cicerone imposter wrote:Walter, Those unemployment rates seems interesting, but are those figures similar to the US that drops those workers no longer looking for jobs? Many older workers are having trouble finding replacement jobs after they get layed off, and they're no longer counted as unemployed after they've used up their unemployment insurance.
Very good, very important point c.i.
There's always a lot of comparisons going on between the (high) continental European and low US unemployment rates. The difference is then used as an argument to "prove" the superiority of the US economic model.
But as you point out, the whole argument is built on quicksand, because in the US they just dont
count the long-term unemployed. Hey, I can get low unemployment rates that way too: just dont count half of them.
In Holland, the unemployment rate includes all those from 15 to 64 years of age without work, or with work for less than 12 hours a week, who are actively looking for paid work for twelve hours a week or more.
In Belgium too, the definition is based on that of the International Labour Bureau (thats a translation from Dutch, may be different name in English): all persons of 15 and older who a) have no work, b) are available for work and c) are actively looking for work.
The definition is thus wider in two senses. First, there is no end in time to benefits. In Holland for example you go from unemployment benefits to welfare and on both of them you are counted in the unemployment rate, if you are looking and available for work. Secondly, even those who do not receive benefits but have registered as looking for work and currently do not have any, are counted.
So yeah, even just the difference in definition alone explains much of the variation in unemployment rates between US and continental Europe.
(In Holland the unemployment rate now is 6-7%).