Talk:List of countries by unemployment rate

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oman

There is no information about Oman mentioned in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.151.196.130 (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

believe me i dont know — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:121B:DF89:ACC8:99EF:86E6:975F (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wales

Same with Wales. Calvin_2021 (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guam

Someone might want to check out Guam's statistics. I could find nothing in the linked reference even referring to Guam. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.90.29 (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World

175-30.00% unemployment rate World is stupidity if all big countries has lower unemployment rate and only few smaller countries have over 30% how can be than average 30%????

I was wondering the same thing myself. The factbook link states that there is "30% combined unemployment and underemployment in many non-industrialized countries; developed countries typically 4%-12% unemployment (2006 est.)." It seems that they listed the wrong statistic in the rankings. Natsirtguy (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the general consensus for this page is that we should rely on more up to date sources than CIA's World Factbook which as we all know is not updated for many weeks and is also expected to be biased. Joel, there is no Wikipedia policy for using only one source. Apart from that wikipedia is considered to be better than CIA World Factbook and we should not be copying from another encylopedia to update wikipedia. Wikipedia should also serve as latest statistically accurate news source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best sources for updating this page should be the surveys, reports released by the Central Banks/Statistics Societies/Governments of the respective countries. Just like USA's Federal Reserve releases monthly unemployment data, the central banks and surveying authorities of most countries update this date in few months. CIA World Factbook is much behind many countries' own Central Banks and Statistical Departments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan

0.6% unemployment for Uzbekistan is pure vandalism. The Uzbekistan wiki page itself cites an unemployment rate of 20%.

On other wiki lists, the country is said to have a 99.3% literacy rate, and to be one of the most egalitarian nations in the world.

Vandals have not yet found the wiki page for the corruption index, where Uzbekistan still ranks as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Hmm...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.180.132.35 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Japan

I've updated the unemployment statistics and ranking for Japan based on a statistics bureau estimation. --Pavithran 01:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All CIA misquotes

Just a new thought. As we have the web why not get the unemployment figures from the governmental statistical agencies rather than some pie in the sky secondary source. ie Chinas rural unemployment is something like 30% so how can it have a overall estimation of about 5-9?? even the Chinese SSB who cooks there own books doesnt put it this low. Or maybe it is the real CIA??!! and then we know we have a conspiracy.

According to the Chinese government, the unemployment rate in the whole country is 15%, which means that it's probably much higher than that, but certainly not lower. -The monkeyhate 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Figures provieded by national govenments cannot easily be compared, becasue different countries use different ways to define unemployment. It makes thus sense to take as many rates as possible from a single source unless one can verify how figures are computed.134.105.168.67 12:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire article would benefit from a definition of "unemployment". For example, Canadian elected entities have been restricting who is "unemployed" for about 15 years now. The numbers are lower than reality and it helps on the next election. For example, to be unemployed you must be "actively searching" for a job, again they play with what "actively" means. Students looking for a job are excluded. Also (I'm not sure, these are speculative) people returning on the market from a long period, like stay at home mothers are excluded. So called "self-employed" like consultants looking for customers (for months) are excluded.69.70.111.166 (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

There was a severe discrepency in Canada's unemployment rate (CIA noted it as 6.8 and Statistics Canada notes it as 6.1) so I updated it with reference. This does through out of line the rankings. Maybe someone could invest the time in updating these rankings? Jeff 14:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the ranking for Canada --Pavithran 01:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just fixed Canada's again. As sourced, Canada uses a different measure of unemployment. Since the majority of data is by using US methods, then the Canadian rate should be in their terms. Kratoz (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States

Out of curiosity, does anyone know why the United States is ranked at (by entity) 48, with an unemployment rate of 4.90%, when Mali, with an unemployment rate of 5.30% is at 47? Has the USA been misplaced? All the other countries are set out in the correct order of unemployment rates. Also, on the unemployment page it states that the US unemployment rate is 5.0%. Bgh251f2 13:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1.5% of the U.S. working population is incarcerated. 4.9+1.5=6.4% unemployment.

Looking at the history of this article, it seems that the original source (CIA World Factbook) said 5.5% (which it probably was in 2004), but someone later changed the figure to reflect more recent unemployment rates of the US. This begs the question, which one should we put? Both have their advantages: 5.5% is the number found in the original source, but ~4.9% is probably closer to the current US unemployment rate of today, not 2004. Any thoughts? --jonsafari 06:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a number of accuracy problems with the CIA world factbook. So it is useful only as a convenient starting point to build the list; and if there are more authoritative sources, they should be used instead. I have replaced the US figure to 5.00, based on Dept. of Labor figure and provided a link to the source. As for Nauru, I still couldn't find a good source for its unemployment rate. --Vsion 17:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The nauru one does seem nuts until you realise it only really had one employer, the phosphate mine, and now its closed. Nauru is kind of in trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.0.146 (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I seem to recall that the U.S. does not include those who are not actively pursuing work in their unemployment figures, only those who are currently looking. Do other countries have the same system? I seem to recall hearing that things were different in the U.S., in which case the figure given would be misleading.--91.89.130.190 (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but do we have evidence that countries across the board use the alternative calculation? Moreover, as a subjective point, if we're going to choose between the two methods, I would propose we follow the American model simply because unemployment numbers should be about people who are trying to get jobs but can't, and that being a gauge for the health of an economy. (Including those in prison, for instance, is nonsense and says nothing about an economy, nor does including people who have no desire to get into the workforce.) --Kallahan (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiribati

Why is Kiribati listed as both 8th (sovereign) at 2.00% and at 57th (sovereign) at 70.00% unemployment? --jonsafari 23:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the later entry is removed, thanks. --Vsion 22:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nauru

Nauru is at the very bottom of this list with a stunning 90% unemployment but according to the Economy_of_Nauru article the unemployment rate is close to zero. 213.114.244.151 17:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea

South korean labor department said that unemployment rate in age of 20s and 30s are over 20%. This stats shows south korean economy is the worst since 1980s.

Many of economist said, as long as the ruling political party puesues social democratic economic policies, the ecomomic situation will get worse.

Mexico

I find Mexico's low unemployment rate to be unbelievable. Why do they pour across the border for US jobs? This list is VERY unreliable.

Yea, I agree with you, I love my country but I don't believe this statistics, I think that the goverment is lying.

I agree too. Do they get these numbers from the government of each country?

Mexico has a low unemployment rate because mexicans try harder and are more willing to work than the rest of us, exemplified by their excursions across the border.

Mexico has jobs but they have a low minimum wage 48 poesos a day. Thats why they pour across the border for US jobs. So they can make 5 dollars an hour instead of a day. Mexico city is the largest city in the world so there are jobs in mexico.

Mexico IS NOT the largest city in the world. That statement is so false as the low unemployment. IS Not the largest by population, Area or density. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population

Why mexicans keep saying that ?

The Heritage Foundation, also said 3.4%, and while they are a conservative based site, they share the statistic. My thoughts are that you can get a job, but the pay and benifits are awful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.93.178 (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EU

Removed EU, not a country.--Numerousfalx 23:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is an entity though - User:Dalta

Other countries

I'm sorry, but I can't believe that the economies of Uzbekistan, Cuba and Myanmar are really between the 20 most successful in the field of unemployment's rate. I rather think that theirs leaders are lying. I think this category of list is very interesting, but I propose that its sources should be changed, or fostered. For instance, the data of ONGs, ONU and other more or less neutral organizations should be considered.

I agree. Thought may be the definition of "having a job" may varies between countries. Tttrung 10:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you believe it? Do you think the USA walks on water or something? Don't believe everything your right-wing, imperialist government tells you. Cuba is a socialist state and the state is a major employer meaning that more people can be employed unlike in the USA where employees are considered expendable because of your neocon politics. Oh, I'm not Cuban but British and have tried to understand w=for years what the USA's problem with Cuba really is. Could it be that they have higher standards of living, lower crime and better longivity and healthcare than most of the Western world? Xania 23:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xania, please consider that Cuba has a GDP/capita of ~$3K (PPP adjusted). As for life expectancy, Cuba is ranked slightly below Western Europe and the US. The HDI for Cuba is lower as well. More importantly, I don't know of any country in the western world that thousands of people have died trying to escape. Must be that "higher standard of living" that's making them risk their lives sailing on flimsy rafts.. Algorythmic 12:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well think of it this way, some countries say they have 0% illiteracy, even though we know that there are some people, foreign imigrants are counted in the US for exaple who cannot speak the native language. Its simily becuase different countries measure things differentyl. Or in Cubas case, say whatever the people want to hear. Cuba tells there people they have a democracy and they always seem to elect the Castros. Now I think the embargo is stupid, but come one there is not even another party in Cuba running during these elections. ( I am sorry, I grew up and Flrodia and have too many freinds from Cuba, so this really bugs me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.93.178 (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Another issue is Vanuatu. I don't know the official numbers, but when I was there in 2006 the unemployment rate was about 20%. Their football team often don't play overseas because the players are too scared that they will not have a job when they get back home from a trip. Mykuhl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.91.157 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand

In the election last year in New Zealand, the current prime minister Helen Clark used New Zealand's current 'lowest unemployment rate in the OECD' as something to gather in votes. From sources, it seems that New Zealand has the lowest unemployment rate closley followed by South Korea.

Iraq

no data has been achieved.

Dates

If more recent information is available for individual entries, which is probably the case with many of the 2004 estimates, should the new information replace the CIA information for the sake of up-to-dateness, or should the list stay as it is – until the next World Factbook is published – for the sake of comparability?

May monthly unemployment rates be given if they are newer than yearly rates? If so, should we use seasonally adjusted rates (for the sake of comparability to other entries' yearly rates) or unadjusted rates? Wikipeditor 03:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As was discussed above in the United States section, it seems reasonable to use more recent information as long as it's relatively reliable. Your second question concerning seasonal fluxuation is interesting, and merits further discussion. –jonsafari 05:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployment figures for Germany are available here. I just don't know how to sort the table.

More to the point, we appear to have citations referring to figures from various different points in time. Sometimes these are several years apart. So, these figures are not standardized at all, and do not in general allow for any kind of cross-comparison. I realize that people are trying to do their best with the data that they can source, but this approach removes any chance of the figures being comparable with each other. Therefore, the 'ranking' of countries in this page is largely meaningless. Any thoughts on how to resolve this? Resolving this without resorting to original research may require the input of an editor who is very familiar with the source data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauterongo (talk • contribs) 21:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real U.S. Jobless Rate Is Much Higher

This article should point out that the real U.S. jobless rate is vastly higher than the "official" rate. The fact is, the government only counts jobless people who are actively seeking employment and ignores the tens of millions of discouraged jobless people who have given up seeking a job.

But that's a constant in any country because it can't be measured--thus I have no idea how you can say it's "much higher." David Youngberg 15:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, most countries judge unemployment by those that are seeking jobs, and "tens of millions" of Americans have not given up seeking jobs. Please get your facts checked before throwing out random anti-american foolishness. Travis Cleveland (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that discouraged jobless people who have given up seeking a job should be labelled as "homemakers" instead. This is the 21st century; househusbands are just as important to society as housewives were 40 years ago. GVnayR (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Fact Book is an incorrect source

I very much doubt the accuracy of the numbers given in the World Fact Book. Let's look at the latest Eurostat numbers in comparison : http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007_MONTH_03/3-30032007-EN-BP.PDF and the World Fact Book numbers in brackets: Denmark 3.4 (3.8); Netherlands 3.5 (5.5); Irland 4.4 (4.3); Cyprus 4.5 (5.5); Austria 4.5 (4.9); Slovenia 4.7 (9.6); Estonia 4.9 (4.5); Luxembourg 5.0 (4.1); United Kingdom 5.4 (2.9); Lithuania 5.7 (3.7); Latvia 5.8 (6.5); Czech Republic 6.4 (8.4); Italy 6.5 (7.0); Malta 6.7 (6.8); Sweden 6.7 (5.6); Finland 7.0 (7.0); Germany 7.1 (7.1); Romania 7.3 (6.1); Portugal 7.5 (7.6); Belgium 7.7 (8.1); Hungary 7.9 (7.4); Bulgaria 8.2 (9.6); Greece 8.6 (9.2); Spain 8.6 (8.1); France 8.8 (8.7); Slovakia 11.0 (10.2); Poland 11.8 (14.9).

Eurostat is a compilation of official reconciled numbers from EU memberstates, from a point of accuracy it should be trusted as the prime source of data. In the case of the Netherlands, Slovenia, the UK, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria or Poland the World Fact Book is so far off that its credibility has to be seriously questioned. I suggest that "It should be noted that statistics are not directly comparable." in the intro is modified to say something like "It should be noted that the following statistics can not be directly compared with each other and in many cases deviate problematically from offical statistics."

Isn't there another source of information for worldwide unemployment figures? Themanwithoutapast 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Themanwithoutapast: You can check National Statistical Offices per country list, the International Labour Organization here + the World Bank diagramms based on that data here, the United Nations Statistical Service here, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development here, the International Monetary Fund site and so on.. :) Gomoloko (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

I've just updated Italy's unemployment rate. It's 5.7%. For more information visit www.istat.it. Oct. 12 2007, 20.28

Germany - discrepancy between figures and map.

Germany's unemployment rate is listed as 7.1% for 2006 (est.) yet its colour on the map indicates a rate of 10-15%. Please fix this.--Mgill 08:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poland

Poland's unemployment rate is listed as 8,8% for September 2007, yet its colour on the map indicates a rate of over 15%. Please fix this :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.240.91 (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be great, if somebody could change it :)

Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey etc...

Why are these countries listed with the UK next to them? None of them are part of the UK - simply being a crown dependency instead. They are actual states in their own right.-217.42.79.244 (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay

According to the Instituto Nacional de Estadística del Uruguay, the average unemployment rates for 2007 are [1]:

Year average: 9.1%
October-December: 8.1%
December: 7.7%

--NaBUru38 (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco

According to The world factbook, Unemployment rate in Morocco is 2.1% (2007 est.). It's kind of surprising, but this is what it says. and according to Moroccan government it's about 7%. But i never heard of 15.5%.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mo.html#People

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2129rank.html

Koumed (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 update

They updated their data today for a lot of countries. Lots of work required to update them and the map... Jolly Ω Janner 16:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US unemployment rate, circa February 2009

I have updated this list to reflect the current US unemployment rate, based on US government employment numbers. This number (7.6%), is from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, which I have to say is the definitive resource for official US employment data.

Here is a link to their press release for your perusal.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Wisher (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All data must be from the same source. In this case, it's the CIA. I have checked the CIA page for any updates on US unemployment figures, but it hasn't changed. Jolly Ω Janner 17:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that you'd prefer to have inaccurate, outdated information from a secondhand source as opposed to definitive, accurate data from the leading source? I see no reason for the 'all data must be from the same source' rule, especially when it's not a first source - the CIA does not, as a matter of policy deal with labor statistics - the World Factbook is merely an ancillary guide provided as a public service. The BLS on the other hand, is in the business of tracking and aggregating data relative to the US economy. Wisher (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good idea to hear other people's opinions, but I'm not sure how I can gather people to this talk page. Jolly Ω Janner 19:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posted discussion message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries#"One source rule". Jolly Ω Janner 19:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several measures of unemployment and using multiple sources will remove comparability across different entries unless we can be certain that the different sources are tabulating the same quantity. The U.S. BLS itself has six different measures. We should probably maintain a single source since the purpose of this list is to compare different countries. I would, however, try and replace the CIA Factbook with statistics from the ILO for the entire list if possible. --Polaron | Talk 19:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron - while I agree with what you're saying, that the same measure needs to be used for all the countries - in this case, it's a moot point. The CIA updates their US data with BLS data, and so within a few weeks they'll update their list to reflect this new number. Wisher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Then we should wait a few weeks. Jolly Ω Janner 19:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the CIA only update the World Factbook on a yearly basis? I know they release a new edition every year, and I think the statistics would stay the same until the next edition. Worldruler20 (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong I'm afraid. As I said above "Then we should wait a few weeks.", we didn't have to wait very long for it be updated :) it seems to update it in dribs and drabs. GDP data might be annual. Jolly Ω Janner 17:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

There is no policy requirement that a single source be used. If the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a statistic, we can assume that the reported statistic is reliable and official and can, no we should report that statistic. Note that the note at the top of the article says "unless otherwise noted". A footnote indicating that this stat is from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics will take care of that. Finally, when applying guidelines, we should always be willing to accept a commonsense exception, especially when it reflects on the credibility of the encyclopedia. In this case, the world is seeing 7.6% in their headlines and, if wikipedia is reporting 7.2%, that's not good for our product. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 02:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It takes about a week for CIA factbook to update data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics to its own factook, so I don't see the point in having a seperate footnote for a week and then removing it after the CIA update its data. The CIA appear to collect their data from the countries' own unemployment data rather than collect it first-hand themselves. That would explain why several countries in Africa have no data. Jolly Ω Janner 17:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A week is a long time for wikipedia to present a statistic that many of our readers probably know doesn't match with what is being reported out there. This is particularly important when a statistic changes as often as the unemployment rate does and we should not want our accuracy to be in doubt. It is better to have a separate footnote for a week, than to have an obviously incorrect number for a week. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 21:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked in the revision history and there were four days between the user adding the US Labor source and between another user adding the same data, but from the CIA. I'm fine with someone else adding it from the US Labour Bureau, but I'm not going to check it myself, especialy as it would never be on the news. Jolly Ω Janner 21:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Is there any reason why only CIA data is used in this list? The rates for some countries are outdated and there are other sources out there which are frequently updated, and not estimated. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to provide us with these other sources? Jolly Ω Janner 16:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@S.Örvarr.S:@Jolly Janner: You can check National Statistical Offices per country list, the International Labour Organization here + the World Bank diagramms based on that data here, the United Nations Statistical Service here, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development here, the International Monetary Fund site and so on.. :) Gomoloko (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployment rates in time series

Hello!

I've been searching for something just like this list, but in time series, that is, something showing the progress of unemployment over years for all countries in the world.

Does anyone here knows where I could get such info?

Thanks!

--Tiago Rinck Caveden (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. You might be able to find it for individual countries on their economical articles. Jolly Ω Janner 20:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia

can someone fix the rate under Saudi Arabia please? i followed the link on the right side (next to June), and couldn't find the number in the article. as far as i know, the official unemployment by Saudi Arabia is between 9-10%, some sites make an estimation of ~20% mostly because different ways of calculations and different estimation for women unemployment, but i doubt that it is 32%. Mahkab (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fix'd. Jolly Ω Janner 19:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mahkab (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iran

Hello
Reference number 26 is unavailable. Majidabed (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canary Islands

What is the point of the Canary Islands to be in a different section of Spain? I mean I think it could be useful for example in overseas territories, but not in this case. --83.40.90.222 (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, depends on the sources i guess. If the Spanish rate of unemployment source includes Canary islands it should be removed. If there is a clear separate figure for it in the sources it could be left with (Spain) next to it in the same way there is (United Kingdom) next to some. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List should be by percent of unemployment

This article is currently in alphabetical order of the countries, and in this way, it does not compare the countries by unemployment rate. That said, this list should be rearranged by the percent of the unemployment rate, not by alphabetical order, as soon as possible. In its current state it also defies the purpose and topic (to some extent) of the article. ->Challisrussia (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greece

Greece unemployment is now 23.1

http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/BUCKET/A0101/PressReleases/A0101_SJO02_DT_MM_05_2012_01_F_EN.pdf

79.167.59.132 (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greece

Greece unemployment is now 24.4%

http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/BUCKET/A0101/PressReleases/A0101_SJO02_DT_MM_06_2012_01_F_EN.pdf

79.167.59.132 (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link 1 was a virus, so I deletted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.156.206.26 (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greece

Greece unemployment is now 25.1%

http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/BUCKET/A0101/PressReleases/A0101_SJO02_DT_MM_07_2012_01_F_GR.pdf

141.237.211.83 (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greece

Greece unemployment is now 25.4%

http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/BUCKET/A0101/PressReleases/A0101_SJO02_DT_MM_08_2012_01_F_GR.pdf

46.177.72.66 (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable Wikitable List Error on the column "Unemployment Rate (%)"

I would just like to bring it to attention that there is an error in how the list sorts when you choose to have it sorted by unemployment percentage.

Rather than sorting by percentage value, it places the numbers in numerical order. i.e. An example list of numbers from highest to lowest is sorted like this: 7.0, 60.0, 6.0, 5.0 rather than the correct way by decreasing value like this: 60.0, 7.0, 6.0, 5.0

I do not know how to fix or change this, but hopefully someone who does will read this.

India

According to Trading Economics site the unemployment rate in India is not 53.8% it is around 10% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.85.115.55 (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Looks like someone took the wrong number. Hopefully someone can get around to fixing this figure, because a rate of 53.8% from a country like India is would be a major cause for concern. --Sbluen (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not 10%. I don't know why it has been wrongly quoted here. Its only 3.4% and the report mentioned as source also supports that plus if you do quick search on internet. Times of India, The Indian Express all have reported that its 3.4% and its gonna stay at 3.4% for this year as well. Please update the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.206.60 (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada 0.0 percent unemployment, United States 100 percent?

Is there no one to protect this article from vandalism?--82.113.121.119 (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Methodology

The viewpoints expressed on the methodology page are clearly one person or group's opinion. Many, if not all of the claims made were unsourced.

There are legitimate debates about how best to measure unemployment. Using a specific method isn't proof of nefarious attempts by government to hide the numbers. Deazeveld (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The unemployment rate in China is 50% according to the list, but seems to be 4.1% in reference 23 where it is supposed to be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arachnje (talk • contribs) 06:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of countries by unemployment rate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of countries by unemployment rate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados 100%?

So, in Barbados nobody works?, What the hell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.88.139.226 (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of countries by unemployment rate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of countries by unemployment rate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of countries by unemployment rate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Samoa

The rate quoted for American Samoa for March 2011 is 46.9%. The source for this is:

"American Samoa National Emergency Grant (AS NEG) – Workforce Development Plan" (PDF). American Samoa National Emergency Grant (AS NEG). March 30, 2013. p. 3. Retrieved 20 August 2018.

This rate is for the aftermath of the tsunami - presumably the 2009 Samoa earthquake and tsunami, which took place on 29 September 2009. The document quotes the following:

Historical Unemployment 1,279 (7.0%)
Total Unemployed 8,061
Estimated Current (March, 2011) Unemployment Rate 46.9%

However, another source gives a very different view:

Labour Force, American Samoa Department of Commerce, 2016, retrieved 20 August 2018
Subject	2010	2005	2000
Number of people 16 yrs. & over	34,767	39,460	33,945
In labour force	18,387	23,650	17,664
Labour force as percent of people 16 years and over	63.0%	59.9%	52.0%
Civilian labour force	18,300	23,650	17,627
Employed	16,616	21,290	16,718
Also did subsistence activity	1,614	-	2,904
Unemployed	1,684	2,360	909
Unemployed as percent of civilian labor force	9.2%	10.0%	5.2%
Armed Forces	87	-	37
Not in labor force	16,380	15,810	16,281
Subsistence activity only	633	-	2,276

Current Employment Estimates, American Samoa Department of Commerce, 2016, retrieved 20 August 2018
Labour force status	2011	2010	2009	2008	2007	2006	2005	2004	2003	2002	2001
Total Employment	18,028	18,862	14,108	16,990	17,047	17,395	17,344	17,354	17,407	17,230	17,113
Total Government	6,177	6,782	6,004	6,035	6,052	5,894	6,064	5,754	5,621	5,397	5,283

General Government	4,703	5,226	4,486	4,610	4,680	4,494	4,672	4,325	4,312	4,187	4,134
American Samoa Telecommunication Authority	185	195	163	160	162	171	172	166	166	159	156
LBJ Tropical Medical Center Authority	482	594	588	534	587	559	580	598	570	555	540
American Samoa Power Authority	457	446	458	428	403	409	394	374	330	281	250
American Samoa Community College	350	321	309	303	220	261	246	291	243	215	203

Canneries	1,815	1,553	1,562	4,861	4,633	4,757	4,546	4,600	5,036	5,133	5,230
Other/Private Sector	10,036	10,527	6,542	6,094	6,362	6,744	6,734	7,000	6,750	6,700	6,600

-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria

Unemployment in nigeria 105.112.154.155 (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asterisks

What is the purpose of having an asterisk behind almost every listing? It would make more sense to specify in text, and then to highlight exceptions as needed. Greenman (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of countries by unemployment rate

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of countries by unemployment rate's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Istat":

From Economy of Italy: "Poverty in Italy" (PDF). National Institute of Statistics. Retrieved 1 December 2016.
From Population growth: "Monthly demographic balance: January–November 2010" (PDF) (in Italian). Istat. 28 March 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 July 2012. Retrieved 2 April 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]