Upon inception it was set at $0.25. It is now $7.25.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 year ago

    The unemployment rate does not take into consideration people who are under-employed or people who are working multiple jobs to get by. You could be working 3 part time jobs (none of which offer benefits) and still not make enough money to pay your bills. The “unemployment rate” is a load of bullshit and should largely be discarded in favor of tracking how many people are living above the poverty line.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Right. This is important to remember. I think my question is still valid because it’s about the real rate and not the published figure.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Except that the published figure is what gets used in policy and calculations. The real rate is largely ignored and the numbers are heavily skewed by ever-changing definitions and parameters making the “unemployment rate” a nearly useless metric. We need to run our country based on keeping people out of functional poverty, not based on keeping profits up.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Policy and calculations don’t matter if there is low unemployment. It’s minimum wage that’s gamed. Why fight that lost battle?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            I’m saying that the unemployment rate is artificially low as well as being a stupid metric to use, but unfortunately, it’s the metric that powerful entities use to make decisions about manipulating the economy at large.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              There is the published figure and there is the actual number of unemployed people.

              You rightfully point out that the figure is manipulated. I am talking about the actually unemployed people.