had millions not left ...

Status
Not open for further replies.

unpakwon

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
I can't follow the logic in the following in red.

Unemployment has also been higher as a consequence of the declining dollar. During the World War 2 gold standard era, from 1947 to 1970, unemployment averaged less than 5%. Even with the economy's ups and downs, it never rose above 7%. Since Nixon gave us the fiat dollar it has averaged over 6%: it averaged 8.5% in 1975, almost 10% in 1982, and around 8% since 2008. The rate would have been higher had millions not left the workforce.

Is this saying "The unemployment rate would have been higher if millions of people had not stopped working"? Acyually the rate wasn't higher because millions left the workforce (quit working)? It sounds strange.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:

BobK

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Location
Spencers Wood, near Reading, UK
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
It's ambiguous. I'm not convinced that the writer knows what s/he means. There are various interpretations - at least three:
  • Yours, the illogical one.
  • People who were actually looking for work dropped out of the statistics. I don't know how the unemployment statistics are recorded in the USA, but in the UK 'unemployed' isn't the same as 'not having (paid) employment'. In order to count as 'registered unemployed' you have to be claiming Unemployment Benefit. And many people (myself included at one stage) find the process of claiming too dispiriting to bother with.
  • The 'rate' referred to in the final sentence is the rate of inflation. The underpinning of this interpretation started in the first sentence in the words 'the declining dollar', and the ambiguous 'it' in the second sentence seals the potential confusion!

b
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
They could also leave the workforce if they emigrate or go back to study to retrain, etc.
 

Roman55

Key Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Italy
Current Location
France
I am not a teacher.

I got lost at 'fiat dollar'!
 

unpakwon

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
It's ambiguous. I'm not convinced that the writer knows what s/he means. There are various interpretations - at least three:
  • Yours, the illogical one.
  • People who were actually looking for work dropped out of the statistics. I don't know how the unemployment statistics are recorded in the USA, but in the UK 'unemployed' isn't the same as 'not having (paid) employment'. In order to count as 'registered unemployed' you have to be claiming Unemployment Benefit. And many people (myself included at one stage) find the process of claiming too dispiriting to bother with.
  • The 'rate' referred to in the final sentence is the rate of inflation. The underpinning of this interpretation started in the first sentence in the words 'the declining dollar', and the ambiguous 'it' in the second sentence seals the potential confusion!

b

I provided full context in the original post. Could it still be possible that the "rate" in the final sentence refers to the rate of inflation?
 
Last edited:

unpakwon

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
They could also leave the workforce if they emigrate or go back to study to retrain, etc.

Does this mean people are not counted as unemployed if they for any reason quit working voluntarily?
 

Roman55

Key Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Italy
Current Location
France
I am not a teacher.

If there are no other missing sentences that you'll be adding later, it does seem that the rate in question isn't the rate of inflation.

People are not counted as unemployed if they are no longer in the country, or if they are considered to be students or trainees. It's not because they voluntarily give up their jobs.
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
The unemployment rates are bogus. In the US, people who are unemployed and who stopped looking for a job because they cannot find a job are not counted. How dumb is that?
 

SoothingDave

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
The unemployment rates are bogus. In the US, people who are unemployed and who stopped looking for a job because they cannot find a job are not counted. How dumb is that?

Exactly. The numerator in the unemployment rate typically used by media and politicians is how many people are presently, officially unemployed. That is, getting benefits.

The denominator is the number of people "in the work force." When unemployed people give up on ever finding a job, they are no longer counted as "in the work force," so the unemployment rate decreases. Not because more jobs have been added, but because fewer people are looking.
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Does this mean people are not counted as unemployed if they for any reason quit working voluntarily?

Quitting voluntarily may affect your right to benefits, but you're still unemployed if you're not working. However, if you're studying or abroad, that's different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top