Unemployment rates are determined based on surveys of 60000 households every month. Its not based on qualifying for unemployment benefits.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where

However, you have to say you're looking for work to count as unemployed. If I get $300 to say so, then I might say I'm looking for work (and genuinely look for it) -- but if I no longer get any benefit (or much less) from saying so, then I might not bother with all the (tedious paternalist) paperwork to get counted as 'unemployed'

> but if I no longer get any benefit (or much less) from saying so, then I might not bother with all the (tedious paternalist) paperwork to get counted as 'unemployed'

AFAIK there is no paperwork for this survey. They call people up and ask a few questions to classify you.

Fed govt set aside cash during covid pandemic to give extra funds to people on unemployment. At the beginning of the pandemic all the states particapated, but not anymore.

Critics have accused the fed govt of irresponsibly rolling this out as the economy has rebounded, and now you have many states where businesses are struggling to find workers who want to apply for these low income jobs because unemployment + 300$(fed govt bonus) + tax benfifits > low income job. So basically 21 states stopped giving unemployed people that extra 300$, and surprise surprise, american workers are rational and more of them elected to go back to work compared to the states that still distribute that 300$.

Basically this isnt surprising, but people on the far right want to gut bloated unemployment programs and far left wants universal income + bigger welfare for nonemployed americans, and this is playing out in Washington DC now and in states accross the US who arent one party states.

There are a number of reasons why someone loses unemployment eligbability, time being one of those as you alluded to. Varies state by state.

I beleive some states like NY and Cali have extended unemployment benfifits to like September, other states probably vary.

The economics of this situation are pretty complex. The short-term benefits may also be forcing employers to raise long-term wages to compensate. The long-term wage increases for low-income jobs may result in lower usage of other government programs such as food stamps, and housing assistance.

I passed by a giant sign next to a McDonalds offering $17/hr starting wage for McDonald's employees at a roadside operation in Western Mass.

I dont think anyone likes the fact that US minimum wage is so low. Seeimg the higher wage offers has been pleasant, but not being able to go in restaurants because they have been unable to hire enough staff hasnt been.

Mcdonalds + Amazon wont be a victim of minumum wage laws, they advocate for high minumum wages, as less productive chains and small businesses with smaller margins will have to die off to allow for more mcdonalds and amazon.

It is sad how expensive some parts of the country are, and the minimum wage "should" be higher, but ive seen economists say raising minum wage hurts low income earners looking for their first job (disproportionatly bipoc people), increases prices for everything, increases govt beurocracy, and simply doesnt work as a simple fix.

And that's $17/hr * 40hrs * 50weeks = $34,000 / year. A single person could be comfortable on that kind of money, but they won't exactly living the luxury life either. I think that's a pretty reasonable baseline for a full-time-employed resident of the USA.

You're just missing one thing -- there is no way in hell mcdonalds will ever give you 40 hours a week.

Good point. The best case scenario is that you can make a decent living for a single person on $17/hr. The more realistic scenarios are uglier.

Point being: we need to stop thinking of $15/hr as a high hourly wage.

This Mcdonalds had a rather extensive line, I wouldn't be surprised if they're paying overtime to keep serving customers.

It appears to be the former:

"The number of individuals who received unemployment benefits decline[d] by 13.8% by the week ending June 12, compared to mid-May, in states where governors explicitly said that enhanced benefits would end in June, based on an analysis by Jefferies LLC economists."

and:

"In May, the Missouri's unemployment rate was 4.2%, below the national average of 5.8%, according to data from the Department of Labor.

Missouri ended enhanced federal benefits for unemployed state residents as of June 12, making it one of the first states to take the action."

Is a decline in the number of people who are receiveing unemployment benefits the same thing as an increase in the number returning to work? I don't actually think it is without more data to rule out other cases.

Employment rate is not "1-unemployment", there is a third component ("inactive" or something like that) so generally they're correlated but do not coincide.

I do not know the exact numbers for this.

Right, that's my understanding as well. There's actually _many_ different unemployment numbers, depending on what definition of employment vs not vs not even included that you want to use. The "unemployment number" without qualification we tend to use is (IMO) kind of crap, but we're stuck with it for tradition mostly as far as I can tell.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm seems to be the best resource I can find at the moment for the ones I'm thinking of, it doesn't really define them very exactly though. I'm sure they're defined _somewhere_.

That seems to be the latter not the former.