Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. What am I missing ?

What am I missing ?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
htmlcomtestingbeta-testingquestion
31 Posts 16 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • M Marc Clifton

    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

    Unit Testing Succinctly

    P Offline
    P Offline
    PIEBALDconsult
    wrote on last edited by
    #14

    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:

    M 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • M Marc Clifton

      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

      Unit Testing Succinctly

      D Offline
      D Offline
      DeDawg
      wrote on last edited by
      #15

      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.

      M 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • M Marc Clifton

        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

        Unit Testing Succinctly

        H Offline
        H Offline
        H Brydon
        wrote on last edited by
        #16

        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

        M 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • P PIEBALDconsult

          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:

          M Offline
          M Offline
          Marc Clifton
          wrote on last edited by
          #17

          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

          Unit Testing Succinctly

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • M Marc Clifton

            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

            Unit Testing Succinctly

            E Offline
            E Offline
            Ennis Ray Lynch Jr
            wrote on last edited by
            #18

            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

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • D DeDawg

              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.

              M Offline
              M Offline
              Marc Clifton
              wrote on last edited by
              #19

              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

              Unit Testing Succinctly

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • M Marc Clifton

                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

                Unit Testing Succinctly

                Z Offline
                Z Offline
                ZurdoDev
                wrote on last edited by
                #20

                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.

                M 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • H H Brydon

                  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

                  M Offline
                  M Offline
                  Marc Clifton
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #21

                  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

                  Unit Testing Succinctly

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • M Marc Clifton

                    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

                    Unit Testing Succinctly

                    T Offline
                    T Offline
                    Tim Carmichael
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #22

                    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

                    M 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • Z ZurdoDev

                      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.

                      M Offline
                      M Offline
                      Marc Clifton
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #23

                      RyanDev wrote:

                      Facebook users.

                      :laugh: Marc

                      Unit Testing Succinctly

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • T Tim Carmichael

                        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

                        M Offline
                        M Offline
                        Marc Clifton
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #24

                        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

                        Unit Testing Succinctly

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • M Marc Clifton

                          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

                          Unit Testing Succinctly

                          M Offline
                          M Offline
                          Mark_Wallace
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #25

                          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!

                          M 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • M Marc Clifton

                            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

                            Unit Testing Succinctly

                            C Offline
                            C Offline
                            Chris Losinger
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #26

                            there are many different unemployment numbers: http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm[^]

                            image processing toolkits | batch image processing

                            M 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • M Mark_Wallace

                              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!

                              M Offline
                              M Offline
                              Marc Clifton
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #27

                              Mark_Wallace wrote:

                              Housewives/househusbands and carers.

                              Added stay at home parents. 5M women, .15 men. Also added prisoners. 1.5M Marc

                              Unit Testing Succinctly

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • C Chris Losinger

                                there are many different unemployment numbers: http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm[^]

                                image processing toolkits | batch image processing

                                M Offline
                                M Offline
                                Marc Clifton
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #28

                                Chris Losinger wrote:

                                there are many different unemployment numbers: http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm[^]

                                Ah, thanks for remdinging me of that page - I stumbled across that earlier. Marc

                                Unit Testing Succinctly

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • M Marc Clifton

                                  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

                                  Unit Testing Succinctly

                                  J Offline
                                  J Offline
                                  Jorgen Andersson
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #29

                                  You calculated the reverse of the Employment Rate[^] which isn't the same as the Unemployment rate[^]. The sometimes quite large difference between those two numbers can be seen here[^]

                                  Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES! Abraham Lincoln

                                  M 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • J Jorgen Andersson

                                    You calculated the reverse of the Employment Rate[^] which isn't the same as the Unemployment rate[^]. The sometimes quite large difference between those two numbers can be seen here[^]

                                    Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES! Abraham Lincoln

                                    M Offline
                                    M Offline
                                    Marc Clifton
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #30

                                    Jörgen Andersson wrote:

                                    You calculated the reverse of the Employment Rate[^] which isn't the same as the Unemployment rate[^].

                                    Ah, that's a good point. The map was really interesting too! It's weird seeing unemployment rates of 8% but employment rates of only, say 56%! Marc

                                    Unit Testing Succinctly

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • M Marc Clifton

                                      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

                                      Unit Testing Succinctly

                                      S Offline
                                      S Offline
                                      S Douglas
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #31

                                      You forgot to exclude poeple who draw money from Socail Security, and the various welfare programs. :~


                                      Common sense is admitting there is cause and effect and that you can exert some control over what you understand.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      Reply
                                      • Reply as topic
                                      Log in to reply
                                      • Oldest to Newest
                                      • Newest to Oldest
                                      • Most Votes


                                      • Login

                                      • Don't have an account? Register

                                      • Login or register to search.
                                      • First post
                                        Last post
                                      0
                                      • Categories
                                      • Recent
                                      • Tags
                                      • Popular
                                      • World
                                      • Users
                                      • Groups