Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: employment

[phillp2]

There are some minor differences in the definition/determination of the rate of unemployment in the various western, industrial countries. Canada's definition (I'm not sure exactly what the difference is) results in a rate that is slightly higher than the US definition, but most conform to the ILO definition which does not include the registered unemployed which greatly inflates the unemployment rate -- I think because it includes all those who register who want to change jobs and for other reasons. For instance, the Slovenian rate using the ILO method (similar to the US and Canadian method) is in the low 7% range, but using the registered method is in the 13-14% range. The ILO method is done by a labour force survey -- a sample survey of x number of households over a sample week. There is one problem in that workers are considered 'employed' if they work one hour per week. However, at least in Canada, we have statistics on the number of 'involuntary part-time' which allows for a truer estimate of unemployment and underemployment. (My estimates, for instance, show that in the late 90s, female unemployment was slightly higher than male unemployment due to involuntary part- time employment, whereas the basic statistic shows female unemployment slightly lower than male unemployment.) Also, the labour force survey also gives the numbers for discouraged workers so it is possible to correct the figures. Nevertheless, it should be noted that these corrections don't make *huge* changes in the reported rates, nothing comparable to the differences between the survey method and the 'registered' method. i.e. if the survey unemployment is 7%, the 'corrected' (for discouraged and involuntary part-time) rate will be ~ 10% compared with a registered rate of 14%. In any case, all countries adjusted rates tend to move together. Nevertheless, there are some differences in definition that make the published US rates lower than in other countries. My understanding is, however, that this is only a fraction of a per cent.

Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba

Date sent: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:39:46 -0700
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:31008] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: employment
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> I don't think that there is a contradiction between Doug and Lou. There
> are criticism's about the method of calculating unemployment -- the
> discouraged workers being excluded. But such matters are transparent, not
> the result of skulduggery.
>
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 05:21:30PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote:
> >
> > >And, fevered claims to the contrary, they're not cooked by Enron-style
> > >accountancy. The people who collect and process the U.S. jobs data are
> > >honest, competent professionals. If anything, the political sympathies of
> > >BLS employees are slightly to the left of center.
> > >
> > >Doug
> >
> > I don't have time to delve into this question in any depth, but a five
> > minute search on Lexis-Nexis turned up the following:
> >
> > The Gazette (Montreal), September 15, 1994, Thursday, FINAL EDITION
> >
> > U.S. jobless rate is much higher than commonly thought
> >
> > In his column, "Main problem in Quebec is the government itself," (Gazette,
> > Sept. 8), Jay Bryan states that there isn't any excuse for our unemployment
> > rate, 10.2 per cent in July 1994, to be nearly twice as high as that of the
> > United States.
> >
> > Like so many others, Bryan appears to have been misled by the official U.S.
> > employment figures, which commonly peg the American unemployment rate at
> > somewhere around 6.4 per cent. U.S. unemployment figures are determined by
> > polls, whereas most other nations use the number of persons actually
> > registered as unemployed.
> >
> > The American means of determining unemployment levels is so inaccurate that
> > both the U.S. Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, and the U.S. Bureau of
> > Labor Statistics consider the official figures to be grossly inexact; in
> > fact, their calculations led them to conclude that the real unemployment
> > rate in the U.S., as of the end of 1993, is 12.47 per cent.
> >
> > Even the American Express Bank considers the official figures inaccurate
> > and itself calculated a U.S. rate of unemployment of 9.3 per cent.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Louis Proyect
> > www.marxmail.org
> >
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>