Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the information. So unemployed != unemployed. In any case it doesnt really change anything 37% unemployed and 69% living in a home they or someone in their household owns sounds like a lot of young people who havent left the nest.
> Thanks for the information. So unemployed != unemployed. Your snark aside, actually yes, that is correct. The unemployment rate you cite is the UNRATE, or U-3. It explicitly only counts people over 16 years of age who reside in the fifty states or DC, who aren’t institutionalized, and not on Active Duty in the military. Looking at other data sets fills in the picture further. U-6 adds in part-time workers seeking f…
>But let’s take the second part of your rebuttal - that the results may be skewed towards younger people who still live at home.
Are we in an argument? I wasnt really rebutting anything. I was clarifying my original comment. Even after the clarification that it's not apples to apples, the intersection of 69% living in a home and 37% being unemployed is pretty striking.
>If your assessment is correct, then the correct reaction should be panic and fear over what that might mean for the wider economy, not belittling the demographic
Where am I belittling anyone?