• Tinidril
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    4.1 percent unemployment is not a sign of an economy that favors bringing in scabs.

    • Jessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      Come work for a week in a plant. We make shit wages, work way too hard for it, and see the economy as grocery bills being double what they were a few years ago. Most of us struggle to make ends meet. I can’t blame those that would cross a picket line to make $2 more per hour for less work.

      The unemployment rate is a terrible way to gauge how the job market is.

      • Tinidril
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        I don’t doubt any of what you are saying and I support you. However “this economy” isn’t the problem. This current economy has been fueling the first expansion of union membership in decades. That doesn’t mean it’s going to help every worker in every industry, but that’s due to industry specific factors, not the economy as a whole.

        I don’t know your industry, and I don’t know what Biden might have done or not done to impact your situation. All I’m saying is that the broader economy isn’t the issue.

    • BubbleMonkey@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Ahh, I wish it were that easy, but 4.1% of 350 million is like 14 million people (I’m willing to accept that my math is wrong but I double checked it 4 times including using the internet… and idk if I mathed it wrong or if that’s just an accurate number… I really kinda hope I’m wrong…)

      That’s a lot of people either way… and you can’t fault them for looking out for themselves or their family.

      • bassomitron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s not how unemployment numbers work. They (the government) only count the amount of work eligible adults (i.e. 18+, legal/documented persons) who are actively seeking employment It would be silly to include babies and school-aged children in their statistics for employment, heh. But it also leaves out a large number of adults who have simply given up looking for work. I think it also doesn’t include those who have been actively seeking employment longer than a certain amount of time, but I don’t fully recall.

        Honestly, the unemployment stat is a pretty weak economic health indicator overall: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0609/what-the-unemployment-rate-doesnt-tell-us.aspx

        Lots of economists have long criticized it for being way too broad of a stat that isn’t inclusive enough. I remember my macro econ professor in college going in tangents about it and it kind of surprised me how many people it doesn’t include.

        Anyway, back to the main point: It isn’t calculating 4% of the entire US population.

      • Tinidril
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        4.1 is an exceptionally low unemployment rate. An unemployment rate of 1% would be beyond impossible to achieve and would certainly cause out of control inflation, yet there would still be over 3 million people unemployed. That’s still “a lot” of people. That’s not something that any economy fixes. Most of those people are going to be unemployed because they haven’t found the job they want, not because they can’t find any job. For instance, tech workers get laid off all the time and typically take their time finding the right next position.

        • BubbleMonkey@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I never said it wasn’t low. It’s low, but 14 million people is still a lot of actual people, people just like you, under a different circumstance.

          14 million people looking for work means there are a lot of potential scabs, because our social safety nets are fucking laughable. They don’t even exist for a lot of people, such as those with no work history yet (can’t get unemployment if you’ve never been employed, for example, and if you only have a couple years employment history, unemployment in a lot of places doesn’t cover shit).

          Having been one of the underemployed, you often take what you can get because you don’t have the luxury of finding the “right job”.

          Or you and your family become homeless.

          Those are basically the options these days and I’m not willing to say that’s not the case just because unemployment (which does not include underemployment, nor those who left the job market) is low by some economists standards, because it absolutely is for millions of people.

          So sure, many of those people might be looking for “the right job”, but in the interim, they find and take “the right now” job. And that might be scabby.

          • Tinidril
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            It’s not low by some economist’s standards. It’s low by every economist’s standards. Economists don’t agree on much, but they agree on this. Under all circumstances in every economy there are always “a lot” of people looking for employment .

            Again, I don’t doubt or disagree with your assessment of your situation. Again, I support you. It’s not the economy making the safety nets so bad. There is plenty of money to pay for it, we just don’t. It’s not the economy attacking unions, it’s the employers and many politicians. It’s not the economy allowing companies to fire striking workers, etc. the economy is fine. It’s the labor system that’s broken, and no economy will fix that.