To calculate the unemployment rate, divide the number of unemployed individuals by the total labor force and multiply by 100. If 9 million people are unemployed and the total labor force is, for example, 150 million, the unemployment rate would be 6%.
If we add up all the unemployed, those working part-time but are looking for full-time work, and those who have given up looking for work we would find that over 24 million Americans are out of work or under employed.
The NM unemployment rate is higher than what the government says, if they did it the right way we would be in the high 7's , there aren't nearly enough jobs and that's why thousands of people show up for minimum wage jobs, when they only have 100 to 200 positions available
Probably because, in the US for instance) with over 300 million people and people moving in and out of employment, its hard to keep accurate records. The only really known figures are those drawing unemployment benefits. The rest can only be guessed and government statisticians would rather be accurate than have guesstimates.
Because the 'official rate' uses data from the unemployment offices (who record claims of the unemployed), those not counted are: 1) those who have run out of benefits and are no longer reporting to the state; 2) Those who have given up looking for work, for various reasons; 3) those who have just come into the work force ( from out of school, etc.) and are looking, but don't qualify for unemployment so the office is unaware of them; 4) those looking for work, but not fitting the description of 'worker' ( i.e. under-aged, unqualified, immigrant, day-laborer, self-employed, etc.); 5) workers in 'commission-only' industries ( Realtors, insurance, independent contractors, etc.), as they generally do not qualify for unemployment.
This is true, so the rate being thrown around is very misleading. This was made a big "talking point" in the 80s when they were also trying to downplay the recession, but I am not sure what the proper references are, although I used to. After unemployment runs out or if people change to "self-employed" or entrepreneurs no matter how underpaid they are they are no longer counted. This assisted the transition to many if the workforces being forced into temps jobs with little or no benefits, or being lost to homelessness or dire poverty. Also those getting welfare even in back to work programs are not counted.Here is an explanation of who are excluded, from an Answers.com discussion of the different types of unemployment, from an economist view point: See the Related Link below on Structural Unemployment.Hidden unemploymentHidden, or covered, unemployment is the unemployment of potential workers that is not reflected in official unemployment statistics, due to the way the statistics are collected. See the Related Link below.
Yes, it is possible. The unemployment rate is calculated by dividing the number of unemployed people by the number of people in the labor force. The labor force does not include people who are not actively looking for work because they are discouraged by the job market. If over the month, some of the unemployed get jobs, and some of those who were discouraged rejoin the labor force so that they get counted in the "unemployed", employment would go up and the unemployment rate could go up. It would depend on the net effect on the "unemployed" group - if there are more people who rejoin the labor force than those who move from "unemployed" to "employed" then the unemployment rate would go up while employment also increases.
The "Unemployed" rate would be 12 million / 260 million = 12/260 = 4.6 %. In fact the unemployed rate does not use the whole population as a denominator, but a smaller value. The part of the population that, for whatever reason, is currently unemployable - such as children, retired people, terminally ill people - are excluded from the equation.
When Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, the total number of unemployed people in the UK was approximately 1.3 million. This figure represented an unemployment rate of around 5.5%. The economic challenges of that time were significant, and unemployment would rise sharply in the following years due to various government policies and economic changes.
As there were only slightly more than 2 billion people in the entire world in 1932 and the worldwide unemployment rate was under 33% the total was not even near one billion worldwide. Also a significant number of the people in the world at that time would never have been counted as unemployed as they did not have jobs to lose (e.g, housewives, children, the very old) and were dependants on others.If we account for these nonworking people (likely well over half the world population), then total worldwide number of unemployed persons was likely well under a couple hundred million. Many of these never gotten counted as actual unemployed as they had given up and quit looking for jobs. Therefore the total worldwide actually counted officially may not have even been one hundred million.
Yes it would as the people who are unemployed may resort to prostitution as a form of income, which would increase their exposure to AIDS
The rate actually factors in people dropping away from looking for a job. According to the recent job report, over 1.9 Million people were long-term unemployed. And 532,000 of them are discouraged from working.
If we add up all the unemployed, those working part-time but are looking for full-time work, and those who have given up looking for work we would find that over 24 million Americans are out of work or under employed.
By unemployed, economically active people, if you mean they are engaged in income generating endeavors, the more power to them. They would be considered self-employed and not participating in receiving unemployment benefits, leaving more for those who need them.
It would be both Nevada and California because Nevada has the highest unemployment percentage, while California has the highest number of people unemployed.
In GENERAL- unemployment benefits are for when you are unemployed thhrough no fault of your own. Doing illegal drugs would be considered misconduct.
Empirical research would involve experimentation. So, let us say that you have a theory that unemployment is related to high taxation. You could (if you were in a position of power) try lowering taxes, and see what happens to the unemployment rate. Or you might believe that the unemployed just need more training, so they are better qualified to work. You could create a training program that offers free education to the unemployed, and see how that affects unemployment. And so forth. That concerns the causes of unemployment. Empirical research on the impact of unemployment would involve taking away people's jobs and seeing what happens to them. That would be a less reasonable type of research.
Of the three types, the least severe kind of unemployment is frictional unemployment. This is the unemployment caused by people switching from one job to another, or by those entering a new job field. For example, people would be considered frictionally unemployed when they are graduating from college and searching for a job, or if they used to be a teacher and now they are trying to look for work as a manager. People are considered to be in structural unemployment when their work skills do not match the skills needed for a specific job. As an example, factory workers who are replaced by machines are out of work, but now all factories don't need workers, but mechanics to fix the machinery. The natural rate of unemployment, or full employment, is comprised of the number of people in the work force that are structurally and frictionally unemployed. The worst kind is cyclical unemployment. People are in this type of unemployment because of the recessionary phases of the business cycle. Companies cannot afford to keep every worker, so many are laid off.