How it is impossible to draw conclusions from employment ratio? It is self-explanatory: the amount of work age folks who are employed. It describes just what it is meant to.
By the way, doing business counts as "employed" in that ratio.
The rest of the stuff, you are right. It doesn't give you reasons why people are or aren't employed, but isn't even supposed to do so. It is just one fucking measurement. Even businesses use balanced scorecards.
My claim that there is no job for the most non-employed is based on; that no economy can suddenly create jobs for almost half of their work age population if they all want to be employed. At least with private sector, socialism style yes. As there is also much unemployed folks, who are registered to be wanting a job, it is easy to conclude that if there isn't job for the 5,5 % of folks, there isn't job for the rest 35 %:ish neither.
By the way, doing business counts as "employed" in that ratio.
The rest of the stuff, you are right. It doesn't give you reasons why people are or aren't employed, but isn't even supposed to do so. It is just one fucking measurement. Even businesses use balanced scorecards.
My claim that there is no job for the most non-employed is based on; that no economy can suddenly create jobs for almost half of their work age population if they all want to be employed. At least with private sector, socialism style yes. As there is also much unemployed folks, who are registered to be wanting a job, it is easy to conclude that if there isn't job for the 5,5 % of folks, there isn't job for the rest 35 %:ish neither.








Comment