting, what the hide is vital." Tim
-
Quote:
So what portion of the population am I forgetting to subtract from the "employable"?
Facebook users.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Late to the party, but here's my two cents. The 'unemployment' rate SHOULD be the percentage of people who WANT to work but can't find work when compared to the number of people who want to work. Part of the problem with the current system is it doesn't account for people who are 'retired', but are also working. For example, I know people who have 'retired' two or more times, are over 65 and still work. Also, as other's have said, my wife CHOOSES to be a stay-at-home wife and mother. Since she does not WANT to work for a paycheque, she shouldn't be including in the 'unemployed' figure. A friend's son recently lost his job, he has been accepted into the navy, but won't report for some time. So, is he 'unemployed'? Perhaps... He can look for work, but since it will be only a matter of months before he reports, will he? As my high school French teacher said (he has previously a statistician), "Statistics are like a bikini; what they reveal is interesting, what the hide is vital." Tim
Tim Carmichael wrote:
Late to the party, but here's my two cents.
Welcome. :)
Tim Carmichael wrote:
but can't find work when compared to the number of people who want to work.
Which isn't easy to determine, is it? It seems the only way to gather this statistic is by those filing unemployment?
Tim Carmichael wrote:
she shouldn't be including in the 'unemployed' figure.
Yes, I've account for this now: Stay at home moms: 5 million http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts\_for\_features\_special\_editions/cb11-ff07.html Stay at home dads: 154,000 https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts\_for\_features\_special\_editions/cb11-ff11.html
Tim Carmichael wrote:
Statistics are like a bikini; what they reveal is interesting, what the hide is vital.
Quite so. Just trying to get a ballpark figure to see how this is calculated. I've read a lot of articles on the stats for unemployment, underemployment, employable, etc., but they never show how they derive their numbers. It's so unprofessional. So I thought I'd try and see what I come up with while I wait for feature tests to run. :) Marc
-
I thought I'd have fun figuring out the "real" unemployment figure in the US. Here's what I've come up with: [edit](various edits as I realize I can't do math. It's amazing I can program.)[/edit] US population: 314 million Normal retirement age: 67 People age 65 or older: 41 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ Disabled, under age 65: 14 million http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat\_snapshot/ People under 18, 23% or 7 million approx http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html Full time employees: 117 million http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ Part time employees: 24 million (16 and older): http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/ 314 - 41 retired (oops, was 67, used retirement age by mistake!) ---- 273 - 14 disabled ---- 259 - 72 under 18 (arg, I can't do math!!! This was 7!) ---- 187 <--- this should be the # of employable people. FT + PT employed = 141 million % unemployed = (187 - 141) / 187, or ~ 25% [edit] comparing apples and oranges, yes I know, thank you everyone [edit]: Unemployment: supposedly 7.6 % (these are the number of people out of work that are seeking work) Yeah, I know I'm using 16 and above and under 18 but the different is negligible. So what portion of the population am I forgetting to subtract from the "employable"? Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
what portion of the population am I forgetting to subtract from the "employable"?
Housewives/househusbands and carers.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
