
Thailand's Unemployment Rate Is 0.6% - Nowyouknow
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-02/thailand-s-unemployment-rate-is-a-ridiculously-low-0-6-here-s-why
======
coralreef
Kind of misleading data. The number of cab/tuk tuk drivers and street vendors
is astounding, way more than there should be. Technically employed, but
driving the wage down.

~~~
zokier
> The number of cab/tuk tuk drivers and street vendors is astounding, way more
> than there should be.

How many there should be?

> Technically employed, but driving the wage down.

If they are sustaining themselves with the work they are doing, I don't see
what is so "technical" about it.

~~~
coralreef
We don't know if they're sustaining themselves. And given the oversupply of
labour, I suspect they barely are.

------
erikb
While I agree with the general conclusion of the other comments nobody seems
to get the reasons right. Yes, the number is incorrect. But they don't need to
make up the number. If you don't offer any social security system, then there
is no reason for people to go to the office. They don't go because of
"cultural" reasons. They don't go because there's no benefit. In a country
like Germany you actually get money and basic products like fridge, apartment,
maybe even a TV. If you have to choose between trying something crazy/risky or
going to the agency most people in Germany will go to the job agency. No
cultural reason, just rewards.

So in the end nobody is lying but the basic structure of the system is
different which makes different true numbers. to make a more reasonable
comparison the unofficial workers should be counted instead of the unemployed.
But the thing is that they are hard to count.

------
ilaksh
I think the number is BS. The Thai government lies at least as much as the US
government.

Forget the government numbers. The reality is that in Thailand, as in most
countries, the public assistance/social safety net available is so inadequate
it might as well not exist. Its not that the government doesn't try. Its just
that the reality of contemporary economics means that providing an adequate
social safety net, even in the wealthiest countries, is difficult to
impossible. Well, let me qualify that a bit. The last I heard, they did have
public healthcare, although the standards lag far behind private providers.

There may be a way to make the rules more fair for poorer people or poorer
countries or to make people more secure in terms of basic needs. Right now
though the structures don't align well with those goals. And most countries
have to work within the same economic structure but with vastly fewer
resources than the US.

~~~
ckozlowski
The article seems to admit as much, in that 0.6 isn't a cut-and-dry figure.

What strikes me though is that a number like this should be reason for panic.
Economies try to shoot for unemployment numbers (realistically calculated
ones) around 5%. (varies, see:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment)
)

As unemployment drops below 5%, it becomes harder to find workers in many
fields, and the problem gets worse the lower you go. Down around 2-3% and
you're facing an acute labor shortage, which leads to inflation and reduces
investment in your country because there's no workers to fill new openings.

But in short, I agree with you, the numbers rest on simply faulty logic,
because if they were calculated by other means, Thailand's economy should be
in crisis. But it isn't.

------
pan69
If there is no social security system, then how does the government (or anyone
else) gets to this number?

Let's assume for a moment that the number in the article is correct, it's
important to understand that Thailand's culture has a form of social security
build in. In Thailand it's very normal for children to take not only care of
their parents (financially) but also the rest of their family. So, maybe from
a cultural point of view, Thailand doesn't need a social security system and
might also be the reason why the number in the article is so low.

~~~
gojomo
The unemployment rate of the US is _not_ based on those collecting benefits,
but a broad household survey by a separate agency (BLS). Thus its calculation
doesn't depend on the unemployment-insurance/welfare/social-security systems
at all.

