>>You can criticize, rightly, the definition of unemployment in the U.S. as
too strict, producing too low an estimate, but it's a reasonably accurate
picture by its own definition. But remember that the jobless stats are not
intended as a measure of human deprivation, but of labor market slack. On
that conception, it's appropriate to exclude people who aren't looking for
work, since they've been demobilized from the reserve army of labor.<<
Bureau of Labor Statistics on those statistics:
>>Why does the Government collect statistics on the unemployed? When workers
are unemployed, they, their families and the country as a whole lose.
Workers and their families lose wages, and the country loses the goods or
services which could have been produced. In addition, the purchasing power
of these workers is lost, which can lead to unemployment for yet other
workers. To know about unemployment--the extent and nature of the
problem--requires information. How many people are unemployed? How did they
become unemployed? How long have they been unemployed? Are their numbers
growing or declining? Are they men or women? Are they young or old? Are they
white or black or of Hispanic origin? Are they skilled or unskilled? Are
they the sole support of their families, or do other family members have
jobs? Are they more concentrated in one area of the country than another?
After these statistics are obtained, they have to be interpreted properly so
they can be used--together with other economic data--by policymakers in
making decisions as to whether measures should be taken to influence the
future course of the economy or to aid those affected by joblessness.<<
So according to Henwood it's about economic analysis of the labor market, but the Bureau sounds very Rooseveltian here and doesn't say anything about 'labor market slack'. However, then we have to ask why 'accurate' low figures of unemployment fit so nicely with 'laissez faire' government policy, under either a Republican or Democrat.
More later.
Charles Jannuzi