Michael:
> Several times in the past, I mentioned that the unemployment
> rate should
> include something to adjust for the quality of available
> jobs. My idea
> never resonated. I am sure that it could not be calculated with any
> exactitude, but I agree that an unemployment rate of 1% with everyone
> flipping burgers might not be better than a rate of 5% with
> better jobs.
I think that it's a mistake to try to shove too much information into the various U rates, to try to get it to be some measure of social illth. The quality-of-jobs issue can and should be measured in some other way. Both sets of numbers deserve our attention.
Hey, I said I was going to stop discussing this stuff, but it's one of my fields.
JD
