Doug Henwood wrote:
> Well, yes, but what are we to make of this? >
> LFPR EPR U
> 1950 33.9 32.0 5.7
> 11/96 59.6 56.3 5.5
> change +25.7 +24.3 -0.2
>
> The discouragement/U effect may apply over the business cycle, but there's
> still been a massive increase in women working for pay.
>
> And how do we know all this? Because the BLS collected and published the data.
>
> Doug
Response:
Here we get to the heart of it. Take a few isolated and selected
stats and we "KNOW" about a multi-dimensional phenomenon? Take some
survey about attitudes of contingency workers and we "KNOW" how some
30% (which is not nearly 50%) of contingent workers "FEEL"? This kind
of dogmatism, arrogance and lack of epistemological sophistication
best blongs in the RCP or the Moonies or other places of true
believers who have all the answers and can give you some loaded,
contrived and limited stats to "PROVE" so that you will really "KNOW".
And by the way, if you dare disagree with these true believers and
arbiters of truth, you can often expect some snotty responses
asserted boldly as if the strength of the assertion speaks to the
strength of the logic and evidence behind the assertion.
I love it. The BLS classifies only those actively looking for work as
both unemployed and part of the labor-force participation rate. If
you ask even anyone looking for work, do you feel that you are a
"participant" in the labor force they will invariably say no. The
unemployment rate is expressed as "officially unemployed" (according
to very limited criteria) as a percentage of the so-called "labor
force" again defined according to some very restrictive and
system-mystifying criteria.
Of course many in the media love these official stats and those who
generate them because they provide some of the lifeblood of their
stories. For the individual jounalist seeking to become a Woodward or
Bernstein, access brings the big story or scoop which brings exposure
which brings name recognition and ratings which brings more access...;
for the media organization, access brings the big story or scoop
which brings exposure and name recognition which brings
ratings/market shares which bring higher ad revenues/rates and
profits which bring increased access...
There are various pathways into and out of these "spirals of
success":
1) e.g. gimmick---> exposure--->name recognition--->access--->
2) Big Story---->exposure---> name recognition---->access---->...
3) name recognition (lateral move)--->access--->big story--->...
4) (no nasty questions/comments about patrons)--->access--->...
So often those in the mainstream media (and some in the market-niched
alternative media) will cultivate their special sources and pathways
of access to the scoop etc such that those special sources are immune
from special criticism as the sprial works the otherway also: loss of
access--->loss of scoops--->loss of exposure--->loss of name
recognition--->loss of access---->...
Jim Craven
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* James Craven * "Reason is a narrow system swollen *
* Dept of Economics * into an ideology. *
* Clark College * *
* 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. * With time and power it has become a *
* Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * dogma, devoid of direction and *
* (360) 992-2283 * disguised as disinterested inquiry. *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] * *
* * Like most religions, reason presents*
* * itself as the solution to the *
* * problems it has created." *
* * *
* * (John Ralston Saul in "Voltaire's *
* * Bastards") *
* MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
