I find it still confuses me to figure out the difference between the unemployed and those not in the labor force but want a job!! What am I missing here? This is a very confusing subject to say the least given the spectacular payrolls numbers and yet, somehow, some degree of disinflation. Thanks for a first stab and trying to sort this all out Joseph.
Think of it this way—the BLS goes to different people and asks "Do you have a job?"
If you answer yes, you're employed. If you answer no, they'll ask a follow up question
"Do you want a job?"
If you answer no, you're not in the labor force. If you answer yes, they'll ask another follow up question.
"Have you actively looked for a job in the last 4 weeks?"
If you answer no, you're not in the labor force. If you answer yes, you're unemployed.
So the people who are "not in the labor force but want a job now" are only different from the unemployed in that they haven't looked for a job in the last four weeks.
I'm still long-term unemployed but I'm an older tech worker, and in addition to all of its other problems there is a lot of ageism in that industry. Though the discrimination mostly happens through intermediate recruiting companies to keep employers' hands clean.
I don't think I count as "unemployed" according to the official definition though. I'm not actively looking for work, since the job market is flooded with candidates right now from the big tech layoffs, it will make everything that much harder for me. Even though I'm not looking to work at big tech, those candidates being available causes a trickle down effect of lower tier companies looking for unicorn candidates.
Still I'm glad those layoffs are happening because the industry was paying too much IMO and those overpaid workers were contributing too much to inflation, because they were not price sensitive. The high end of tech workers have had a nice run for the past few years, but they need to be reminded that with high reward comes high risk.
Thanks! I appreciate your optimism, so just keep doing that. I thought I'd mention the ageist thing since its one form of soft-discrimination practiced by employers, and a factor in why people outside the workforce have trouble returning. Pre-pandemic, employers had learned they could be very selective, and so used over-the-top screening tools (one company made an AI tool to scan candidates faces to see if they are a good fit, as snake oily and disturbing as anything I've ever heard) and perhaps they haven't really relaxed those polices. Now, perhaps, demographics are no longer in employers' favor.
This is not good news. It will encourage the fed to keep raising rates in its false belief in NAIRU and transfer even more wealth from middle and working class people to the elite and rentiers.
Fair question! Almost always people will talk about "job creation" in terms of the number of people employed instead of the job openings. It makes sense theoretically because the job offer has to actually be good enough to bring someone into the workforce to create a job, just posting a job isn't enough.
But I would also say that the job openings metrics that are most commonly cited are very flawed both conceptually and in practice (42% of hires happen at companies that report no job openings!) so I would put a lot less stock in job openings data than employment data. Here's a good resource if you want to read more:
Thanks Paulo!
I find it still confuses me to figure out the difference between the unemployed and those not in the labor force but want a job!! What am I missing here? This is a very confusing subject to say the least given the spectacular payrolls numbers and yet, somehow, some degree of disinflation. Thanks for a first stab and trying to sort this all out Joseph.
Think of it this way—the BLS goes to different people and asks "Do you have a job?"
If you answer yes, you're employed. If you answer no, they'll ask a follow up question
"Do you want a job?"
If you answer no, you're not in the labor force. If you answer yes, they'll ask another follow up question.
"Have you actively looked for a job in the last 4 weeks?"
If you answer no, you're not in the labor force. If you answer yes, you're unemployed.
So the people who are "not in the labor force but want a job now" are only different from the unemployed in that they haven't looked for a job in the last four weeks.
Appreciate your input and explanation Joseph and have a great week.
Robert
If you're not actively looking for a job or have not searched for a job in recent past you're not classified as unemployed.
I'm still long-term unemployed but I'm an older tech worker, and in addition to all of its other problems there is a lot of ageism in that industry. Though the discrimination mostly happens through intermediate recruiting companies to keep employers' hands clean.
I don't think I count as "unemployed" according to the official definition though. I'm not actively looking for work, since the job market is flooded with candidates right now from the big tech layoffs, it will make everything that much harder for me. Even though I'm not looking to work at big tech, those candidates being available causes a trickle down effect of lower tier companies looking for unicorn candidates.
Still I'm glad those layoffs are happening because the industry was paying too much IMO and those overpaid workers were contributing too much to inflation, because they were not price sensitive. The high end of tech workers have had a nice run for the past few years, but they need to be reminded that with high reward comes high risk.
Sorry to hear all that John, but I'm rooting for you in the job search! Feel free to DM me on Twitter/LinkedIn if there's any way I can help.
Thanks! I appreciate your optimism, so just keep doing that. I thought I'd mention the ageist thing since its one form of soft-discrimination practiced by employers, and a factor in why people outside the workforce have trouble returning. Pre-pandemic, employers had learned they could be very selective, and so used over-the-top screening tools (one company made an AI tool to scan candidates faces to see if they are a good fit, as snake oily and disturbing as anything I've ever heard) and perhaps they haven't really relaxed those polices. Now, perhaps, demographics are no longer in employers' favor.
This is not good news. It will encourage the fed to keep raising rates in its false belief in NAIRU and transfer even more wealth from middle and working class people to the elite and rentiers.
Fair question! Almost always people will talk about "job creation" in terms of the number of people employed instead of the job openings. It makes sense theoretically because the job offer has to actually be good enough to bring someone into the workforce to create a job, just posting a job isn't enough.
But I would also say that the job openings metrics that are most commonly cited are very flawed both conceptually and in practice (42% of hires happen at companies that report no job openings!) so I would put a lot less stock in job openings data than employment data. Here's a good resource if you want to read more:
https://www.employamerica.org/researchreports/a-vacant-metric-why-job-openings-are-so-unreliable/