From: Laurent GUERBY <[email protected]>
Thanks Laurent. I agree with your radical critique of the article. Charles ^^^^^ USA men 25 to 54 old monthly unadjusted employment rate 1948-2009 graph from BLS serie LNU2300061: http://guerby.org/images/LNU02300061_20090918.gif March 2009 is a currently the postwar low point of this statistic with 81.2% employment rate and so a whopping 18.8% jobless rate in this category of population (and this is not counting people in jail). If we exclude part-time (strictly less than 35 hours per week) workers we get in march 2009 75.7% of this population with a full time job. So currently a quarter of the USA prime aged male are without a full time job, and a fifth without a job at all. A simple substraction "18.8 minus 9.7" gives you 9.1% of the prime aged males currently completely ignored by economists. "Serious" economists worrying (and betting) about single or double digit "unemployment" makes astrologues look quite good for fact-based reality-checking. Number of published econ papers on this 50 year and counting running discrepancy => zero Number of econ bloggers who did a note about this (I contacted more than twenty) => one (Angry Bear) "Progressive" economics well, I don't know what "progress" means... Laurent http://guerby.org/blog _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
