> From: Ken Norton <xra@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Regarding those who "give up" searching and filing, well, then it
> becomes an
> issue of "household" calculation. If, for example, a household has
> too
> employable people. One is working, the other not. If the one not
> employed
> "gives up" searching and filing, is the person out on the street? The
> household is "underemployed", yes, "unemployed", no. If a person
> chooses to
> no longer search and file, then they have effectively removed
> themselves
> from the employment pool.
Sounds like playing with words to me. Is the purpose of employment
statistics to let us know something about how well we're doing? If a
worker is "discouraged" and is thus no longer counted, are we more
well off?
The "household" argument seems specious, as well. When a "household"
is "underemployed," does the mortgage payment go down? Does the amount
of food needed go down?
If all the unemployed people were simply encouraged to become
"discouraged" and then simply move back in with family, then we
wouldn't have ANY unemployment -- only "underemployed households!"
Brilliant! "Let them eat cake!"
I've been "underemployed" for about fifteen years now, and am
thoroughly enjoying it. But I rather suspect the vast majority of
those tagged with this moniker do not share my joy.
:::: He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already
earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since
for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. -- Albert Einstein ::::
:::: Jan Steinman <http://www.Bytesmiths.com> ::::
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|