It's not snark. The survey uses the term "unemployed" but it is a different metric than the "unemployed" metric.
>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
The survey uses the term "unemployed" but it is a different metric than the "unemployed" metric.
I'm looking at the pdf you linked. I did a ctrl+f and couldn't find anything for "unemployed". I then searched for "employ" (in case there is some OCR bug) and the only hits I got were on a table that says "employment status" and the responses are "employed" or "not employed".
Can you point out where the survey uses the term "unemployed"?
>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?