So I sort of agree that there's a narrower version of employment that we should care about more than the top-line number. I'd define as maybe "households with at least one dependent under 20 and ~hours worked by household members." I would then break that down into several groups: fine (have healthcare, make enough to cover typical costs for their area, household works < 55 hours/week/adult, and can save 15% for retirement on a household basis), the struggling (make less than this, but work, or work > 55 hours/week/adult, but can cover housing and most basic expenses), and the hopeless (income too low to cover basic costs or not employed). IE If someone is working 60/hrs a week @ $10/hr, and has a kid, maybe not "unemployed" but IMO categorically, almost the same. Same thing if they just do gig work to net $20k/yr. Or are actually unemployed.

All that said, the main issue with the health insurance metric is that it would end up being a forcing function for the continued coupling of work and healthcare, which is bad and toxic.

Mhm. My fiancee had a 2 day stay at hospital (ER, admitted, discharged) that would have run her $58,000 if not for insurance.

Aaaaactually, it's the other way around: the insurance is the only reason it cost $58K.

Hah, also yes.

And then it's "negotiated" down to $15K.

And then, if you pay cash, are you going to pay a portion of what they would have "charged" the insurer? Or what they "negotiated" with the insurer?

Toss a coin!

There is an MLR (Medical Loss Ratio) rule; essentially, an insurer can keep 20% of premiums they collect. So in order to increase profits, they have to inflate premiums; in the end, 20% of $1,000 is much better than 20% of $100. And that's the reason hospitals charge $50 for an ibuprofen pill. There are other tricks like vertical integration (an insurance company owns a medical provider), quality improvements, etc... But in the end, it's an optimization game — max(users * premium_cost) — and that's why for-profit medicine/insurance sucks. (Now, spend 1% of all collected premiums for lobbing, to make sure the system keeps working lol).

But it generally is though. You have to be doing very well as a solo contractor to afford the 1k/mo for almost comparable marketplace insurance.

There is a divide here between "is" and "ought".

What "is", right now, leads us to the suggestion of int32_64, which would actually be a good metric to keep track of.

You are right about what "ought" to be, but until and unless we can get there, maybe we can at least base our information on what "is" in the moment, not on what we would like to be the case?

I think the parent agrees with you and that tracking uninsured rather than unemployed is a better view of the economy from the ground floor.

My metric for "fully employed" would be has a job, has health insurance and has enough money in savings to fully cover their out of pocket max. Could not be a barer minimum of survival.