# Do nations use the same method for calculating unemployment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 8, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-nations-use-the-same-method-for-calculating-unemployment/704088 "2014-11-08T19:17:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![X.L.Lent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/a5b964/32.png) [@X.L.Lent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X.L.Lent)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-nations-use-the-same-method-for-calculating-unemployment/704088/1 "2014-11-08T19:17:54Z")
In the past I’ve seen articles comparing unemployment rates of one nation against another. It occurred to me recently that these comparisons are meaningless unless the nations are using the same standards to calculate the unemployment rate. So my question is do the nations of the world use the same method to calculate unemployment? Is unemployment in the U.K. calculated in the same way as the U.S.A., Germany, Japan, etc.? If not, then what methods do the different nations use to come up with the unemployment rage. Thanks for your answers. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2014, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-nations-use-the-same-method-for-calculating-unemployment/704088/2 "2014-11-08T19:31:36Z")
Well for a start - Unemployment in the UK is calculated from the actual number of people claiming unemployment benefit. If you are not working and not claiming, you are not counted. ---
**Author:** ![silverfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e480ec/32.png) [@silverfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silverfish)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2014, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-nations-use-the-same-method-for-calculating-unemployment/704088/3 "2014-11-08T21:00:44Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > Well for a start - Unemployment in the UK is calculated from the actual number of people claiming unemployment benefit. If you are not working and not claiming, you are not counted. This is not true. This is what the ONS (the office for national statistics) has to say about unemployment. > [@](#): > > The number of unemployed people in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and includes people who meet the international definition of unemployment specified by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). This ILO definition defines unemployed people as being (i) without a job, have been actively seeking work in the past four weeks and are available to start work in the next two weeks, or (ii) out of work, have found a job and are waiting to start it in the next two weeks. [cite](http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-guidance/guide-to-labour-market-statistics/guide-to-unemployment.html#tab-More-detail) They also say > [@](#): > > This definition is used by most other countries, by the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat), and by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. > > Unemployment levels and rates are published each month in the Labour Market Statistical Bulletin. Estimates are available by sex, by age and by duration of unemployment. > > Unemployment levels measure the total number of people estimated to be unemployed while unemployment rates allow changes in the labour market to be interpreted in a wider context by allowing for changes in the population. The headline measure of unemployment for the UK is the unemployment rate for those aged 16 and over. Unemployment rates are calculated, in accordance with international guidelines, as the number of unemployed people divided by the economically active population (those in employment plus those who are unemployed). [cite](http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-guidance/guide-to-labour-market-statistics/guide-to-unemployment.html#tab-More-detail) This is seperate from the claimant count, those who are claiming job seeker’s allowance > [@](#): > > :The Claimant Count measures the number of people claiming benefits principally for the reason of being unemployed. Since October 1996 it has been a count of the number of people claiming Jobseeker’s allowance. The Claimant Count does not meet the internationally agreed definition of unemployment specified by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The estimates are sourced from the JobCentre Plus administrative system. [cite](http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-guidance/guide-to-labour-market-statistics/guide-to-claimant-count.html) So, it seems there is an international definition of unemployment, although the ONS don’t say which countries use it. ---
**Author:** ![Mops](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mops/32/16494_2.png) [@Mops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mops)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2014, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-nations-use-the-same-method-for-calculating-unemployment/704088/4 "2014-11-08T21:18:46Z")
> [@silverfish](#): > > … So, it seems there is an international definition of unemployment, although the ONS don’t say which countries use it. For example Germany publishes two numbers: one according to a domestic definition drawing on job seekers registered at the unemployment office, and one to the ILO definition, from a survey of a polulation sample (_Mikrozensus_). For 2012, according to [this source (German language)](http://www.bpb.de/politik/innenpolitik/arbeitsmarktpolitik/54909/arbeitslosigkeit-messen?p=all) the figure for the domestic definition was 7.6 % and the figure for the ILO definition was 5.3 %. ---
**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2014, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-nations-use-the-same-method-for-calculating-unemployment/704088/5 "2014-11-08T22:06:47Z")
We have two measures commonly quoted in Ireland. One is the Quarterly Labour Force Survey, which measures unemployment by the ILO definition. The other is the “Live Register” (the number of people receiving benefits) which is a less accurate measure of unemployment as it includes part-time workers who are entitled to benefits, as well as people who are considered not to be included in the labour force (i.e. people who are not “economically active”). ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2014, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-nations-use-the-same-method-for-calculating-unemployment/704088/6 "2014-11-08T23:38:16Z")
The Labour Force survey asks 60,000 people whether they are unemployed and whether they are looking for a job. It includes some people not eligible for JSA. Good for international comparisons. However some problems It could be subject to sampling errors and may not be truly representative Difficult to decide whether somebody is sick or actively seeking work I guess that the answer to the OP’s question is that there is an attempt to establish international agreement on this, but there are inevitable flaws in the statistical methodology. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-nations-use-the-same-method-for-calculating-unemployment/704088/7 "2014-11-10T00:18:01Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > I guess that the answer to the OP’s question is that there is an attempt to establish international agreement on this, but there are inevitable flaws in the statistical methodology. But the problems in collecting the data are presumably broadly similar in all countries, or at least in all developed countries, which means that the figures should still be useful for comparing unemployment between different countries. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-nations-use-the-same-method-for-calculating-unemployment/704088/8 "2014-11-10T00:40:43Z")
> [@hibernicus](#): > > We have two measures commonly quoted in Ireland. One is the Quarterly Labour Force Survey, which measures unemployment by the ILO definition. The other is the “Live Register” (the number of people receiving benefits) which is a less accurate measure of unemployment as it includes part-time workers who are entitled to benefits, as well as people who are considered not to be included in the labour force (i.e. people who are not “economically active”). But conversely the ILO definition is less accurate, because it excludes people who are only finding 1 hour a week, and wives (and retirees, and kids, and others) who are not “economically active” because they’ve given up trying to find a job. The ILO headline rate is perhaps sort of useful for comparing countries, or for comparing this year to last year, but it is almost always a smaller number compared to the number of people who would actually like to find work and can’t. And there is another number which is sometimes even larger: In the “great depression” (which wasn’t really very “great” in vic.aus), there were a lot of men in AUS who considered themselves “unemployed” because they were what I would now call “underemployed”: they were doing labouring or retail work because they couldn’t get the trade job they were trained for. ---
**Author:** ![installLSC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/54ee81/32.png) [@installLSC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/installLSC)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-nations-use-the-same-method-for-calculating-unemployment/704088/9 "2014-11-10T01:19:11Z")
In countries like Germany that have two different unemployment standards, which one tends to get the more publicity? The one based on international standards or the other one? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-nations-use-the-same-method-for-calculating-unemployment/704088/10 "2014-11-10T01:46:08Z")
> [@Melbourne](#): > > And there is another number which is sometimes even larger: In the “great depression” (which wasn’t really very “great” in vic.aus), there were a lot of men in AUS who considered themselves “unemployed” because they were what I would now call “underemployed”: they were doing labouring or retail work because they couldn’t get the trade job they were trained for. Oh, there are bigger problems that that in other countries. In the US, a large population of men who would be turning up in the unemployed statistics in most other countries don’t appear, because they are in prison. Hence US unemployment figure, at least for young men, tend to understate the problem relative to other countries. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-nations-use-the-same-method-for-calculating-unemployment/704088/11 "2014-11-10T01:48:01Z")
> [@installLSC](#): > > In countries like Germany that have two different unemployment standards, which one tends to get the more publicity? The one based on international standards or the other one? Depends on the context in which the figure is discussed. When it’s a comparison with other countries, the better-comparable figure will be used. When it’s about the public finances, the benefit-claimants figure will be used. Probably the benefits-claimants figure is the “headline” figure; it’s compiled more often and published sooner after compilation. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-nations-use-the-same-method-for-calculating-unemployment/704088/12 "2014-11-10T17:28:39Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Oh, there are bigger problems that that in other countries. In the US, a large population of men who would be turning up in the unemployed statistics in most other countries don’t appear, because they are in prison. Hence US unemployment figure, at least for young men, tend to understate the problem relative to other countries. > [@UDS](#): > > Depends on the context in which the figure is discussed. When it’s a comparison with other countries, the better-comparable figure will be used. When it’s about the public finances, the benefit-claimants figure will be used. Probably the benefits-claimants figure is the “headline” figure; it’s compiled more often and published sooner after compilation. And it isn’t just unemployment statistics that can be skewed by international differences. For example, another important statistic in the US is high school graduation rates. There are problems with this both inside the country and out. Just considering the US, does that statistic only cover students who graduate on time as graduates and lump everyone else in with the “dropouts”? If someone completes an alternative high school or earns a high school equivalency, does that count as finishing high school or are they still a dropout? Including them helps produce statistics that express the actual extent to which people in the country are educated (e.g. so we can determine whether we need more universities, or whether or not certain companies should or should not open locations needing local workers), but excluding them could help determine how much funding should be assigned to traditional four-year high schools. So which one? Well, what do you need the data for? Internationally, the _idea_ of high school graduation as a concept doesn’t even exist in many countries. For example, most UK high schools do not do “graduation” per se. Students typically take standardized, public exams such as A-levels and universities, job training programs, and employers can decide what qualifications they want. One advantage to this is that people can theoretically go back at anytime and beef up their high school education to qualify for what they want. In the US, once you graduate, you’re done, get on with your life. So Johnny American earned a standard high school diploma in four years. Billy British earned three A-levels and four GCSE’s. Is that equivalent to a US high school diploma? If not, would three A-levels and _five_ GCSE’s be enough? ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-nations-use-the-same-method-for-calculating-unemployment/704088/13 "2014-11-11T01:08:58Z")
For one thing, the statutory work week is not the same in every country as the 40 hours in the USA. So a country with a significantly different definition of “full time” would have very different results about who is working full time. Also, Americans work several hundred house more per year than practically any other industrialized country, when vacation time and other benefits are accounted for, so fewer Americans who are “statistically employed” are required to perform the same taks. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-nations-use-the-same-method-for-calculating-unemployment/704088/14 "2014-11-12T02:21:51Z")
> [@installLSC](#): > > In countries like Germany that have two different unemployment standards, which one tends to get the more publicity? The one based on international standards or the other one? In AUS the ILO number gets more publicity, because the government of the day wishs to quote the _smallest politically plausible number possible._ Also, mentally, Aus is a small island country a long way from civilization: we sometimes look overseas for inspiration and ratification. On the one hand we are a bit embarrassed by that: on the other hand our humbleness is one of things of which we are most proud.