I suppose that what interests me in this discussion is not the question of the political significance of the third digit right of the point, but rather that of the social role of different kinds of unemployment and near-unemployment.
This fine-grain sociological picture is, in my decidedly amateurish opinion, a pretty important background against which to read the unemployment rate. Some time ago I worked as an R.A. in a 'social capital' project in a western Sydney suburb that had a >30% unemployment rate. It was an isolated area, removed from nearby suburbs and composed almost exclusively of Radburn-design public housing. In the early 90s the place was one of the most unpleasant suburbs in Australia, with extreme rates of crime and suicide, but though it is no picnic now, it has seen a marked improvement since. There are a host of community activities, a health centre, a vibrant social centre, and when I last went there last year, they were throwing about the idea of forming a coop and buying the shopping centre (which is currently run from the rich suburbs of North Sydney, and is dismal.) Much of the improvement is due to the tireless work of pensioned activists, retirees, long-term unemployed and disabled. It may be said that this only shows that people will make do when they must make do, but the point is that that observation is also made by the government and major charities, including our backers in the research project. They are very keen to work out just how people make do, partly in the hope that it can be induced in other areas, presumably offering a cheaper and more humane way of dealing with surplus people. In interviews with local business people, they mentioned the importance of supporting such efforts, knowing fully well that the costs of running a shop would be higher with greater crime rates. Hmm... now that I have written this I am not all that sure if it makes my point, but it's a nice story anyway... Thiago On 11/10/2002 9:34 AM, "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> "Devine, James" wrote: >> >> Thiago writes: >>> there also is an issue here about what it means to be unemployed >>> these days. It doesn't necessarily mean one is not working: [clip] >> >> I think it's useful to keep unemployment _per se_ (as with the >> official definitions) separate from these near-unemployments. > > I haven't followed this thread at all yet but have merely shuffled the > posts off into a separate Netscape folder for reading some other day. > But the fact that it has aroused passions is, in itself, an exhibition > of either bad political thinking or simply apolitical thinking. (As > almost every single post I have read on energy or ecology for the past > three years has been apolitical -- i.e., utterly detached from any > conception whatever of how the information provided could be embodied in > an actual mass working-class movement.) > > Unemployment figures prove nothing politically whatsoever, nor can it > make any political difference if those figures are correct or incorrect. > Endless agonizing and polemics over the correctness or incorrectness of > unemployment figures could only come (as Michael Hoover suggested) from > those who have been cut off (or never connected to) concrete political > practice. The result is that politics shrinks to the petty proportions > of winning or losing a rhetorical battle on a maillist. > > Carrol > ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au
