Jim Devine writes,
>It's better to have some idea than to have no idea at all
>about these questions. Do we just throw up our hands (or simply
>throw up?) and say that one can't say _definitely_ that
>unemployment in the US is lower now than it was in 1933?
I agree with much of what Jim says. And I'm all for having "some idea rather
than no idea at all." But, having some idea is not the same as being able to
say _definitely_ that unemployment in the US is lower now than it was in 1933.
My own "definite" sense that unemployment was higher in 1933 comes from the
mass of anecdotal evidence, not from comparison of the U rates (and I'll bet
Jim's does, too). I frankly wouldn't know where to begin to compare the
differences in data collection methods, definitions of unemployment, level
of participation in market vs. subsistence economy etc. No, I have to
correct myself, I *would* know where to begin -- by listing all of the
substantive social-historical differences I could find and then trying to
find anecdotal evidence that might allow me to interpret the data in such a
way that I could make a reasonably confident comparison.
At the end of such a process, I might well want to present the results in a
table comparing the (now highly qualified and possibly 'adjusted') "rates"
of unemployment. For me, that would be more of a rhetorical practice
(presenting information in a way that might be intelligible to my audience)
than a scientific one. The scientific practice would involve making the
distinctions between methods of data collection, etc., etc.
I don't object at all to comparing "rates of unemployment" provided the
numbers are embedded in a discussion of how the measurement has been arrived
at and what it does and doesn't reveal. What I object to is the comparison
of rates in the abstract. And, IN ABSTRACTION, there is no comparing the
1933 rate of unemployment and the 1997 one. Nor is there any comparing the
1943 labour force participation rate and that of 1997. Such comparisons are
no more meaningful than would be a "literary" evaluation that simply counts
the number of words in a book. As H.L. Menckin said, "Which words? In what
order?"
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
knoW Ware Communications |
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | does life unfold as fate."
(604) 669-3286 |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
