[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Limits To Growth
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Mason A. Clark wrote:
[edited]
>> The bad news is that the unemployment is seriously
>> understated. Those who have given up are not counted.
>> Those who are under-employed, just on part time, are
>> not counted. Anyone got more specific data?
>
>U.S. News, Business Week, or a similar magazine had estimates of 10%-15%
>un- or underemployed if these latter groups are considered. I don't
>recall the issue - it was some time ago and I tried to find it again but
>couldn't. The 15% figure came from MIT.
The long term unemployed who wanted a job but did not search for one
is 2.38 million, or 1.9% of the 132 million civilan workforce. Of
those who did not look for work, those who gave a reason of
discouraged was 410,000, or 0.311%. This does not include ill-health,
in school, etc. These figures are pretty reliable, since unemployment
rates are of intense interest to both the government and to business
for decision making on things like plant locations, etc. See US
Statistical Abstracts, 1996, table 636.
No good figures are available for underemployment, in part because the
term is largely of political origin, ill-defined, and the reality is
largely a matter of individual opinion. For example, I have a friend
who is a high school teacher and considers himself underemployed,
since he does not get compensation he considers sufficient for his
chemistry degree. In addition, I have a relative with a degree from
UCLA who works as a plumber. Is this because he wants to, or because
he must?
Regards, Harold
---
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic
statements, and make little mention of the doubts we may have.
Each of us has to find a balance between being effective and
being honest."
- Steven Schneider, proponent of CFC-banning.
"Our Fragile Earth", Discover, Oct. 1987. pg 47
References: