Then maybe it's time you look up how unemployment statistics are calculated in Switzerland and you will be surprised that you counted into them.
It's unclear to me how folks with a university education can make such simplistic statements.
It's unclear to me how folks with a university education can make such simplistic statements.
and
> It's unclear to me how folks with a university education can make such simplistic statements.
Do you even fact-check yourself before making specious claims[0][1]? You HAVE to be registered via RAV to be counted. Full stop.
0 - https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/work-income/...
1 - https://switzerlandhandbook.com/rav-and-unemployment-benefit...
The ILO-based statistics differ from what you cited and explicitly "encompasses all persons not employed and who are actively looking for and available for work, regardless of whether they are registered with a regional placement office. "
That doesn't match your definition and that's ok.
What do the ILO-based statistics have to do with original comment[0] that they are in Switzerland, unemployed, don't collect unemployment, and don't count towards Switzerland's specific-statistics as a result?
You mean the same exact domain in the first link I gave, which doesn't mention ILO, whatsoever? That `www.bfs.admin.ch`?
> Picking only the one that supports your argument...
It literally supports the argument for the original comment's statement. It's from the official governing body. What are you on about? If your complaint is that it disproves the statement, and they officially use ILO (doubtful but allowing for a comedy of errors) for their own statistics, your argument is with the governing body - not me. Correct?
Speaking of bad faith, why not show a modicum of effort on your part to reference any official documentation that Switzerland DOES use ILO in their own statistics? It comes across as the same specious approach used by vaccine conspiracy theorists, "...just trust me, bro, do your own research, you'll see...".
Not to criticise, but just to point out that this sentence doesn't quite make sense in English, and it's not immediately apparent what you mean. The sentence has to precisely opposed interpretations.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6a98091f-9550-83eb-b17e-c636ac3441...
First off the sentence simply doesn't make sense. Specifically 'you will be surprised that you counted into them.' I assume the commenter meant something like 'you will be surprised that you were included in those statistics. But it's highly ambiguous since 'you counted into them' isn't sensical.
Trying to parse it from context, they could be suggesting a reader would be surprised at how the statistics are calculated, at who is included, at who is not included, or at how similarly they are calculated when compared to other countries.
> The sentence has to precisely opposed interpretations.
Muphry's Law still holds true.
Because a "University Education" doesn't shield one from being ill informed, or simply wrong about a topic.
I mean, did you get 100% on every test? Well, then...