--- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't agree with that theory. > > Charles J writes: > > I have no doubt that the US's extremely large > > jail populations and active duty military > help > > keep unemployment quite a bit lower than if > the > > US fit the OECD pattern in these areas. It > > doesn't, not by a long shot. Especially in > the > > prison pop. > > imprisonment and the draft, among other things, > lower the U rate. However, I > was rejecting the "natural" rate hypothesis, > not the idea that imprisonment > lowers U.
Sorry, JD, my quote of you got cut off. I reject the hypothesis, too, btw. > > > > But the main > > > point is that this comment > > > pointed out a strange combination of > opinions > > > floating on the list. On the > > > one hand, some people criticized the > official U > > > rate because it doesn't > > > capture the full experience of unemployed > > > workers. I said it wasn't designed > > > to do so (and shouldn't be interpreted as > doing > > > so). But at a popular level, that is how it is often used. I and some others objected that it isn't just misused statistics but misused concepts. It was suggested that > > > this view implied reductionism. On the > other > > > hand, other people _want_ to > > > create a single index number that captures > all > > > of the experience of > > > unemployed workers. I don't think this is > > > possible. I don't think so either. But as Michael and others have offered, it could certainly be done better. Having a few numbers > > > might help, but even those would miss the > whole > > > picture. Statistics can > > > help, but they're not the whole story. Statistics are often the whole story gone wrong. First, the data are not always as CLEAN as people think. I see this in education all the time, where this or that number are excluded so the researchers can say their distribution is normal. But the fact is, teachers don't get to exclude individuals just because they would skew a population. Moreover, not only do stats get misused, but quite often they are used to disguise incoherent conceptualizations underlying the research. Such as the example I brought up about 'phonemic awareness' research and how it has been translated into billions being spent on phonemic awareness training for kids who don't need it. For one thing, if the concept of the 'phoneme' is just a structuralist abstraction, who has ever convincingly shown it has any psychological reality whatsoever? No one has. Many linguists have just dropped any discussion of the topic as nonsense. > > Charles: > > You have to understand no one person controls > > what gets said in a conversation or > discussion. > > So to hold the whole list responsible for > what > > one person thinks at one point in time is > > ridiculous. > > heck, I wasn't holding the list responsible. > Rather, by pointing out an > inconsistency, I was saying "lets you and him > fight." I don't think it was an inconsistency in any one mind, nor do I think it a rationale for an argument--though maybe some do. > > > True, I have myself been ridiculous > > on more than one occasion. > > say it ain't so! O.K., I just said that to sound humble. > > > I think also you have to understand the basic > > mistrust of gov't stats. If the gov't > compiles > > these to lie and mislead on so many other > things, > > why then should we trust their approach to > > unemployment. Again, how rational is it to > say, > > Here is our unemployment figure, multiply by > two > > and you are getting close to the real number > of > > people kept out of full-time employment? > > > > Just what were the stats designed for? They > > certainly haven't evolved in some organic > > relationship to the actual > > employment/unemployment picture of the > current > > US. > > you're right to suspect the gov't, but the > powers that be find a value in > having some sort of measure of unemployment. As > unemployment falls, ceteris > paribus, the profit rate rises, because falling > U is associated with higher > rates of capacity utilization (greater profit > realization). Many capitalists > like this, among other things because they want > to avoid being purged from > the market. But if U falls _too far_, suddenly, > the motivation to work is > undermined, worker bargaining power rises, > etc., so that either > profitability is squeezed or inflation results. You make it sound like data on unemployment are kept for a theory about employment and profits and inflation. This is why economists are interested in it, but it is not the social cause of the phenomena supposedly being measured. At a microeconomic level, the best way to boost productivity is simply to fire a bunch of people and tell the fewer who remain they will meet deadlines and quotas. At least short term, this often does boost productivity. There is bundles to be saved in health care alone. I think a lot of this happened at the telecoms. They might have gone belly up because they took on too much debt and overinvested and bought out too many other companies. But it would seem a lot of companies remade themselves so much through downsizing of employees they institutionally forgot what it is they were supposed to be doing (which was a lot of different things understood and done by a lot of different people working together). > The policy elite wants to > avoid the "too far" part. One way to do this > is to have reasonable measures > of U. (This is less important to the elites of > countries of economies in > which foreign trade is much more important than > in the U.S. or can't afford > decent statistics, etc.) And many of us didn't find the means used very reasonable at all. As I said, the data aren't as clean orcomplete as assumed. And more problematically, the concepts are misconceived. > > I have likely attributed too much consciousness > to the power elite, but they > act as if the above were so. In any event, > examinations of the minutes of > the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee by > Tom Dickens indicate that they > are quite conscious of the class dimension. No doubt. But that doesn't mean they have a clue about real unemployment. C Jannuzi __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
