54.0 million over 65
48.9 million on disability
328.2 million total population
185.8 million people employed at 56.6% employment
128.1 million people not employed (including children)
54 million people not employed, but marginally employable (max income is $1,260 per month if on disability and $18,240/yr when retired)
In any case, under-employment is still a bigger issue than unemployment.
That said, the real figures are still startling. They represents 4.4% of the US worker population but some states rely incredibly heavily on the program.
Alabama - 8.0% of the population
Arkansas - 7.9% of the population
Kentucky - 7.6% of the population
Maine - 7.4% of the population
Mississippi - 7.5% of the population
West Virginia - 8.6% of the population
1: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/2019/di_asr...The reality is that "unemployment" is a highly visible metric. Sure, the data itself is available... A big part of the reason why it's important to have this data available is exactly for this purpose: call bullshit on the unemployment numbers when necessary...
...especially considering that "want a job" is measured in very specific ways.
Is it though? The photos of queues for jobs and unemployment benefits is something of the distant past. Find out that a different measure makes the rate 3x higher came as news to me.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
and the numbers:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
It's actually kinda straightforward, and very clear about what measures they're using. The numbers are bit scary - "The employment-population ratio, at 56.6 percent, changed little over the month but is 4.5 percentage points lower than in February."
"The number of persons not in the labor force who currently want a job, at 7.2 million, changed little in September; this measure is 2.3 million higher than in February. These individuals were not counted as unemployed because they were not actively looking for work during the last 4 weeks or were unavailable to take a job."
So that's 12m officially unemployed, plus 7m "not in the labor force" but who want a job.
So yeah, the article is kinda on point; that the numbers don't mean what they think we mean. But I have to agree: that's not because the numbers aren't available for anyone to look at and understand.