Posted: Aug 15, 2018 2:00 pm
zulumoose wrote:The given data indicates that there are fewer unemployed people who are looking for work, yet the number of people of working age who are not employed is increasing.
This can only mean, if true, that a higher percentage are unemployed by choice.
That's not correct because the total population is increasing. Which means strictly you can deduce either:
(a) The same percentage are unemployed by choice; or
(b) A lower percentage are unemployed by choice; or
(c) A higher percentage are unemployed by choice.
Which isn't particularly informative. And I'm not actually sure about whether the antecedent (that the number of people of working age who are not employed is increasing - and I'll note quickly at this point another complication of employment figures that many people of working age are in full time education) is true.
zulumoose wrote:Unless vast numbers have been recently disqualified due to something general like age limit changes which seems unlikely.
So if more are choosing not to work, what does that indicate?
I think this is getting ahead of ourselves. In relative terms this isn't true (the employment rate is at a record high). In absolute terms it's unclear if this is true, but due to population growth our explanation - if one was required - would reside there anyway. If you have 10% more stay at home mums because you have 10% more families, there's not very much in need of analysis.
Edit: Typos.