|
Zurich15324 Posts
Edit, here, copied the article from FT:
+ Show Spoiler +Youth unemployment is a hot topic at the moment. Both the OECD and the UN have warned that the spiralling rates across many advanced economies will have severe consequences. Nearly a quarter of European under-25s are now unemployed, the latest reported figures show. And concerns reached a new pitch last week when it was revealed that Italian youth unemployment had topped 40 per cent. But are these figures really all they are cracked up to be? My colleague James Mackintosh was spot-on when he Tweeted last week that youth unemployment figures are meaningless without understanding what proportion of a country’s young people are economically active. This vital bit of information leads to quite a different picture on youth unemployment across Europe. The point was also well-made last year by Alan Beattie – but it’s worth re-visiting. Here are the raw unemployment rates, as you might see reported in some places: ![[image loading]](http://blogs.r.ftdata.co.uk/ftdata/files/2013/06/Youth-unemployment.jpg) They look pretty bad, right? Over 50 per cent in Greece and Spain, 40 per cent in Italy and Portugal. But wait a minute. Unemployment figures only reflect the proportion of the population who are economically active – ie. looking for a job, but unable to find one. Among young people in particular, inactivity rates can be expected to be very high – many are in either education or training. What do the figures look like if we take into account the economically inactive population? Far less bad, actually, even with the caveat that some individuals will go into training or education because of the lack of jobs. ![[image loading]](http://blogs.r.ftdata.co.uk/ftdata/files/2013/06/Youth-inactivity-and-employment1.jpg) So, are nearly a quarter of European young people unemployed? No. Fewer than 10 per cent are.
|
On June 03 2013 23:38 zatic wrote:
Alright, quick summary.
Youth unemployment rate is asking "Of all people unemployed, how many are 15-24yo?"
Which is very different from "Of all people 15-24yo, how many are unemployed?", which would be the youth unemployment ratio.
I am arguing the second figure is much more meaningful. But it just sounds much less dramatic to have less than 10% unemployment among youths across Europe than 25%. So media outlets always print the first number without explaining what it means.
there is no difference in your question?
what you could ask is: how is education defined? (counts as unemployed or not?).
i don't agree with your opinion on youth unemployment at all. it's FAR above your estimation of 10%. talking to some spanish people makes me heavily believe >50% youth unemployment in certain countries (or at least areas) is happening.
|
On June 03 2013 23:38 zatic wrote:
Alright, quick summary.
Youth unemployment rate is asking "Of all people unemployed, how many are 15-24yo?"
Which is very different from "Of all people 15-24yo, how many are unemployed?", which would be the youth unemployment ratio.
I am arguing the second figure is much more meaningful. But it just sounds much less dramatic to have less than 10% unemployment among youths across Europe than 25%. So media outlets always print the first number without explaining what it means.
The unemployment rate is just asking the same exact thing we ask to any other population : between all persons between the age of 15 and 24 who, during the reference period, were: (a) without work; i.e. had not worked for even one hour in any economic activity (paid employment, self-employment, or unpaid work for a family business or farm); (b) currently available for work; and (c) actively seeking work; i.e. had taken active steps to see work during a specified recent period (usually the past four weeks).
Of course there is a mistake because you can't really use a methodology for youth unemployment rates that was built for adult unemployment rates. But, even for adult this definition is not perfect : as I told you, it is underevaluating unemployment for some people that are considered inactive just because they are not searching anymore or are not directly available to work (2 weeks). There are a lot of measurement ‘issues’ that require careful interpretation and comparison. Economists are aware of these issues and use a whole range of indicators.
Now people are arguing that the indicator is flawed, but what baffle me is that they argue at such thing exactly DURING a crisis, which mean exactly when the % are at their highest. I see a political implication behind that, with some people here who are disagreeing with the numbers and don't want to make it seems like the Greek are actually the victim of this crisis.
It's the same exact problem economists have with the GDP. The GDP is not a measure of happiness and is often used as such. It is also a measure that put aside certain part of our "economy" such as domestic economy. In the midst of the crisis, the US changed their definition of the GDP to include "innovation". Sure, it is a good change in a way because it was a problem that the innovation was not possible to see in the numbers - so they changed it to capture innovation through the R&D ( https://www.summitas.com/system/files/secure/Alliance - New GDP Change - 2013 03 15.pdf ).
But changing the definition during the crisis, just to change the trend and making it seems like everything is okay, is just hypocritical. There is no value in discussing the numbers and their pertinence right now, just accept them as they are : imperfect yet meaningful.
|
Zurich15324 Posts
I am just saying people should be less sensationalistic. "50% youth unemployment in Spain - 1 in 2 out of a job" makes it seem catastrophic, but in reality most of them are simply in university.
If I used that metric on Germany I could come up with "nearly 80% unemployment among 15-20yo!!!" which would be equally meaningless since all those "unemployed" are simply in high school or university.
|
Are students counted as unemployed for youth unemployment?
O wow i didnt knew that, well then that statistic is nearly completely useless.
|
On June 04 2013 02:41 Rassy wrote:
Are students counted as unemployed for youth unemployment?
O wow i didnt knew that, well then that statistic is nearly completely useless.
No it's not, I don't think he understood how it works.
People who are counted as unemployed are as I stated before, the people that are searching for a job, available for it, and who have no job. The problem is that half of the youth (18-25 yo) are considered as inactive (inactive not unemployed) because they are still studying. So when someone says 60% of unemployment in the youth, it means 60% of the people between 15-25 yo, that are not studying and are searching for a job while being available for it, are unemployed.
I don't think zatic is understanding, they are not at all considering all people pursuing a degree as unemployed, but as inactive. Some people wants to count that part of the population as active, which would greatly reduce the % of unemployment. It's just playing on numbers to make it seems less hard that it is.
For exemple, in a population of 10 000 young people, only 1 000 are active (they finished their studies) and searching for a job. In those 1 000 young people, 500 are unemployed : here is the 50 % unemployment.
What zatic wants is that you count the young one that are pursuing a degree : so in the total 10 000, only 500 are unemployed, hence a small unemployment rate of 5%.
Of course the 50% unemployment rate on reflect a small reality : that the youth without any degree and who stopped their education early have a hard time getting a job.
|
Zurich15324 Posts
No, I do understand very well. I mean look at the second chart, it is very clear that of all economically active in Spain, over half are without a job. Which is obviously bad.
My problem is that people take this number, and then directly go to statements like "1 in 2 young in Spain is unemployed", or "1 in 4 in Europe without a job". The youth unemployment numbers are just not very meaningful if only a very small part of young people are looking for a job in the first place. Either mention that it doesn't factor in people in education, or present both numbers.
|
On June 04 2013 17:51 zatic wrote:
No, I do understand very well. I mean look at the second chart, it is very clear that of all economically active in Spain, over half are without a job. Which is obviously bad.
My problem is that people take this number, and then directly go to statements like "1 in 2 young in Spain is unemployed", or "1 in 4 in Europe without a job". The youth unemployment numbers are just not very meaningful if only a very small part of young people are looking for a job in the first place. Either mention that it doesn't factor in people in education, or present both numbers.
But taking everyone into account is also completly false.
Your reasonning is exactly like taking into account the people that are in retirement and counting them as active : sure the % of unemployment will drop down. But it doesn't matter, those reitred people are still inactive, unproductive economically, they don't matter, just like someone that has not finished his study. You cannot reasonnably show a number on TV that will consider every kids in school as "employed" (because yeah that's what your number do).
|
Zurich15324 Posts
On June 04 2013 18:05 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 17:51 zatic wrote:
No, I do understand very well. I mean look at the second chart, it is very clear that of all economically active in Spain, over half are without a job. Which is obviously bad.
My problem is that people take this number, and then directly go to statements like "1 in 2 young in Spain is unemployed", or "1 in 4 in Europe without a job". The youth unemployment numbers are just not very meaningful if only a very small part of young people are looking for a job in the first place. Either mention that it doesn't factor in people in education, or present both numbers. But taking everyone into account is also completly false. Your reasonning is exactly like taking into account the people that are in retirement and counting them as active : sure the % of unemployment will drop down. But it doesn't matter, those reitred people are still inactive, unproductive economically, they don't matter, just like someone that has not finished his study. You cannot reasonnably show a number on TV that will consider every kids in school as "employed" (because yeah that's what your number do).
Then mentioned the difference or show both numbers, like I have been saying. But saying 1 out of 4 young Europeans is unemployed without further substantiation is just sensationalistic and misleading.
|
On June 04 2013 18:05 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 17:51 zatic wrote:
No, I do understand very well. I mean look at the second chart, it is very clear that of all economically active in Spain, over half are without a job. Which is obviously bad.
My problem is that people take this number, and then directly go to statements like "1 in 2 young in Spain is unemployed", or "1 in 4 in Europe without a job". The youth unemployment numbers are just not very meaningful if only a very small part of young people are looking for a job in the first place. Either mention that it doesn't factor in people in education, or present both numbers. But taking everyone into account is also completly false. Your reasonning is exactly like taking into account the people that are in retirement and counting them as active : sure the % of unemployment will drop down. But it doesn't matter, those reitred people are still inactive, unproductive economically, they don't matter, just like someone that has not finished his study. You cannot reasonnably show a number on TV that will consider every kids in school as "employed" (because yeah that's what your number do).
That seems to be the normal way to do things? I don't know.. Counting students and retireds as unemployed just sounds downright stupid and very sensationalist to me.
|
Only 65 % of the men in a country are considered as "active", and around 55 % of women for a country like Germany and France. That's how it has always work. Most people don't consider that the unemployment rate given on TV are wrong because "they don't take into consideration the fact that almost half the women in this country don't work".
You're just doing that right now, and claiming it is "sensationalistic" because those numbers doesn't please you... I never saw any economist criticizing the unemployment rate for youth when I was studying. Only right now, in the middle of a crisis.
Numbers are always imperfect and rigged, they still means something.
|
I see where zatic is coming from. It's okay for media to report statistics but they should be careful with them. Saying "1 in 4" does not make it clear what is being counted. Somebody who hears that could believe that out of all the young people, a quarter of them have no job.
I think it is fair for the media to say the youth unemployment rate in Europe is about 25% (I forgot the exact number) but they could definitely do a better job of explaining what that actually means.
I find it worrying that some countries have youth unemployment >50% (as in Spain and Greece) but the media does overstate the probelm. Which is completely unnecessary because it doesn't need to be overstated to sound bad (because it is bad) :p
|
On June 04 2013 18:19 WhiteDog wrote:
Only 65 % of the men in a country are considered as "active", and around 55 % of women for a country like Germany and France. That's how it has always work. Most people don't consider that the unemployment rate given on TV are wrong because "they don't take into consideration the fact that almost half the women in this country don't work".
You're just doing that right now, and claiming it is "sensationalistic" because those numbers doesn't please you... I never saw any economist criticizing the unemployment rate for youth when I was studying. Only right now, in the middle of a crisis.
Numbers are always imperfect and rigged, they still means something.
Unemployed rates in Switzerland are normally given by % of actual unemployeds (which hovers between atm ~3-5% iirc)... not "inactives". That number for sure isn't perfect either but should be way closer to the truth than "50% youth unemployement when 25+% of these 50% do not even search/want a job...)..
An "inactive"-rate basically sais nothing at all about how a country is doing. It probably sais more about which "role/family"-model a country has (is it normal for both parents to have an "income"-job and how high is the % of employement). It sais absolutely nothing about the actual situation in a country when not put in context to household-income, productivity and basically any other metric that actually makes sense....
|
On June 04 2013 18:46 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 18:19 WhiteDog wrote:
Only 65 % of the men in a country are considered as "active", and around 55 % of women for a country like Germany and France. That's how it has always work. Most people don't consider that the unemployment rate given on TV are wrong because "they don't take into consideration the fact that almost half the women in this country don't work".
You're just doing that right now, and claiming it is "sensationalistic" because those numbers doesn't please you... I never saw any economist criticizing the unemployment rate for youth when I was studying. Only right now, in the middle of a crisis.
Numbers are always imperfect and rigged, they still means something. Unemployed rates in Switzerland are normally given by % of actual unemployeds (which hovers between atm ~3-5% iirc)... not "inactives". That number for sure isn't perfect either but should be way closer to the truth than "50% youth unemployement when 25+% of these 50% do not even search/want a job...).. An "inactive"-rate basically sais nothing at all about how a country is doing. It probably sais more about which "role/family"-model a country has (is it normal for both parents to have an "income"-job and how high is the % of employement). It sais absolutely nothing about the actual situation in a country when not put in context to household-income, productivity and basically any other metric that actually makes sense....
I don't think you understand at all how it work. It's the same exact in Switzerland and in every country, normalized by the international bureau of labor. I refer you to my previous posts.
Inactive are not counted, but a lot of people that are inactive are in this situation after being unemployed for a long period of time. As I stated before, unemployment is an imperfect statistic. In France, we calculate the "halo of unemployment" to think about this.
Defining and measuring unemployment is a complex business, heavily dependent on the criteria used. Indeed the boundaries between employment, unemployment and inactivity are not always easy to define (take for example a student who works a few hours per week).
The International Labour Office (ILO) has, however, provided a strict definition of unemployment, which does not take into account various interactions which may exist with employment (occasional work, underemployment), or crossover with inactivity: indeed, some people wish to work but are ‘classed’ as being inactive either because they are not immediately available to work (within two weeks) or because they are not actively seeking work).
People who fall into these categories form what is known as a ‘halo’ around unemployment.
This ‘halo’ is calculated by INSEE on the basis of the Employment Survey.
All the statistics you are talking about exist, and the problem are known.
|
I understant the number and i also know that "outtaxed" people aren't counted anymore and that this is a problem with the general "unemployed" numbers in most countries.
But a number about "inactives" is imho just not usefull in any way. I have never seen this number in the Media here and thats probably because it's a bullshit number that sais nothing and only gets cited when you want to make a country/area look bad.
Sure, adding in the people that aren't even measured as unemployed anymore makes perfect sense... Adding in students/retireds or people that just don't have to or want to work is just dumb. You'll just end up with numbers of ~50%+ quite quickly and everyone acts all shocked because all you read is: "Youth unemployment over 50%!!!"... Its really just sensationalism and nothing more.
|
On June 04 2013 19:00 Velr wrote:
I understant the number and i also know that "outtaxed" people aren't counted anymore and that this is a problem with the general "unemployed" numbers in most countries.
But a number about "inactives" is imho just not usefull in any way. I have never seen this number in the Media here and thats probably because it's a bullshit number that sais nothing and only gets cited when you want to make a country/area look bad.
Sure, adding in the people that aren't even measured as unemployed anymore makes perfect sense... Adding in students/retireds or people that just don't have to or want to work is just dumb. You'll just end up with numbers of ~50%+ quite quickly and everyone acts all shocked because all you read is: "Youth unemployment over 50%!!!"... Its really just sensationalism and nothing more.
No you don't understand, the 50% unemployment is WITHOUT the inactivity. They are not added. What zatic wants is to add them. In the 63 % unemployment of youth in Greece, the young that are purchasing a degee are not counted...
For exemple, in a population of 10 000 young people, only 1 000 are active (they finished their studies) and searching for a job. In those 1 000 young people, 500 are unemployed : here is the 50 % unemployment.
What zatic wants is that you count the young one that are pursuing a degree : so in the total 10 000, only 500 are unemployed, hence a small unemployment rate of 5%.
Of course the 50% unemployment rate on reflect a small reality : that the youth without any degree and who stopped their education early have a hard time getting a job.
|
Zurich15324 Posts
On June 04 2013 18:33 Melliflue wrote:
I see where zatic is coming from. It's okay for media to report statistics but they should be careful with them. Saying "1 in 4" does not make it clear what is being counted. Somebody who hears that could believe that out of all the young people, a quarter of them have no job.
I think it is fair for the media to say the youth unemployment rate in Europe is about 25% (I forgot the exact number) but they could definitely do a better job of explaining what that actually means.
I find it worrying that some countries have youth unemployment >50% (as in Spain and Greece) but the media does overstate the probelm. Which is completely unnecessary because it doesn't need to be overstated to sound bad (because it is bad) :p
Thank you, this is exactly what I am saying. Frankly I am a bit puzzled why this is met with so much hostility.
|
On June 04 2013 19:44 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 18:33 Melliflue wrote:
I see where zatic is coming from. It's okay for media to report statistics but they should be careful with them. Saying "1 in 4" does not make it clear what is being counted. Somebody who hears that could believe that out of all the young people, a quarter of them have no job.
I think it is fair for the media to say the youth unemployment rate in Europe is about 25% (I forgot the exact number) but they could definitely do a better job of explaining what that actually means.
I find it worrying that some countries have youth unemployment >50% (as in Spain and Greece) but the media does overstate the probelm. Which is completely unnecessary because it doesn't need to be overstated to sound bad (because it is bad) :p Thank you, this is exactly what I am saying. Frankly I am a bit puzzled why this is met with so much hostility.
This has nothing to do with hostility, just that you were wrong in your previous posts.
Here for exemple
On June 03 2013 22:14 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 22:11 Melliflue wrote:On June 03 2013 21:11 zatic wrote:On June 03 2013 04:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:![[image loading]](http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/youth%20unemployment%202013.png) My God, look at Greece's trajectory. That thing isn't slowing down. Since April 2012, Greek youth unemployment has grown by about one percentage point a month. At that rate, it would pass 70 percent in early 2014.
It is suddenly not insane to imagine a youth unemployment rate of 70 percent in the developed world. And that is insane.
It should be noted that some people consider youth unemployment figures a bit hyperbolic. They prefer measures like "youth unemployment ratio, which takes the share of young people who are looking for work but can't find it and divides it by the entire population. Last year, the EU's youth unemployment ratio was 9.7 percent , less than half the youth unemployment rate of 23 percent. Source Since we were on the topic of misleading statistics, that last sentence is very important. The Youth unemployment picture looks much less bleak if you consider the much more meaningful unemployment ratio: http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/06/03/european-youth-unemployment-nowhere-near-25-per-cent/ Perhaps a dumb question by me but why is the youth unemployment ratio better than the youth unemployment rate? The rate says how many young people looking for work can find work. The ratio includes many young people who are not looking for a job because they at university or doing training or something else. At least that's how I understand it. Why is it better to include the young who are not looking for work? It's the other way around. The figure that is always used in media is the total unemployed youth, which also includes people still in education. Obviously that is much less meaningful than the ratio of young people who are seeking employment in the first place but are still without a job.
The figure in the media does not consider the youth in education as unemployed. I can notice a mistake without necessarily having any hostility toward you. I agree with the last statement that both number should be given. The situation is still terrible, and there is no reason to deny it or to amplify it. The trend is, by itself, pretty clear.
|
Zurich15324 Posts
On June 04 2013 20:10 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 19:44 zatic wrote:On June 04 2013 18:33 Melliflue wrote:
I see where zatic is coming from. It's okay for media to report statistics but they should be careful with them. Saying "1 in 4" does not make it clear what is being counted. Somebody who hears that could believe that out of all the young people, a quarter of them have no job.
I think it is fair for the media to say the youth unemployment rate in Europe is about 25% (I forgot the exact number) but they could definitely do a better job of explaining what that actually means.
I find it worrying that some countries have youth unemployment >50% (as in Spain and Greece) but the media does overstate the probelm. Which is completely unnecessary because it doesn't need to be overstated to sound bad (because it is bad) :p Thank you, this is exactly what I am saying. Frankly I am a bit puzzled why this is met with so much hostility. This has nothing to do with hostility, just that you were wrong in your previous posts. Here for exemple Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 22:14 zatic wrote:On June 03 2013 22:11 Melliflue wrote:On June 03 2013 21:11 zatic wrote:On June 03 2013 04:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:My God, look at Greece's trajectory. That thing isn't slowing down. Since April 2012, Greek youth unemployment has grown by about one percentage point a month. At that rate, it would pass 70 percent in early 2014.
It is suddenly not insane to imagine a youth unemployment rate of 70 percent in the developed world. And that is insane.
It should be noted that some people consider youth unemployment figures a bit hyperbolic. They prefer measures like "youth unemployment ratio, which takes the share of young people who are looking for work but can't find it and divides it by the entire population. Last year, the EU's youth unemployment ratio was 9.7 percent , less than half the youth unemployment rate of 23 percent. Source Since we were on the topic of misleading statistics, that last sentence is very important. The Youth unemployment picture looks much less bleak if you consider the much more meaningful unemployment ratio: http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/06/03/european-youth-unemployment-nowhere-near-25-per-cent/ Perhaps a dumb question by me but why is the youth unemployment ratio better than the youth unemployment rate? The rate says how many young people looking for work can find work. The ratio includes many young people who are not looking for a job because they at university or doing training or something else. At least that's how I understand it. Why is it better to include the young who are not looking for work? It's the other way around. The figure that is always used in media is the total unemployed youth, which also includes people still in education. Obviously that is much less meaningful than the ratio of young people who are seeking employment in the first place but are still without a job. The figure in the media does not consider the youth in education as unemployed. I can notice a mistake without necessarily having any hostility toward you. I agree with the last statement that both number should be given. The situation is still terrible, and there is no reason to deny it or to amplify it. The trend is, by itself, pretty clear.
True, that was the wrong way to put it. I am still getting the vibe that you accuse me of having some sort of agenda, when initially all I did was link to an article that expands on what someone else had posted. This is what I replied to, and I maintain it's important to keep that in mind:
It should be noted that some people consider youth unemployment figures a bit hyperbolic. They prefer measures like "youth unemployment ratio, which takes the share of young people who are looking for work but can't find it and divides it by the entire population. Last year, the EU's youth unemployment ratio was 9.7 percent , less than half the youth unemployment rate of 23 percent.
|
On June 04 2013 20:23 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 20:10 WhiteDog wrote:On June 04 2013 19:44 zatic wrote:On June 04 2013 18:33 Melliflue wrote:
I see where zatic is coming from. It's okay for media to report statistics but they should be careful with them. Saying "1 in 4" does not make it clear what is being counted. Somebody who hears that could believe that out of all the young people, a quarter of them have no job.
I think it is fair for the media to say the youth unemployment rate in Europe is about 25% (I forgot the exact number) but they could definitely do a better job of explaining what that actually means.
I find it worrying that some countries have youth unemployment >50% (as in Spain and Greece) but the media does overstate the probelm. Which is completely unnecessary because it doesn't need to be overstated to sound bad (because it is bad) :p Thank you, this is exactly what I am saying. Frankly I am a bit puzzled why this is met with so much hostility. This has nothing to do with hostility, just that you were wrong in your previous posts. Here for exemple On June 03 2013 22:14 zatic wrote:On June 03 2013 22:11 Melliflue wrote:On June 03 2013 21:11 zatic wrote:On June 03 2013 04:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:My God, look at Greece's trajectory. That thing isn't slowing down. Since April 2012, Greek youth unemployment has grown by about one percentage point a month. At that rate, it would pass 70 percent in early 2014.
It is suddenly not insane to imagine a youth unemployment rate of 70 percent in the developed world. And that is insane.
It should be noted that some people consider youth unemployment figures a bit hyperbolic. They prefer measures like "youth unemployment ratio, which takes the share of young people who are looking for work but can't find it and divides it by the entire population. Last year, the EU's youth unemployment ratio was 9.7 percent , less than half the youth unemployment rate of 23 percent. Source Since we were on the topic of misleading statistics, that last sentence is very important. The Youth unemployment picture looks much less bleak if you consider the much more meaningful unemployment ratio: http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/06/03/european-youth-unemployment-nowhere-near-25-per-cent/ Perhaps a dumb question by me but why is the youth unemployment ratio better than the youth unemployment rate? The rate says how many young people looking for work can find work. The ratio includes many young people who are not looking for a job because they at university or doing training or something else. At least that's how I understand it. Why is it better to include the young who are not looking for work? It's the other way around. The figure that is always used in media is the total unemployed youth, which also includes people still in education. Obviously that is much less meaningful than the ratio of young people who are seeking employment in the first place but are still without a job. The figure in the media does not consider the youth in education as unemployed. I can notice a mistake without necessarily having any hostility toward you. I agree with the last statement that both number should be given. The situation is still terrible, and there is no reason to deny it or to amplify it. The trend is, by itself, pretty clear. True, that was the wrong way to put it. I am still getting the vibe that you accuse me of having some sort of agenda, when initially all I did was link to an article that expands on what someone else had posted. This is what I replied to, and I maintain it's important to keep that in mind: Show nested quote +It should be noted that some people consider youth unemployment figures a bit hyperbolic. They prefer measures like "youth unemployment ratio, which takes the share of young people who are looking for work but can't find it and divides it by the entire population. Last year, the EU's youth unemployment ratio was 9.7 percent , less than half the youth unemployment rate of 23 percent.
Well that's because the situation is shit in Greece, and in half of the EU, and watching someone saying it is "less bleak" than what the numbers are saying tickles me a little.
It's an habit for politician to criticize the numbers when those said numbers are not pleasing them - in France, we don't strictly follow the definition of the international bureau of labor, and there are a big deal of unemployment that are not counted in the numbers. When you criticized the statistics, altho you are partly right from a pure statistical point of view, it made me think (wrongly I acknowledge) that you were like a politician who wanted to show us how the situation is not as hard as one could say.
It's like, in France, some people quoting the high birth rate and low suicide rate to make it seems like French are all happy and shit, forgetting the unemployment, the high abstentionism in elections, etc.
It is always possible to find numbers to support one cause, the real game is not to criticise the use of a number but rather to explain what this number mean - which also means to explain its limit as you have done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
