Tom Walker wrote: >Well, gosh, I spend my life with this stuff, too as do the follks on the >unemployment statistics list. Michael Perelman is right. There isn't really >a contradiction between saying the methodology is flawed and the numbers are >misleading yet recognizing that the people who collect the data are honest >and well-intentioned.
But I also said that the agency produces additional numbers that give you a more accurate idea of what's going on under a better definition of unemployment. The unemployment rate is a measure of labor market slack, which is what employers care about. They want to know the state of the labor market and the limits on militancy. The reserve army is important but it doesn't enter immediately into the wage equation. That's why bourgeois governments define unemployment the way they do. But bourgeois governments are kind enough to produce enough additional statistics that tell you a lot of the rest of the story. It's silly to say they're Enronish, too. Doug
