those who are jobless, Americans seeking but unable to secure full-time employment, and individuals earning "poverty wages," defined as $26,000 or less annually
for the lazy
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2025
225 points (99.1% liked)
News
33779 readers
2348 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Underemployment has always been an ignored statistic. The media and government report a single number as some sort of status of the economy, when it's so much more complex than one data point.
I agree with you as well of the spirit of what the study in the article is trying to do, but I do object to the terminology they used, as it muddies the waters unnecessarily. A term like "underemployed" is much better than "functionally unemployed."
Doesn't help that the average American information source an entertainment venue in a "news" costume.
It's not schiz. It's about how we measure "the economy". There are lots of ways, and the one that Newsweek (and all mainstream voices) use has nothing at all to do with the wellbeing of people. It only measures the wellbeing of shareholders.
Usually when the news media talk about "the economy," they're not talking about the financial well-being of workers, or the average citizen. They're talking about how much extra money corporations and the ultra wealthy are making. If every time you read about the economy you mentally transpose the words "the economy" with "rich people's yacht money" what they're writing about becomes a lot clearer.
- "Everyone is being paid such ridiculous poverty wages that they are functionally unemployed."
- "Rich people have tons more yacht money."
They're not actually opposing statements. One is a direct result of the other.
Watch, we're going to get a contradicting article soon about how there's thousands of available jobs and these people will be branded as lazy and unwilling to get work.
In my area the job market has been bad for a couple of years. It’s getting way worse now though. It’s frustrating how the media never talks about how post 2008 the job market forced large portions of people into underemployment and low pay
The excuse I always heard was the affordable care act made it to expensive for companies to keep most workers 40 hours a week. All my friends in the service industry went from one full time job, to 3 part time jobs. Worse hours and pay.
I seen a comment on the other site saying "the verified, tax-paying EMPLOYMENT level, as opposed to Unemployment level, is currently 53%"
Would be interesting to see what that level has been at through the years to get an idea of where we actually stand.
I know the current unemployment reporting is completely inadequate with gig work/underemployment and people simply giving up not being counted in the official numbers.
nobody wants to hire anymore
line must go up, paying people fairly for their labor might make line go up slightly less than it could
No shit, have you seen how much money they are asking for?