On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 12:58 -0700, Jim Devine wrote: > Laurent GUERBY wrote: > > Unemployment (as defined by economists) is not observable. > > so it doesn't exist? > > it may not be truly observable, but we can get a pretty good handle on > the amount of unemployment in an economy, especially if we're trying > to understand its changes over time. That is, the current official > unemployment rate of 6+ percent is bogus (in many ways that lefties > point to), but when the U rate rises (as of late) that says something > about the real situation in labor-power markets. This can be seen in > the fact that most if not all of the alternative measures of > unemployment are rising.
The street man definition of unemployment (100% minus employed divided by population) is perfectly observable. The economist definition is, as the data mentionned in the rest of my post implies, a total joke and is not observable. BTW, how do you explain the data in my previous post? Number of economist paper studying this discrepancy is zero. Explain why? And this is not a corner issue for policy and general well-being... Laurent PS: I posted this data in all the economists blog I know (and wikipedia where it's still present), after multiple repeat over a few years only one cared to answer: Dean Baker. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
