First, how is this insurance news? I’ll get this drivel at the usual media outlets.
Second, economists used to say that 5% unemployment was “full employment” as you always had a percentage of the population that either could not or would not work: the disabled, elderly, etc. This story does not say it outright but it makes it sound like 4.3% is too high.
How about this: 95.7% of people who want to work in Oklahoma have a job. Pretty darn good, huh?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
First, how is this insurance news? I’ll get this drivel at the usual media outlets.
Second, economists used to say that 5% unemployment was “full employment” as you always had a percentage of the population that either could not or would not work: the disabled, elderly, etc. This story does not say it outright but it makes it sound like 4.3% is too high.
How about this: 95.7% of people who want to work in Oklahoma have a job. Pretty darn good, huh?
Check out wikipedia on unemployment and labor force. Note especially the comments on labor force participation rate.
Perhaps using unemployment statistics is not a very valid method of measuring true unemployment.
Interesting reading!