I've read elsewhere also that there is some 5 or 6 percent unemployed in
U.S. prisons who (or should I say which) are not counted.
Maybe one step forward in the future work subject might be accomplished if
we counted the "employeds" and compared them to the total population,
country by country. At least one of the numbers (the denominator) would
have a more or less static definition. StatsCan, for instance, reports some
60 percent of urban population and 50 percent of rural population, as
working. I've not looked at these numbers with much attention, but they
seem to suggest a desire to measure this phenomenon differently.
At 08:48 97-12-07 -0500, Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote:
>Jim Dator wrote:
>>
>> This may have already been discussed to death on this list, but if not,
>> I wonder if anyone knows the facts of the history of how "unemployment"
>> is reckoned in the US.
>>
>> I seem to recollect that there was a major re-reckoning in the early 80s
>> which resulted in a substantial reduction in the numbers of people
>> officially classified as "unemployed" in the US.
>>
>> Anyone got the facts on this?
>
>I'm not up to date on this, but I believe (somebody who
>knows for sure should confirm/clarify this...) that
>anyone who has been out of work for more than
>6 months and is not "actively looking for work"
>is *not* counted in the unemployment figures. I think
>these people are informally called "discouraged workers",
>and I know of nowhere where the government tracks their
>number or (a fortiori) publishes it.
>
>\brad mccormick
>
>--
> Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
> Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
>
>Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
>
>
"It is a miracle that curiousity survives formal education." Albert Einstein
-- Gouin, Futurist-at-leisure NOW. --
