# Unemployment rate rises to 30.8%

#### Herr der Verboten

##### Expert Member
The 30% is people actively looking for a job.
Which would make 70% those with a job.

Only of the population that either has a job or is activly looking gets counted to get 100%
Nonsense man. You sound like an American news anchor.

News anchor: "There are twice as much Americans in 2020 with hiv than in 2019"
Me "How much is that?"
News: " Just told you...twice as much."

That's how you fool the sheep. The illusion of specifics.

#### rietrot

##### Honorary Master
Nonsense man. You sound like an American news anchor.

News anchor: "There are twice as much Americans in 2020 with hiv than in 2019"
Me "How much is that?"
News: " Just told you...twice as much."

That's how you fool the sheep. The illusion of specifics.
14.7m employed
6.5 m unemployed.

The working population they use is then 21.2mil.

6.5/21.2×100 =30.66%

I'm short a few?

Last edited:

#### Brenden_E

##### Executive Member
14.7m employed
6.5 m unemployed.

The working population they use is then 21.2mil.

6.5/21.2×100 =30.66%

I'm short a few?
Where do they get a working population of 21mil from?

In the first quarter of 2020, the number of women in South Africa of working-age reached approximately 19.63 million, while the number of men of working age reached roughly 19.25 million.

Should be around 40mil, then?

#### rietrot

##### Honorary Master
Where do they get a working population of 21mil from?

In the first quarter of 2020, the number of women in South Africa of working-age reached approximately 19.63 million, while the number of men of working age reached roughly 19.25 million.

Should be around 40mil, then?
Survey and random guess work.

They ask a few people and extrapolate that outward. Same as any poll.

http://www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=1854&PPN=P0211&SCH=7891
The entire working age population is everyone between 15 and 64. =39 mil
Labour force 21mil.
14.6 working
6.5 not working

Another 17 mil not working. Not economy active.
2mil discourage work seekers include in the above.
15 min don't work and don't want to work.
This number seems to fluctuate a lot quarterly with the number of those in the job market above.

15 is young, many students and school going kids are counted, we have a young population. We have a large informal sector. The numbers don't mean much.

I don't even trust that a propper trend can be identified because of the fluctuations in the working population.
It's all BS after looking at the actual thing.

Last edited:

##### Expert Member
14.7m employed
6.5 m unemployed.

The working population they use is then 21.2mil.

6.5/21.2×100 =30.66%

I'm short a few?
They are working with formal employment figures. Not only have we a very big informal section, the covid nonsense shows that there was a lot of formal employers that did not even have uif, which makes even formal numbers unreliable.
Their unemployed figure is inaccurate simply because their funny definition of unemployed is irrational. I stand by my rough estimate as per my original post based on a logical definition of unemployed.

If you take their 21.2 million figure and go look at census/demographic figures of SA it is easy to see its nonsense. Maybe read my OP again.

#### rietrot

##### Honorary Master
They are working with formal employment figures. Not only have we a very big informal section, the covid nonsense shows that there was a lot of formal employers that did not even have uif, which makes even formal numbers unreliable.
Their unemployed figure is inaccurate simply because their funny definition of unemployed is irrational. I stand by my rough estimate as per my original post based on a logical definition of unemployed.

If you take their 21.2 million figure and go look at census/demographic figures of SA it is easy to see its nonsense. Maybe read my OP again.
I didn't disagree with you. I just tried to explain what stats sa does and how they get to 30%