Love to work at nuthin' all day...
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Love to work at nuthin' all day...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Love to work at nuthin' all day...:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Love to work at nuthin' all day...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Love to work at nuthin' all day...:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Love to work at nuthin' all day...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Love to work at nuthin' all day...:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Love to work at nuthin' all day...:
@taiwan_girl said in Love to work at nuthin' all day...:
Not sure if there is a better way to count. If someone is not working, not looking for work, are they really unemployed?
Unemployed means "not employed." It doesn't mean "not looking for work."
Not really. Mrs Phibes doesn't have a paid job. She's not unemployed.
I have no problem whatsoever with volunteers, single income households, those paid under the table for smaller jobs, part-timers, those supported by organizations who pay them in room & board instead of an income, students, etc., etc., etc. None. I really don't mind. But if you want to try to figure out who among us is receiving a regular income in an employment numbers discussion, it's ridiculous to not tally them up as "unemployed."
Create subsections and call them whatever you like, but they sure as shit aren't "employed." I don't know why these semantic games have to be played.
So how do you classify stay-at-home mothers - you really want to classify them as unemployed?
FFS. Yes, they're unemployed. All kinds of unemployed. They're unemployed as shit.
In the context of a 'let's try to count how many in the country are receiving a regular income' discussion, not a 'who's a lazy POS' discussion.
Conservatives frequently extoll the virtues of women doing this. I can't see them supporting a huge increase in the unemployment figures to account for them.
That's why it's important to count them as such! Having one parent stay home to look after the kids has consequences. Having two employed parents has consequences. You can't hope to figure any of that out if you label one group as the other because of silly conservative virtues like "unemployed is a dirty word." As you correctly point out, if it's so shameful to them, why insist their wives do it?
Ignoring American politics for a moment, unemployment, according to the OECD, is people above a specified age not being in paid employment or self-employment but currently available for work during the reference period.
By this definition, they're not unemployed.
That's correct. That's also a political definition, which all government definitions are.
This entire thread was predicated on an argument that the labor market is in much worse shape than it appears precisely because we're averse to labeling people as "unemployed." So political definitions have the ability to create problems.
Look, in the context of who is and who is not receiving a regular income, you either are or you aren't.
I'm not saying that context even matters.
I'm also not saying that the next time I see a stay-at-home mom at the store, I'm going to point and go, "haha, unemployed person!" There is a lot of unfair negative connotation attached to that term and obviously I'm aware of that. But for making a tally of who's receiving regular income and who isn't, if you aren't willing to admit that they aren't receiving a regular income because you don't like the unfair stigma attached to people who aren't, you're letting your values decide reality for you.
Well, if we're looking at the original article, that is very much saying that the people who aren't working are good-for-nothing layabouts who need to go to church and pull themselves together. And they're not even classed as unemployed!
Maybe it would be better to focus on the 'employed' statistics as a proportion or function of the population as a whole. This does away with worrying about who is unemployed, and who is a stay-at-home mother, who is retired, who is a student, and who is a lazy, scrounging worthless social parasite.
Well, if we're looking at the original article, that is very much saying that the people who aren't working are good-for-nothing layabouts who need to go to church and pull themselves together. And they're not even classed as unemployed!
I keep talking about how to count, and you keep bringing value judgments in as if they're some necessary condition of arithmetic. I don't get it.
Maybe it would be better to focus on the 'employed' statistics as a proportion or function of the population as a whole. This does away with worrying about who is unemployed, and who is a stay-at-home mother, who is retired, who is a student, and who is a lazy, scrounging worthless social parasite.
I think we need to do both. Me personally, I hope we can somehow distinguish between wastes of space and stay-at-home moms because quite obviously they aren't the same in terms of the importance of what they do.
But both might have the same level of earned income at the end of the year. I don't understand what's so hard about that. Your worth isn't tied to what you make and it's like you're insisting it is.
-
Well, if we're looking at the original article, that is very much saying that the people who aren't working are good-for-nothing layabouts who need to go to church and pull themselves together. And they're not even classed as unemployed!
I keep talking about how to count, and you keep bringing value judgments in as if they're some necessary condition of arithmetic. I don't get it.
Maybe it would be better to focus on the 'employed' statistics as a proportion or function of the population as a whole. This does away with worrying about who is unemployed, and who is a stay-at-home mother, who is retired, who is a student, and who is a lazy, scrounging worthless social parasite.
I think we need to do both. Me personally, I hope we can somehow distinguish between wastes of space and stay-at-home moms because quite obviously they aren't the same in terms of the importance of what they do.
But both might have the same level of earned income at the end of the year. I don't understand what's so hard about that. Your worth isn't tied to what you make and it's like you're insisting it is.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Love to work at nuthin' all day...:
I keep talking about how to count, and you keep bringing value judgments in as if they're some necessary condition of arithmetic. I don't get it.
I'm actually talking about terminology rather than value judgements. Most people probably think of 'unemployed' as being out of work and nominally trying to find a job, rather than not being paid. You don't, but then again you've got a degree in poetry.
So retired people aren't unemployed. Including retirees in the unemployment statistics isn't something anybody does.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Love to work at nuthin' all day...:
I keep talking about how to count, and you keep bringing value judgments in as if they're some necessary condition of arithmetic. I don't get it.
I'm actually talking about terminology rather than value judgements. Most people probably think of 'unemployed' as being out of work and nominally trying to find a job, rather than not being paid. You don't, but then again you've got a degree in poetry.
So retired people aren't unemployed. Including retirees in the unemployment statistics isn't something anybody does.
Retirees living off investment savings, pensioners and people receiving disability benefits should not be classified as unemployed. Nor should stay at home parents whose spouse is the primary earner in the household.
-
@Copper said in Love to work at nuthin' all day...:
Is Doctor Jill Biden unemployed?
Dr. Jill Biden is gainfully employed:
[Dr. Jill] Biden continues to teach English and writing at Northern Virginia Community College …
Dr. Jill Biden is widely recognized as the first American First Lady who continues to work in her old job after becoming the First Lady.
-
Is 'Influencer' a job?
How about 'asshole'?
Actually, that's probably more of a calling.
-
If Donald Rumsfeld was still with us, he would probably draw a distinction between 'employed unemployed' people, and 'unemployed unemployed' people, by which we could determined something or other that was vital to something or other.
-
Since I think that the "baseline" in the US is always have the definition as is current, makes sense to keep it.
Not sure if changing the number would do anything when the reality does not change.
-
Since I think that the "baseline" in the US is always have the definition as is current, makes sense to keep it.
Not sure if changing the number would do anything when the reality does not change.
@taiwan_girl said in Love to work at nuthin' all day...:
Since I think that the "baseline" in the US is always have the definition as is current, makes sense to keep it.
Not sure if changing the number would do anything when the reality does not change.
Perception changes everything.
-
First time it changes, sure, there would be some hand waving, etc.
After that becomes the new baseline however, business as usual.
-
First time it changes, sure, there would be some hand waving, etc.
After that becomes the new baseline however, business as usual.
@taiwan_girl said in Love to work at nuthin' all day...:
hand waving
You mean significant job losses.
