On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
> But what not hiring the "reserve army?" From an economic point of view, the
> "opportunity cost" of an employed person is much higher than that of an
> unemployed one. So one would think that ceteri paribus the bosses would
> prefer hiring a currently unemployed person because they could get away with
> paying him/her less, no? What gives?
The standard line is that the long-term unemployed lose skills. I.e., they're damaged goods.
Doug