makes sense to me. On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 01:41:25PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 9/10/2002 12:49 PM, "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Wouldn't the quality of unemployment also be relevant? A rate of 1% where the > unemployed end up indentured to credit companies might be a lot worse than 5% > if they are free to enjoy productive unemployment. As the anarchists around > here put it, "unemployment for all, not just the rich!" > > Thiago Oppermann > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au >
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
