Did I say that you were insensitive and did not concern yourself with the context of the unemployment rate? -- a rate which I use every day in my labour and economic problems classes, btw. Nor was I responding to either Doug or Jim's posts but to Sabri's lament. Every month when the U rate is published the local newspapers and media stations phone me up to ask what is the significance and what does the most recent .1 change in the rate mean for the future of mankind. I spend half an hour every time explaining the measurement and meaning of the rate and what other data one needs (discouraged workers, participation rates, part-time and contingent employment, age/sex structure of jobs, etc.) without which one can not make any sense out of even fairly large changes in the U rate. I know Doug and Jim are not fixated by the single rate -- but the public and the media tend to be, as do an unfortunately large number of mainstream economists.
I wish Doug and Jim wouldn't take any criticism of othodox statistics and the way that they are defined or the way they are perceived in the media, the political arena and by the media as a personal attack on themselves. This was neither in the post nor intended and I don't appreciate being damned as a dissident leftist because others don't read carefully the posts to see what is really being said. Paul Phillips Date sent: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 14:04:06 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PEN-L:31077] Re: RE: Re: Re: employment Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Devine, James wrote: > > >Paul, can you name a participant of pen-l who is fixated on a single > >number measuring the reserve army of the unemployed? > > See - we didn't invoke the standard litany, therefore we're either > ignorant, insensitive, or on the verge of heresy. > > I'd laugh, but I care about this stuff, though sometimes I wonder why. > > Doug >
