Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: employment
Oh, I have followed this thread a bit, sorry, there is so much email. Melvin makes a fabulous analysis because he points out the opening of a positive space in which opposition to capital can occupy, both in theory and in reality. He has identified fertile ground on which an alternative economy can be built. But that is not what you are talking about here. Statistics are marginally useful at best. I think we are all saying some version of that. You are absolutely right, academics need to 'step outside (y)our lives to where the neighborhood changes.' Lisa on 10/10/2002 11:36 PM, Carrol Cox at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: lisa stolarski wrote: Actually Carrol, I think in Melvin's theory the technically unemployed and under employed play a significant role in revolution. It was really fascinating, you should read it if you have not already. Many sectors of the working class play (will play) a significant role in revolutionary struggle. But (a) it can't be predicted in advance _what_ sectors at a given time and place and (b) the quarrel over _statistics_ is a purely academic matter, and making a fuss over it on a left maillist is mere distraction. Unemployment counts _politically_ on the spot where it occurs, and counts only as local political activity can involve the unemployed in political struggle. What the hell relevance to _that_ is whether government staticians are honest or not? Too often I get the feeling that marxists who, whether through their own choices or through external forces beyond their control, have been isolated from political struggle get to playing mind games: merely trying to prove that capitalism is bad. Of course it is. That is our point of departure. Now what? Carrol
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: employment
On 10/10/2002 1:54 AM, Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thiago Oppermann: 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. ... there's another, related, issue: any given unemployment rate tends to have more oomph these days in the U.S. than it used to, in terms of protecting profits and detering inflation. This fact might be captured by noting that unemployment is only one part of the cost of job loss (a concept developed by Julie Schor and Sam Bowles). For example, the cost of job loss is larger for any given unemployment rate if the availability of unemployment insurance is lower. (cf. Schor, Juliet. 1987. Class Struggle and the Macroeconomy: The Cost of Job Loss. In Robert Cherry et al., eds. The Imperiled Economy, Book I: Macroeconomics from a Left Perspective. New York: URPE.) JD Thank you for the reference, I'll be sure to read it. This is a rather out of my school (that being Melanesian anthropology), but to me it seems that there also is an issue here about what it means to be unemployed these days. It doesn't necessarily mean one is not working: here in Oz we have these hare- brained and politically expedient work-for-the-dole schemes; there are also whole communities which are pulled together by pensioned activists. From a fairly totalising social perspective, are these people's labours so different from those of someone on a state payroll? As unemployment controls become ever more draconian and people are forced to 'volunteer' in ever larger numbers, unemployment could become the labour relations version of parole, although at some point, I suppose, it must all go a wee bit Speenhamland... Thiago - This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au
Re: Re: Re: RE: employment
lisa stolarski wrote: Actually Carrol, I think in Melvin's theory the technically unemployed and under employed play a significant role in revolution. It was really fascinating, you should read it if you have not already. Many sectors of the working class play (will play) a significant role in revolutionary struggle. But (a) it can't be predicted in advance _what_ sectors at a given time and place and (b) the quarrel over _statistics_ is a purely academic matter, and making a fuss over it on a left maillist is mere distraction. Unemployment counts _politically_ on the spot where it occurs, and counts only as local political activity can involve the unemployed in political struggle. What the hell relevance to _that_ is whether government staticians are honest or not? Too often I get the feeling that marxists who, whether through their own choices or through external forces beyond their control, have been isolated from political struggle get to playing mind games: merely trying to prove that capitalism is bad. Of course it is. That is our point of departure. Now what? Carrol
Re: Re: Re: RE: employment
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose that what interests me in this discussion is not the question of the political significance of the third digit right of the point, but rather that of the social role of different kinds of unemployment and near-unemployment. Correct! But that is determined through political struggle, not by academic spats over (as you say) the third digit to the right of the point. I'm concerned that too many maillist denizens come to think that winning an argument on a maillist has anything to do with winning political struggles. Carrol
RE: Re: Re: Re: employment
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31131] Re: Re: Re: employment Thiago Oppermann: 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. ... there's another, related, issue: any given unemployment rate tends to have more oomph these days in the U.S. than it used to, in terms of protecting profits and detering inflation. This fact might be captured by noting that unemployment is only one part of the cost of job loss (a concept developed by Julie Schor and Sam Bowles). For example, the cost of job loss is larger for any given unemployment rate if the availability of unemployment insurance is lower. (cf. Schor, Juliet. 1987. Class Struggle and the Macroeconomy: The Cost of Job Loss. In Robert Cherry et al., eds. The Imperiled Economy, Book I: Macroeconomics from a Left Perspective. New York: URPE.) JD
Re: Re: Re: Re: employment
Nice post, Lou, except for the personal dig at the end. I remember when the New Republic was my fave. Kopkind and Ridgeway were great. On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 06:26:18PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: I guess that a different kind of left is being described here than the one that existed in historical reality. I am working my way through an extended study of the life and writings of John Reed. If you look at the period after 1917, the amount of bickering that goes on in these email lists is pale by comparison. In Reds, the battles between the SP, and rival CP's led by John Reed (Warren Beatty) and Louis Fraina (Paul Sorvino) routinely ended in fisticuffs. And these were parties that had relatively mass working class followings. I think the complaints heard here frequently to the effect of why can't we all get along presumes that we are equal partners in the disputes taking place. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Nation Magazine, the Boston Globe, the LA Weekly, etc., where all the attacks on the radical wing of the left are taking place, are *mass* circulation print publications. I suppose that some people would be happy if I ignored these attacks, but that ! is! not in my nature. As Ravi pointed out, he never had an ill thought about Marc Cooper until he lashed out at Amy Goodman. Same thing is true for me. I used to donate hundreds of dollars to the Nation in the 1980s when the magazine was publishing strong articles against intervention in Central America. Marc Cooper was one of my favorite Nation Magazine writers. I still remember his penetrating analysis of post-Pinochet Chile. Same is true of Hitchens. But things have changed. Since the mid 1990s at least, the magazine has shifted to the right. Unfortunately, there is no opportunity to answer it adequately in the letters section. Even Edward Herman had an article trimmed. So, too bad, folks. If you want me to stop answering items that hammer the radical movement, use your powers of persuasion on Doug Henwood to convince him to tell his colleagues at the Nation to stop lacerating people who think like me. This is a case of self-defense and nothing less. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: Re: employment
Devine, James wrote: Please don't tell me what I think. did you hear the one about the two behaviourists who were having sex? at the end of the steamy session, one of them said to the other it was good for you. was it good for me?. most of the time i couldn't even tell what you write, thanks to that tiny font ;-). but thanks to a new feature in mozilla, which strips away htmlization from email, i can read your messages again! as for employment, i am glad the money from aol/tw is able to sustain the good programmers at netscape/mozilla! (there, i made the post on-topic). --ravi
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31048] Re: RE: Re: Re: employment ravi: did you hear the one about the two behaviourists who were having sex? at the end of the steamy session, one of them said to the other it was good for you. was it good for me?. -- no, one would say: my behavior clearly reinforced your behavior, because you did it again and again. Did your behavior reinforce mine? most of the time i couldn't even tell what you write, thanks to that tiny font ;-). but thanks to a new feature in mozilla, which strips away htmlization from email, i can read your messages again! as for employment, i am glad the money from aol/tw is able to sustain the good programmers at netscape/mozilla! (there, i made the post on-topic). I wish I could fix the damn font. The IS people are useless. JD
Re: RE: Re: Re: employment
Devine, James wrote: OK fellas, I am going to imagine what Sabri could have meant. JD's are not the the only perspectives on how we can treat statistics, government or otherwise. Yes, even statistics are subject to perspective, numbers may be objective but their presentation has its purposes. Here are some alternative attitudes about statistics which arise from my own experiences: * we can recognize that statistics can be manipulated in order to shape public opinion... * we can realize that the government has its own agenda and that the statistics the government releases and the way those statistics are handled will reflect that agenda. * we can realize that statistics don't mean much when the point is to build a better world beginning with your own here and now. ... --- you're saying that I didn't recognize all of this? Please don't tell me what I think. Yeah, me either. There's this extremely annoying habit in left discourse (cue to Carrol Cox to say that the left doesn't exist) that requires you to invoke a whole set of positions and pieties, and failure to include them in every statement is a sign that you're ignorant, insensitive, or straying from the fold. The hell with that. Doug
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment
Don't we see the same thing in every anti-war statement? X is a very bad person. I don't support X, but . On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 11:23:05AM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: There's this extremely annoying habit in left discourse (cue to Carrol Cox to say that the left doesn't exist) that requires you to invoke a whole set of positions and pieties, and failure to include them in every statement is a sign that you're ignorant, insensitive, or straying from the fold. The hell with that. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment
Michael Perelman wrote: Don't we see the same thing in every anti-war statement? X is a very bad person. I don't support X, but . No, it's not the same. X (= Saddam, Slobo, etc.) generally is a very bad person. I was at an antiwar demo - a very good, inspiring one - in NYC just the other day where you heard very little of that in fact. Look at the shit Marc Cooper takes from people busily policing left ideological boundaries. There are American leftists - I won't name names, for the sake of amity - who spend more time denouncing him and The Nation magazine than they do actually engaging with American politics. It's self-marginalizing and stupid. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment
Look at the shit Marc Cooper takes from people busily policing left ideological boundaries. There are American leftists - I won't name names, for the sake of amity - who spend more time denouncing him and The Nation magazine than they do actually engaging with American politics. It's self-marginalizing and stupid. Doug This is topsy-turvy. Most of the policing of left ideological boundaries have in fact come from Nation Magazine contributors like Doug, Liza Featherstone, Eric Alterman and Marc Cooper. (And Christopher Hitchens before his mutation was complete, like Jeff Goldblum in The Fly. Has anybody seen Hitch walking across the ceiling yet? Wouldn't surprise me at all.) In a series of articles in the Nation and other venues like LA Weekly, these folks have attacked elements of the anti-war movement over and over again. They don't like the ISO. They don't like Ramsey Clark. They don't like apologists for all those icky people who end up in the gunsights of US imperialism. Meanwhile, the WWP, the ISO and other groups out there organizing people scarcely pay attention to this kind of attack. However, I do pay attention and plan to continue to answer the Marc Coopers of the world on the Internet, as is my democratic right. Michael Perelman might be uncomfortable when I express myself democratically, but I don't plan to ease up any time soon. This is an ongoing debate on the left and since giving an adequate answer to Cooper in the pages of the letters section of the LA Weekly or Alterman in the Nation is about as likely as winning the lottery, I intend to continue speaking my mind through email where I won't be censored. Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org
Re: RE: Re: Re: employment
Devine, James wrote: Paul, can you name a participant of pen-l who is fixated on a single number measuring the reserve army of the unemployed? See - we didn't invoke the standard litany, therefore we're either ignorant, insensitive, or on the verge of heresy. I'd laugh, but I care about this stuff, though sometimes I wonder why. Doug
Re: RE: Re: Re: employment
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:31057] RE: Re: Re: employment Date sent: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:06:30 -0700 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul, can you name a participant of pen-l who is fixated on a single number measuring the reserve army of the unemployed? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Well, I sure read a lot this past day on the list about THE unemployment rate and its defects and adjustments. Kind of looked like fixation to me. Paul
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31084] Re: RE: Re: Re: employment I wrote: Paul, can you name a participant of pen-l who is fixated on a single number measuring the reserve army of the unemployed? Paul responded: Well, I sure read a lot this past day on the list about THE unemployment rate and its defects and adjustments. Kind of looked like fixation to me. the number I cited included discouraged workers, which is not THE official unemployment rate. I prefer the kind of treatment that Dean Baker employs: he goes through all of the official stats in the BLS press releases and tries to draw out the implications. This discussion is pretty useless, not to mention involving too many messages. On the one hand, Doug and I think that official statistics such as the BLS-calculated unemployment rate --or the equivalent in Canada -- conveys some information that is useful to leftist economists; despite its obvious limitations, the official U rate isn't like Enron accounting. (Christian Gregory has lept on our mini-bandwagon, it seems.) On the other, people incorrectly believe that just because we use the U rate, (1) we think that this is the _only_ statistic we think is relevant to understanding labor-power markets or (2) that we aren't familiar with the limitations of the statistic. Maybe there are people who think bourgeois statistics are nothing but propaganda, and thus should be avoided, though no-one has said so. I think Ian said the right thing in an off-list discussion: The BLS stats are solid as far as they go; it's the norms and behaviors that lead to unemployment that concern us far more than the stats. regarding unemployment, no? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment
Did I say that you were insensitive and did not concern yourself with the context of the unemployment rate? -- a rate which I use every day in my labour and economic problems classes, btw. Nor was I responding to either Doug or Jim's posts but to Sabri's lament. Every month when the U rate is published the local newspapers and media stations phone me up to ask what is the significance and what does the most recent .1 change in the rate mean for the future of mankind. I spend half an hour every time explaining the measurement and meaning of the rate and what other data one needs (discouraged workers, participation rates, part-time and contingent employment, age/sex structure of jobs, etc.) without which one can not make any sense out of even fairly large changes in the U rate. I know Doug and Jim are not fixated by the single rate -- but the public and the media tend to be, as do an unfortunately large number of mainstream economists. I wish Doug and Jim wouldn't take any criticism of othodox statistics and the way that they are defined or the way they are perceived in the media, the political arena and by the media as a personal attack on themselves. This was neither in the post nor intended and I don't appreciate being damned as a dissident leftist because others don't read carefully the posts to see what is really being said. Paul Phillips Date sent: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 14:04:06 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:31077] Re: RE: Re: Re: employment Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Devine, James wrote: Paul, can you name a participant of pen-l who is fixated on a single number measuring the reserve army of the unemployed? See - we didn't invoke the standard litany, therefore we're either ignorant, insensitive, or on the verge of heresy. I'd laugh, but I care about this stuff, though sometimes I wonder why. Doug
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment
But Jim, As my last post pointed out, when I responded to Sabri's original post your whole discussion about the problems and additions to the U rate was not being considered. My original post was in response to someone (not you) suggesting that because the figures on registered unemployment were much higher than for survey unemployment, the figures for survey unemployment were deliberately meant to undermeasure unemployment. My point was that they were not measuring the same thing and there is good reason for the difference. I know you and Doug know the meaning and limitations of the unemployment rate and are concerned with the income distribution issues that are affected by unemployment and nowhere have I every said or suggested you don't. I was saying that I understand Sabri's sadness if it is because he believes that most public discussion about unemployment abstracts from the reality and fixates upon the number -- and that makes me equally sad, eh! And that is the last I am going to say on this issue. Paul From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' pen- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:31088] RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment Date sent: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 12:05:55 -0700 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wrote: Paul, can you name a participant of pen-l who is fixated on a single number measuring the reserve army of the unemployed? Paul responded: Well, I sure read a lot this past day on the list about THE unemployment rate and its defects and adjustments. Kind of looked like fixation to me. the number I cited included discouraged workers, which is not THE official unemployment rate. I prefer the kind of treatment that Dean Baker employs: he goes through all of the official stats in the BLS press releases and tries to draw out the implications. This discussion is pretty useless, not to mention involving too many messages. On the one hand, Doug and I think that official statistics such as the BLS-calculated unemployment rate --or the equivalent in Canada -- conveys some information that is useful to leftist economists; despite its obvious limitations, the official U rate isn't like Enron accounting. (Christian Gregory has lept on our mini-bandwagon, it seems.) On the other, people incorrectly believe that just because we use the U rate, (1) we think that this is the _only_ statistic we think is relevant to understanding labor-power markets or (2) that we aren't familiar with the limitations of the statistic. Maybe there are people who think bourgeois statistics are nothing but propaganda, and thus should be avoided, though no-one has said so. I think Ian said the right thing in an off-list discussion: The BLS stats are solid as far as they go; it's the norms and behaviors that lead to unemployment that concern us far more than the stats. regarding unemployment, no? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: employment
Doug, don't be mad, just say yes, yes, perhaps I took that point for granted when I made this other point. Sometime people just want to point the qualitative stuff out. We are all on the same side here, there is so much work to do. I hope the list won't crumble over this. Lisa S on 10/08/2002 1:59 PM, Doug Henwood at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I understand a little of what Sabri is getting at -- the intellectual and accepting way we look at the statistics -- seeing them as economic factorum and not as poor, suffering people. And who the hell isn't saying that? Is this is the best progressive economists can do? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment
Doug is only gone temoporarily.I don't think attacking him or Liza is appropriate here. I wish that Doug had not brought up Cooper. I agree with Lou that the policing does no good. On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 01:58:02PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: Look at the shit Marc Cooper takes from people busily policing left ideological boundaries. There are American leftists - I won't name names, for the sake of amity - who spend more time denouncing him and The Nation magazine than they do actually engaging with American politics. It's self-marginalizing and stupid. Doug This is topsy-turvy. Most of the policing of left ideological boundaries have in fact come from Nation Magazine contributors like Doug, Liza Featherstone, Eric Alterman and Marc Cooper. (And Christopher Hitchens before his mutation was complete, like Jeff Goldblum in The Fly. Has anybody seen Hitch walking across the ceiling yet? Wouldn't surprise me at all.) In a series of articles in the Nation and other venues like LA Weekly, these folks have attacked elements of the anti-war movement over and over again. They don't like the ISO. They don't like Ramsey Clark. They don't like apologists for all those icky people who end up in the gunsights of US imperialism. Meanwhile, the WWP, the ISO and other groups out there organizing people scarcely pay attention to this kind of attack. However, I do pay attention and plan to continue to answer the Marc Coopers of the world on the Internet, as is my democratic right. Michael Perelman might be uncomfortable when I express myself democratically, but I don't plan to ease up any time soon. This is an ongoing debate on the left and since giving an adequate answer to Cooper in the pages of the letters section of the LA Weekly or Alterman in the Nation is about as likely as winning the lottery, I intend to continue speaking my mind through email where I won't be censored. Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: Re: employment
Come on, let's cool it with the personalities. On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 12:37:06AM +0100, Mark Jones wrote: ravi wrote: i hope doug does not find me in the list of those he finds unreasonable. whether it be my general responses to his posts, or to the particular issue of marc cooper (and i agree that we should avoid discussing personalities), i have tried to be honest and friendly. if that impression is untrue, i apologize. Doug Henwood's emails are full of words about his extreme annoyance, anger, frustration, irritation etc; all of that is humiliating and insulting to his possible interlocutors. It also looks like a cry for help, it's not even repressed rage any more, but open and in-your-face anger and capriciousness. There is no need to apologise. Doug is or was a psychoanalyst, wasn't he? He ought to recognise some warning signs. Probably his Oedipal struggle with the patriarchal Gods of socialism will soon be over, he will slough off that skin and re-emerge as the rock-ribbed repug he really is. Will they still have him though? That's the problem. After all, he already was a repug, long ago before imagining that he was of the left after all. Maybe he upset a few people during his commute up and down the Damascus road and now they don't want him either. Mark -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: employment
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]
Re: Re: RE: Re: employment
And, fevered claims to the contrary, they're not cooked by Enron-style accountancy. The people who collect and process the U.S. jobs data are honest, competent professionals. If anything, the political sympathies of BLS employees are slightly to the left of center. Doug I don't have time to delve into this question in any depth, but a five minute search on Lexis-Nexis turned up the following: The Gazette (Montreal), September 15, 1994, Thursday, FINAL EDITION U.S. jobless rate is much higher than commonly thought In his column, Main problem in Quebec is the government itself, (Gazette, Sept. 8), Jay Bryan states that there isn't any excuse for our unemployment rate, 10.2 per cent in July 1994, to be nearly twice as high as that of the United States. Like so many others, Bryan appears to have been misled by the official U.S. employment figures, which commonly peg the American unemployment rate at somewhere around 6.4 per cent. U.S. unemployment figures are determined by polls, whereas most other nations use the number of persons actually registered as unemployed. The American means of determining unemployment levels is so inaccurate that both the U.S. Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics consider the official figures to be grossly inexact; in fact, their calculations led them to conclude that the real unemployment rate in the U.S., as of the end of 1993, is 12.47 per cent. Even the American Express Bank considers the official figures inaccurate and itself calculated a U.S. rate of unemployment of 9.3 per cent. Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: employment
I don't think that there is a contradiction between Doug and Lou. There are criticism's about the method of calculating unemployment -- the discouraged workers being excluded. But such matters are transparent, not the result of skulduggery. On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 05:21:30PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: And, fevered claims to the contrary, they're not cooked by Enron-style accountancy. The people who collect and process the U.S. jobs data are honest, competent professionals. If anything, the political sympathies of BLS employees are slightly to the left of center. Doug I don't have time to delve into this question in any depth, but a five minute search on Lexis-Nexis turned up the following: The Gazette (Montreal), September 15, 1994, Thursday, FINAL EDITION U.S. jobless rate is much higher than commonly thought In his column, Main problem in Quebec is the government itself, (Gazette, Sept. 8), Jay Bryan states that there isn't any excuse for our unemployment rate, 10.2 per cent in July 1994, to be nearly twice as high as that of the United States. Like so many others, Bryan appears to have been misled by the official U.S. employment figures, which commonly peg the American unemployment rate at somewhere around 6.4 per cent. U.S. unemployment figures are determined by polls, whereas most other nations use the number of persons actually registered as unemployed. The American means of determining unemployment levels is so inaccurate that both the U.S. Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics consider the official figures to be grossly inexact; in fact, their calculations led them to conclude that the real unemployment rate in the U.S., as of the end of 1993, is 12.47 per cent. Even the American Express Bank considers the official figures inaccurate and itself calculated a U.S. rate of unemployment of 9.3 per cent. Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: employment
Michael Perelman wrote: I don't think that there is a contradiction between Doug and Lou. There are criticism's about the method of calculating unemployment -- the discouraged workers being excluded. But such matters are transparent, not the result of skulduggery. On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 05:21:30PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: And, fevered claims to the contrary, they're not cooked by Enron-style accountancy. The people who collect and process the U.S. jobs data are honest, competent professionals. If anything, the political sympathies of BLS employees are slightly to the left of center. Doug I don't have time to delve into this question in any depth, but a five minute search on Lexis-Nexis turned up the following: Well, damn, I only spend my life with this stuff, so I guess I'm at a disadvantage not having just done a five minute Lexis search. The reason we know how many discouraged workers there are - and how many people are classified as not in labor force - want job now (BLS series ID LFS7300) - is because the BLS counts them and publishes the data regularly. Ditto part time for economic reasons, other measures of marginal labor force attachment, and the employment/population ratio. Doug
RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: employment
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31008] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: employment Michael Perelman: I don't think that there is a contradiction between Doug and Lou. There are criticism's about the method of calculating unemployment -- the discouraged workers being excluded. The BLS currently calculates an unemployment rate that includes discouraged workers. In fact, I cited it in my previous missive on this subject. But such matters are transparent, not the result of skulduggery. Even if the estimates are totally wrong, there is no way that the BLS could hide the rise of unemployment. Unless, that is, they changed the definition of unemployment. This is something the Thatcherites did again and again, but in the US, it's only been done once: the Reaganauts decided that domestically-stationed U.S. military personnel should be counted as employed to lower the unemployment rate. This didn't have much effect and the attempt was eventually abandoned. This doesn't say that it won't be tried again, though. I guess an alternative method would be to tell the BLS samplers to be sloppy. But if that happened, it would come out pretty quickly. It's not like corporate finance, where it's easy to fudge if one has a captive board of directors and auditors. JD
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: employment
There are some minor differences in the definition/determination of the rate of unemployment in the various western, industrial countries. Canada's definition (I'm not sure exactly what the difference is) results in a rate that is slightly higher than the US definition, but most conform to the ILO definition which does not include the registered unemployed which greatly inflates the unemployment rate -- I think because it includes all those who register who want to change jobs and for other reasons. For instance, the Slovenian rate using the ILO method (similar to the US and Canadian method) is in the low 7% range, but using the registered method is in the 13-14% range. The ILO method is done by a labour force survey -- a sample survey of x number of households over a sample week. There is one problem in that workers are considered 'employed' if they work one hour per week. However, at least in Canada, we have statistics on the number of 'involuntary part-time' which allows for a truer estimate of unemployment and underemployment. (My estimates, for instance, show that in the late 90s, female unemployment was slightly higher than male unemployment due to involuntary part- time employment, whereas the basic statistic shows female unemployment slightly lower than male unemployment.) Also, the labour force survey also gives the numbers for discouraged workers so it is possible to correct the figures. Nevertheless, it should be noted that these corrections don't make *huge* changes in the reported rates, nothing comparable to the differences between the survey method and the 'registered' method. i.e. if the survey unemployment is 7%, the 'corrected' (for discouraged and involuntary part-time) rate will be ~ 10% compared with a registered rate of 14%. In any case, all countries adjusted rates tend to move together. Nevertheless, there are some differences in definition that make the published US rates lower than in other countries. My understanding is, however, that this is only a fraction of a per cent. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba Date sent: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:39:46 -0700 From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:31008] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: employment Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I don't think that there is a contradiction between Doug and Lou. There > are criticism's about the method of calculating unemployment -- the > discouraged workers being excluded. But such matters are transparent, not > the result of skulduggery. > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 05:21:30PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: > > > > >And, fevered claims to the contrary, they're not cooked by Enron-style > > >accountancy. The people who collect and process the U.S. jobs data are > > >honest, competent professionals. If anything, the political sympathies of > > >BLS employees are slightly to the left of center. > > > > > >Doug > > > > I don't have time to delve into this question in any depth, but a five > > minute search on Lexis-Nexis turned up the following: > > > > The Gazette (Montreal), September 15, 1994, Thursday, FINAL EDITION > > > > U.S. jobless rate is much higher than commonly thought > > > > In his column, "Main problem in Quebec is the government itself," (Gazette, > > Sept. 8), Jay Bryan states that there isn't any excuse for our unemployment > > rate, 10.2 per cent in July 1994, to be nearly twice as high as that of the > > United States. > > > > Like so many others, Bryan appears to have been misled by the official U.S. > > employment figures, which commonly peg the American unemployment rate at > > somewhere around 6.4 per cent. U.S. unemployment figures are determined by > > polls, whereas most other nations use the number of persons actually > > registered as unemployed. > > > > The American means of determining unemployment levels is so inaccurate that > > both the U.S. Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, and the U.S. Bureau of > > Labor Statistics consider the official figures to be grossly inexact; in > > fact, their calculations led them to conclude that the real unemployment > > rate in the U.S., as of the end of 1993, is 12.47 per cent. > > > > Even the American Express Bank considers the official figures inaccurate > > and itself calculated a U.S. rate of unemployment of 9.3 per cent. > > > > > > > > > > Louis Proyect > > www.marxmail.org > > > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
