>>> kelley <d-m-c at worldnet.att.net> 06/17/99 05:25PM >>>
>Charles: When you say "no idea" , not even more or less than a million ?
>2 million ? Wouldn't a million raise the unemployment rate by about 1% ?
Doesn't seem logical to then just count it as zero homeless. What is the
range of among those who do estimate it ?
one fallacy: that the homeless are unemployed. not all of them are.
(((((((((((
Charles: Yes, I agree with you. I actually thought of this but was speaking roughly. Lets say if 1. 3 million adults are homeless then 1 over the base.
And as you say below, the base has been over 100 million for a while. I used to see 110 million, but evidently it is up to 139 million ? That sounds high. Of course, the children wouldn't be included in the count.
Your calculation raises the rate by .7 %. That is significant.
Of course you are correct that this is a rate. But in some ways the absolute numbers of unemployed are important for describing the social and economic impact of unemployment. If there are 1 million more unemployed in absolute numbers that is a horrendous social condition. If a fraction of these have families, then that fraction times 1million (adults) times 2 or 3 adds another large number of people impacted directly by the unemployment.
Thanks for the research. It is significant also that the BLS or whoever doesn't bother to try to figure out how many people are homeless. There are so many sophisticated data detection and statistical instruments for finding other counts, one has to suspect that they don't want to figure this one out exactly because it would make unemployment and other socio-economic indicators look worse.
(((((((((((((((
National Law Ctr on Homelessness and Poverty est. 2 million adults and children were homeless as of 1994.
Plus you have to remember that you're calculating a *rate* of unemployment.
5.8mill/139 mill =4.2% 6.8/139=4.9%
but hey, they leave out the prison population, etc so why think they'd be logical
ôtouch yourself and you will know that i exist.ö ~luce irigaray