@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scotth said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Unemployment is a very "soft" concept at the best of times. Even just defining who is and isn't unemployed amongst your friends is hard. Do you count part timers? Retirees? Children? Consultants? Entrepreneurs? The lazy? Students? What about people with jobs created only to make them not appear unemployed? The rich? The poor?
I'm not defending any specific method. I mention it because I've seen apples to apples comparisons mentioned here, defended to the death and thought that I'd point out that there have been more 'corrections' introduced to the definition of unemployed more times that I could possible count and maintain any kind of sanity.
Part of the complexity is that over time the socially accepted concept of unemployment changes. In 1960, an 18 year old that isn't working is unemployed. Today, a 25 year old that isn't working is "just a kid, we can't expect them to start a job yet." Who we feel should and shouldn't be employed has changed dramatically in that time.
And then for a publication to report the condition of something that appears to be very ambiguous without stating the importance of these variances and how to interpret them is not exactly above board, imho. A lot of folks will take that statement as fact without thinking of how evolved the term unemployment actually is.