In _Superprofits and Crises: Modern Capitalism_ (1988) Victor Perlo says.
" Unemployment is one of the most severe hardships capitalism inflicts on the working class. It deprives millions of both the material means of life and the psychological, moral requirements of socially useful activity. Unemployment has been a constant feature of modern industrial capitalism..."
In a section headed "Official undercounting became particularly brazen in the 1980's" he says:
" The ramifications of mass unemployment were analyzed by Professor Bertram Gross (in _The Nation_ January 17, 1987). He found that the total number of jobless people in 1986 approximated 20 million, compared with the official figure of 8 million. He estimated that the insecure and underpaid - subjected to the threat of unemployment - numbered 40 -60 million, and that at least half the total population was adversely affected by unemployment.
Even Labor Department studies make clear that the "average" number of jobless covers only a fraction of those who were not employed at some time in any given year. Thus, the BLS reported that in 1985, with 8.3 million officially counted as unemployed, on the average, a total of 21 million individual workers were officially recognized as having been unemployed during part or all of the year. (citation misprinted) Adding the 5.9 million not counted in the labor force who "want a job now" to the 5.6 million forced to work only part time " for economic reasons" brought the total who suffered from unemployment during the year to over 30 million." The monthly newsletter _Economic Notes_ ( put out by Labor Research Association in NYC) prints an official unemployment statistic and a real unemployment statistic. Its definition of "real unemployment" is " official unemployment + discouraged workers + those with special employment needs + involuntary parttime workers calculated for hours lost". The rule of thumb I have heard from Perlo and others often is that the real rate is double the official rate.
My sub has run out or I would give the current EN real rate here. Will put it on the list when I reach EN.
CB
>>> Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> 06/18/99 10:02AM >>>
Charles Brown wrote:
>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 ?
>
>I'll see if I can find out what some advocates for the homeless think.
The unemployment rate isn't really intended as a measure of human deprivation; it's intended as a measure of labor market tightness, which is what the employing class cares about. The tighter the labor market, the stronger the upward pressure on wages. Leaving aside the employed homeless, most people living on the street aren't "attached" to the labor market, as they say, so they don't enter into the wage formation process. If you're looking for measures of deprivation, the income and poverty statistics are much better than the employment figures. People can be employed and still be poor. Lots of the customers at soup kitchens across this lovely country are employed.
Doug