>Last week's Economist said of Cardoso's ferocious budget cuts and interest
>rates hikes that "some economists see unemploment reaching 13% next year."
>["Latin American and the Market, end of second paragraph]
>
>Um, could be possibly be true? I thought it would be have to be heaps
>worse than that. That's not that far from the EU average. If it isn't
>true, does anyone have an explanation of how The Economist could arrive at
>such a number?
No doubt that's the formal unemployment rate, and probably only for urban areas. (I think Brazilian labor stats cover only major industrial centers.) Insofar as an unemployment rate for Brazil makes any sense at all, I'd say that you could at least double it, given the relationship between reported and broader definitions of U in the First World. Do you consider pencil hawkers and garbage pickers employed or unemployed?
Doug