@Ocelot Do Europeans calculate unemployment rates similarly to the US government? For instance, do they exclude some people as out of the labor force if they aren't employed within a year? What's the calculation?
The problem is that the way unemployment rates are calculated differs heavily betweenn European countries as well. I only really know about the Austrian case, where anyone that's registered at an institution called "job market service", which is basically a public job agency. You need to do that to qualify for unemployment benifits and all sorts of stuff, so the vast majority of unemployed are actually registered there. However, a more significant number of unemployed are then "hidden" in schooling programs offered by this agency. These programs are a good thing in principle, often offerring people stemming from a regressing/obsolote industry chances to reorientate themselves and afterwards many of them actually find a job as a result, but at times it's just a matter of giving them
something to do. Which I suppose can also be justified as it at least gives them some sort of a normal day routine, very important from a psychological point of view for the unemployed, keeps them from dropping out of the system alltogether, and at times even criminal activities, but as a matter of fact it does skew unemployment figures.
Read that the US actually uses nothing more than surveys to determine the RoU? Doesn't seem that effective to me tbh.
Also in general people in Europe, if they've got a job, can be considered to earn a living wage (changing in the last couple of years unfortunately, but in general this still applies). The working poor in the US are a much bigger fraction of society iirc.
About excluding people as out of the labor force if they aren't employed within a year, that would be the first time I heard about something like that.
It proves that gun bans do not equate to reducing violent crime. Throw in the fact that law-abiding citizens can arm themselves against criminals who don't care about laws, there is sufficient evidence you can curtail the threat of crime, as what has occurred in Detroit. The fact we have what is essentially a total drug ban and major drug epidemic in this country should cause folks to deduce that reducing legal access to firearms will do jack squat here. Gangs, robbers, and mass shooters will get their hands on weapons regardless of a ban, just like junkies will spend 20K on the corner to get their high.
Conglomeration of reasons, one of which is overmedication. Unfortunately, I know a lot of people now, including family members, that struggle with anti-D's and other types of drugs. It really does cause them to make irrational decisions.
There are very notable differences between drugs and guns though. For one, guns aren't addictive. If drugs get harder and harder to obtain, you'll do everything to get them anyways if you're addicted. With guns, it's a simple cost/profit calculation (if we're talking about criminal activities). If the risk/cost associated with getting guns is too high, other, less deadly & cheaper to get weapons will be used.
Buy on AliExpress.com
