I take the point about women, but my impression is that the mass shift of women into paid employment is over. Though it makes sense that fluctuations in household earnings would cause fluctuations in secondary earners into and out of the workforce.
The real question is which is the best measure in light of alternatives, not the imperfections of particular measures in isolation. Suppose you spread labor earnings over working-age persons. Then a drop in gross earnings that triggered more women into paid employment would not be taken as improved well-being. On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Max Sawicky wrote: >> Why not EPOP instead of ue rate? (ratio of employed to working-age pop). >> The denominator of the UE rate is too flaky.< > > I'd use several measures, including the EPOP and the UE rate, just as > the NBER looks at a variety of data in dating recessions and their > ends. > > One complaint I have with the EPOP is that its upward trend simply > represents the commoditization of labor-power (e.g., women leaving > predominantly domestic labor to go to paid labor) rather than what the > UE rate purports to measure, i.e., waste of human time. > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own > way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
