Talk:Unemployment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Unemployment, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as high-importance on the importance scale


Contents

[edit] New section on the theory of involuntary unemployment, whether it exists

It's the last new section, with references. Comments, please.

[edit] Dropped material

I dropped the material about cyclical unemployment being due to a temporary insufficiency of aggregate demand. The problem is that the phrase "cyclical unemployment" is an inadequate term compared to "deficient-demand unemployment." So-called cyclical unemployment can be high for a long time, as in the 1930s (at least in the U.S.) However, the term "cyclical unemployment" is very common and less awkward than "deficient-demand unemployment." Jdevine 19:06, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I dropped ", if we assume that true demand of work would not be matched by new vacancies" from the end of the debate on unemployment because its meaning was a bit unclear. Jdevine 19:10, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Apparently this page is pretty good. Some thought it would be better than what they would have done, and quicker too: http://www.colombialink.com/01_INDEX/index_finanzas_eng/unemployment.html Emmanuel, just a visitor 27/04/05

Let's have a graph here, showing the average US unemployment rate from as far back as is known through the current day.

The graph needs a caption to say it is the USA. Maurreen 08:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

done!! Jim 20:38, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

It should be mentionned that some unemployement rates are contested. For instance Joseph E. Stiglitz, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics, claims it's rather around 9% in the US. Helldjinn 15:27, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

you're talking about the measurement of the unemployment rate, right? I'm pretty sure that discussion is already in the existing entry, but I'll check. Jim 19:05, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

A critical note about this page, it is heavily biased towards the US. There are a few sidecomments about the situation in europe, though Europe has about 1.5 times as much inhabitants(260 versus 400 million). Not a word is mentioned about asia, though China is the biggest economic force in the world. And of course not a word about africa, though the unemployment problems there are quite complex and very important.

I wil also remove the snide remark towards France in the introduction."Obviously, different countries have different unemployment rates:for example, the current unemployment rate in France is 9.7%, significantly higher than in the U.S" First you state that comparison of the stats isn't possible without carefull scrutiny, and then you compare rates anyway. The sentence isn't productive in any way for understanding of unemployment, in fact the sentence itself states it is a useless sentence. I don't feel comfortable enough in the subject to change the article drastically, but I think it is really nessecary. 81.205.127.8 12:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)}

What? No mention of international unemployment? Differences between ILO and BLS?

The following line, "Preliterate ("primitive") communities treat their members as parts of an extended family and thus do not allow them to be unemployed — in the effort to preserve the group" seems to constitute something of a non-sequitur. If we want to describe a particular kind of literacy, say that of asset accounting, then perhaps it is necessary to specify. If we want to see something defined within the perspective of a closed system or culture, however vague and aspirant to universalism, such as a brand of economic study, shouldn't it be prefaced as such? Otherwise, we need to define things from outside of these closed systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.56.36 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Internationalization

In the interest of geographical balance and also of sheer completeness, I'd like to mention two recent phenomenons revolving around the Argentine economic crisis: piqueteros forming "unemployed workers movements" and the recovered factory movement (worker-run co-operatives formed after businesses were abandoned by their owners, and workers effectively left jobless without severance compensation, upon bankruptcy). Argentina can also be seen as case study for high accute unemployment. I'm not sure how or where this can be integrated with this article, so that's why I'm asking here first. --Pablo D. Flores 11:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unemployment Map

What is represented by the "grey" countries and regions on the "World unemployment in 2004" map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Unemploy2004.png)? From the way it looks at this point, it could mean that they have _less_ than 5% unemployment, which is absolutely not the case. If the map is not updated to add a better legend, I'm going to remove it from this article around 24 hours from now, as it misrepresents the data available, in its present form. --NightMonkey 22:38, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

OK, removing it. Note that I'm not objecting to the presence of a world map per se, but in its current form, it only covers certain world regions, and is not on par with its purported coverage. --NightMonkey 07:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The thumbnail of the unemployment map is not in sync with the detail view of the map. For example, Papua New Guinea is grey in the thumbnail, but it is blue in the detail map, USA is light blue in the thumbnail and dark blue in the detail map, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.69.129 (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other possible definitions

Unemployment is a relative term so it depends on how you define it before you can explain it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.252.160 (talk • contribs)


There is a definition of unemployment that some economists have adopted (notably the late Australian economist Xiaokai Yang and members of his school) that is insightful, but which has not been widely used as yet by labor economists. The definition is: "Involuntary unemploymnent is the inability to participate in the division of labour." The concept of the division of labor is that used by Adam Smith. This definition suggests that the widespread unemployment in some developing economies may be due to shortages of capital, poor infrastrucure, and sometimes by corruption and red tape - anything that makes it hard to develop a firm. In the developing world unemployment is more likely be due to technological change, loss of market to foreign competition, or anything that causes a local breakdown of the division of labor.

Since it does not represent a consensus view this idea about the nature of unemployment cannot take center stage in a Wikipedia article. Yet it might be important enough to someone looking for an understanding of unemployment so that it might be mentioned. Any thoughts? Temple Bayliss 16:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a spirited defense of the definition, "Unemployment is the inability to participate in the division of labor." in a current post in The Kinky Economist. Temple Bayliss 18:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OECD, regulation and unemployment

This article, by one of Australia's most respected economics writers, refers to the OECD Employment Outlook 2006. According to the journalist, the OECD is moving back from its advocacy of labor market deregulation, saying that there's no impact on regulations such as minimum wage, and unemployment. I was hoping to learn more about it in the unemployment article... but twas not to be, and the OECD report is a fairly heavy reading for a non-economic type like me. Hopefully there's someone out there who can do something with this info... Thanks --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 16:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition and Regulation between Nations

Globalisation is challenging the previously accepted measures set by national governments as the need for comparison between the UK ,developed nations,and European Countries becomes an important economic measure.The wide gaps in agreed common national standard measures,political resistance to changing definitions, and means of collection of data are all issues which effect the figures published across the world on whose are in or not in employment.The imerging preferred measure across the Euro zone is a simple statistic of whose who do not have a job as defined by collection of employment related taxes sometimes referred to as 'numbers who are recorded as Jobless'.

The "agreed common national standard measures" of unemployment are described in the Measuring Unemployment section; although, this section still needs an explaination of OECD's "standardised" unemployment rate to glue the ILO definition to the countries listed (and to be listed). Do you have a cite or other evidence that these measures are challenged by Globalisation? --EGeek 21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you also have a cite for the Euro unemployment rate calculated from a "collection of employment related taxes"? Eurostat says it uses the survey method quarterly with a monthly "harmonized" rate calculated from national employment statistics. --EGeek 21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need for references, & POV-check

My edit of 6 July ({{unreferenced}} & {POV-check}} - citations/links needed for many of the claims made; & article should represent the various views, not support particular views.) was immediately reverted (fully referenced: please read the books in the reference list--if there is a sentence in question please indicate it).

There's more to referencing than a reading list - this article needs more references within in the text. Currently there are hardly any. We obviously can't expect the average reader to "read the books in the reference list" - they've come here for an encylopedia article, not a reading list. Even an inline reference that cites a book and a page number or chapter would be a vast improvement. --Singkong2005 talk 03:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

there are plenty of excellent references to the article. All the books have indexes and tales of contents, so a user can quickly find further information without our giving out page numbers after every sentence. They can start with the good textbooks that are listed (George J Borjas; Ronald G. Ehrenberg; McConnell), or the good history titles (Keyssar, Jensen). Is there some POV statement that causes a problem?? then itentify it specifically and we can fix it. Rjensen 03:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
No one demanded page numbers after every sentence. However, at least one or more citation of some form per paragraph would certainly not be excessive. Note, from Wikipedia:Citing sources#Page numbers: When citing books and articles, provide page numbers when possible.
Besides that, additional links to websites are perhaps not essential, but would improve the usability of the article by the average reader who doesn't have the books at their fingertips. I would regard this as only sensible in my own areas of expertise (in engineering) and see no reason that economics articles should be any different, demanding that the reader must go to a university library in order to check the source of a statement.
That's not to say that web sources are superior. The ideal reference might be a reference to a book, including page number, followed by a link to a reliable online source.
I'll leave the POV thing for now - I don't have the time to go through it now, and I'd rather see the referencing improved before I have another look at whether it's POV/NPOV. --Singkong2005 talk 06:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I weakend the statements on the effects of high welfare high unemployment scenarios because they were highly biased indicating a necessary disbenefit with high unemployment even if this is coupled with good social security. It is arguably better to redistribute wealth to a relatively large mass of unemployment thus reducing *maximum* levels of wealth but increasing median wealth than to have a small number of extremely impovirished unemployed. 152.83.176.156 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unemployement in the United States

This article is at 39K and somewhat US-centric. I would recommend spawning Unemployment in the United States so more global material can be added here. -- Beland 22:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Graphic is very dated (2004). Can we update it? And use more distinctive colors? talk 9:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other factors causing unemployment

Whilst I cannot comment on the stats in the US, in New Zealand our unemployment is affected by gender, age, race and location - rural unemployment, particularly around small towns that used to be occupied by one major employer that no longer operates - is very high. City unemployment is very low as there are both people and jobs. Likewise, those with Maori and Pacific Island ethnicity suffer higher unemployment than those of Eurpoean descent. 210.86.93.251 09:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Xav

So you're saying that unemployment is caused by certain minorities? :S

I don't quite follow.

[edit] Bias from the first sentence

To write "In economics, one who is willing to work at a prevailing wage rate yet is unable to find a paying job is considered to be unemployed", in the first sentence, is already carrying a bias, which Keynes in his times built his theory on. Unemployment is a voluntary thing only for neo-classics economy — for most other people, it only means lack of money. And I don't think many people volunteer for that. So, that's for the "willing to work". Unemployment, in ordinary people's language, is when people need money, and can't find a job to get money to eat. It is not a question of "prevailing wage rate", as "wage rates" can change a lot. The first sentence of this article is an endorsement of neo-classic economics. Lapaz

Note that employment is not a synonym with work. One can easily work for free, but one always becomes employed to get money. Lapaz
PS. You don't believe me? What the heck are you doin' loosin' your time on Wikipedia? Lapaz

[edit] Race section

not sure why that race table has to be included in this article... what's the relevance? appears to me as a concealed attempt to infect the narrow-minded individual's opinion of minorities. Panda

[edit] Causes of unemployment

The last paragraph of "Causes of unemployment" ("The results of both actions (...)") is not only inaccurate, but it also seems to have a strong bias against European measures against unemployment.

As we see on the map above, there are several European states having the same or lower unemployment rate than the USA. This seems to be totally ignored. Personally, my knowledge is limited to the Norwegian social democracy, but it might serve as an example.

Traditionally, the Norwegian policies regard employment not only as a duty, but also a fundamental social right. (When two people meet, they often ask eachother about their occupation, i.e. the job is a social factor.) Therefore, the government is obliged to help unemployed people to get an acceptable job. Economic aid is a part of that duty. It's reasonable to believe that this is one of the reasons why Norwegian unemployment rate is among the world's lowest. During the depression in the 80's, the government activly supported the industry to prevent mass unemployment.

I'm no economist, and I don't feel that I could alter the article in a clear and precise way, but someone with the insight should incorporate this moment in the section.

Marstr2 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Norway is a small country (4.5 million) and at 4.5% has much higher unemployment than some comparable US states like Idaho 3.0%, Montana 2.7%, Utah 2.6% and Wyoming 2.6% (as of Jan 2007). Rjensen 19:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That could be partly true, but Norway still serves as a counterexample to the claim that a welfare state maintains unemployment -- and according to CIA, the rate is only 3.5%. Furthermore, I don't believe the states neccessary are good comparisons, as not only population counts, but also demographics. I had a look on the CIA list, and among those 45 whose rate is below 4.0%, 17 are European, while the US is ranked 56. (Cuba (#11), anyone?) The strong European representation is obviously also because of the generally good economy in European countries, and I hope someone with knowledge about British and continental economy can add their thoughs. Anyway, I believe the paragraph in question is biased, and it should be edited to reflect this discussion. Marstr2 17:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm always wary of the use of unemployment statistics. I don't know what the situation is in Norway or other countries throughout the world, but in the U.S., unemployment stats are nearly universally skewed downwards. Part of this may be for political reasons, part of it due to simple inefficient bureaucracy, but the fact remains that the permanent underclass of the chronically unemployed--those who have simply stopped looking--are routinely left out of U.S. unemployment stats. Many of these individuals are also spending years on Welfare. So I don't think the arguments based on such stats hold water. Qworty 10:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't merge more articles (e.g., graduate unemployment) here

Graduate employment should not be merged here. The article is too long. A reference here to the graduate unemployment article is sufficient

[edit] Resolving the confusing mish-mash of competing theories

An incoherent debate seems to have broken out as to the causes of unemployment. The controversy should be resolved by replacing the current jumble of semi-coherent assertions with a relatively brief NPOV section briefly laying the why there is controversy (what are the perceived stakes) and succinctly and clearly naming and outlining the various warring theories (perhaps in chronological order of development) and creating a new article for each separate school or theory where its discussion can be maintained and honed by the respective partisans and loyal critics of each respective theory.

Please sign you contributions to discussion pages.
Presently the theoretical parts of this article do indeed seem flawed and incoherent. There is no controversy between various causes of unemployment, that's just an illusion caused by the use of models that are too simple. Suggested reading: Malinvaud's 'The Theory of Unemployment Reconsidered'. Guido den Broeder 19:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Employment rate

I agree with the following comments left by another...

"Employment rate directs to this page, but can't find any information on this. Employment rate is as far as I know not the same as unemployment rate, or am I wrong?"

Indeed they are right, they are not the same thing. I specifically queried about the term "employment rate" and not the term "unemployment rate" any yet I was re-directed to the "unemployment rate" listing.

Obviously the two terms are related but they are not the same thing at all indeed one refers to the number of people that were removed from the labor force in a given month and the other tells the percentage of the total population that is employed.

The term unemployment ignores those people that may still want a job but have given up searching for it in frustration. I believe it intentionally leaves out such people to make it seem as if things are better than they actually are. I do not feel that the term "unemployment rate" is a helpful metric and it should not be reported by the media.

The fairest way to measure the health of the employment market is to calculate a simple percentage of the total population that has a job at any given time "the employment rate."

Any metric that intentionally leaves out a large percentage of the potential workforce merely because they have not held a job in some time is quite artificial.

Regardless, it seems that both "employment rate" and "unemployment rate" both deserve to have their own separate Wikipedia entries.

Also I was confused why this related link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_employment_rate

did not come up as an option when I searched on employment rate.

Thanks for the heads up. I used the OECD source found on that page and added its definition of Employment rate; thus, deleting the redirect. I also found an article called Employment-to-Population ratio that contains a little more information, but lacks any citations.
The unemployment rate is a basic measure to determine who are actively searching for a job. If you want the percentage of people who want to work, you want statistics for marginally attached workers, or those who want to work, but have not looked for work. Both of these statistics are available in some countries (such as the United States), but the unemployment rate is easier to determine in most countries; therefore, this rate is the world standard for the unemployment rate. There is also a measure for employed persons who want to work full time, but can only find part time work. --EGeek (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Unemployment" definition

  • The first sentence of the article gives a definition of "unemployment", which in its current form appears to violate WP:NPOV. Unemployed people are not always people that want to work. Many people don't want to work but are still defined as "unemployed". I made this change and it was reverted. I reverted back and got reverted again. So here's a request for comments and consensus.
The current version reads: Unemployment is the state in which a worker wants, but is unable, to work.
My edit reads as follows: Unemployment is the state in which a worker is without a job, or financially-rewarded work.
-- ALLSTARecho 04:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the description of the disagreement, I disagree with your position. Jose João (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
What this definition requires is a citation. I offer the International Labour Organization's definition of unemployment. See page 4. It defines unemployed as those "actively seeking work". If this lone citation still violates NPOV, I suggest providing an alternative citation to complement this one. -- EGeek (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Generally, unemployment statistics only include persons actively seeking employment. When someone leaves the workforce and does not seek readmittance, they are no longer considered unemployed. Otherwise, children and retirees would be considered unemployed. It is perfectly fine to definite unemployed persons as those who are actively seeking employment but are not employed. The compromise offerred above doesn't quite make sense. Is a worker who does not work truly a worker? Andyparkerson (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Unemployed means exactly that, no job, regardless of status. However, it does say Unemployment is the state in which a worker is without a job. It doesn't say it is the state in which children who normally don't work anyway are without a job. In it's basic purest form, it should read Unemployment is when someone is without work, because that's what being unemployed is. At any rate, it's been changed and sourced. -- ALLSTARecho 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between a definition and a useful definition. By the purest definition listed above, someone would be unemployed when they are at lunch, or sleeping, or otherwise not occupied in the act of working. So even though it is a definition, it is not useful. When we speak of unemployed people, we speak of people who are actively seekeing employment but are otherwise not employed. Any other definition makes the word much less useful. Andyparkerson (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This (actively seeking employment) is the standard definition used in economics classes throughout the English-speaking world. Live with it!--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] History

This is a good question that I haven't found answered anywhere in Wikipedia: when did (in the US and generally) governments start paying people unemployment protection? I'm guessing from one of the charts in the article it began in the 1930s when the Depression hit. Could someone add a section, or a page, or a request for it? (I can't figure out the 'request a page' system.) Thanks! CC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.146.185 (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I am convinced that this section is POV: "Some argue one of the main causes of unemployment in a free market economy is that the law of supply and demand is not really applied to the price to be paid for employing people. In situations of falling demand for products and services the wages of all employees, from president to errand boy, are not automatically reduced by the required percentage to make the business viable. Others say that it is the market that determines the wages based on the desirability of the job. The more people qualified and interested in the job, the lower the wages for that job become. Based on this view, the profitability of the company is not a factor in determining whether or not the work is profitable to the employee. People are laid off, because pay reductions would reduce the number of people willing to work a job. With fewer people interested in a particular job, the employees bargaining power would actually rise to stabilize the situation, but their employer would be unable to fulfill their wage expectations. In the classical framework, such unemployment is due to the existing legal framework, along with interferences with the market by non-market institutions such as labor unions and government."

This quite nicely fits the definition or reganomics, which I personally disagree with. However, such a clearly political statement should be dealt with as soon as possible before it does more damage. Fusion7 (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dropped section on solutions

EGeek unilaterally decided on 1/31 to eliminate this entire section. Well, let's make Economics not only the dismal science (reputedly) but assuredly a useless one. If solutions to the problem have no place in an article about unemployment, then what pray tell is the raison d’être for a scholar of the "e-geek" variety or any other sort? Elburts (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As per the foregoing paragraph, EGeek has not given any explanation for eliminating an entire section of the article. I have therefore restored it. Elburts (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for patiently waiting for my response. I did not delete this section outright. I looked at the sources used and attempted to verify each source. I found that half of the sources were self-published. After deleting the unreliable sources, I reviewed the context. I found that the entire section was an essay on this single author's opinion from his (self-published) online book on how to cure unemployment. So I treated this context as another blog/essay/rant.
I have no problems with a solutions section, but I do have problems with essays and blogs in the middle of an article. If you can fine verifiable information on this subject, then please add it to this section.--EGeek (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad you have responded, EGeek. Actually the source which you label as unreliable is in fact a recent online elaboration of a work done in 1993 for a recognized academic journal. The earlier one was peer reviewed and published in the UK by MCB University Press. Check again the online citation to the abstract of that work, which will lead you to the printed full article as available in good libraries around the English speaking world. The work is Robert Struble, Jr., "Toward a Structural Solution to Unemployment," International Journal of Social Economics 20, no. 11 (1993): 15-26. Unfortunately IJSE has not archived this work online, although the abstract for the article is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Article&contentId=847176 . The substance of the full article is available online, however, as updated in 2007-08 at http://www.tell-usa.org/totl/08-Bolstering%20Workers.htm Cordially, Elburts (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not consider the "Toward a Structural Solution to Unemployment" an unreliable source(see my edit). I even added a citation template for it. I considered his self-published book, "Treatise on Twelve Lights", an unreliable source, which consisted of half the original material.
I have no problems with a solutions page. I do have a problem with an essay/blog devoted to an unreliable source. --EGeek (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Understood. However, since the book, Treatise on Twelve Lights, chapter 8, is available online whereas the peer review article "Toward a Structural Solution to Unemployment" covers the same theme but is not so readily accessible; and since, furthermore, much of chapter 8 incorporates the same research (thoroughly footnoted, peer reviewed, etc.); one might reasonably conclude that neither source deserves the appellation "unreliable."

By analogy, suppose that in the 1990's Gary Kasparov wrote an article on pawn power for Chess Life magazine, and then in 2008 after his foray into politics, Kasparov posted on his own web site an updated but unpublished article on the same theme. Suppose the latter article was embellished with digressions on how the Kremlin treats dissident citizens as pawns to be discarded, would you then argue that only the article from the 1980's is reliable on the issue of pawn power in chess? Elburts (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you use the online book, you should only link to the appropriate section. The peer reviewed article is only covered in one section of Chapter 8, not the entire chapter. In the cite you only show where you found the material; however, I understand that this particular link is for convenience of the reader. This is fine, but the citations to the rest of the book, and the entire section written as an essay only about this author's theories is not.
The rest of the online book is unreliable as I said before - self-published and not peer-reviewed. --EGeek (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Long-term unemployment

I'm surprised reading this otherwise comprehensive article that, as far as I can see, there is no mention at all of "long-term unemployment". I believe that (in the UK at least) LTU is defined as continuous unemployment for six months or more.

Long-term unemployment also carries with it two other important issues: the health implications (mental and physical) of long-term unemployment, and the common perception of the long-term unemployed as "malingers", "lazy" or "workshy" etc.

A quick web search brings up plenty of authoritative, citable information on all three of these issues. I may have a go a making a start on this, but despite being an avid Wikipedia reader, I'm pretty much a novice at editing. Maybe if I make a start, then a cleverer and more skilled Wikipedian could take it up (...?) Annatto (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Eurostat version of long-term unemployment is included under Measurement as "part of the unemployed who have been unemployed for an excess of 1 year." But if you have a UK definition, please add it into a new section under Measurement labeled "United Kingdom". If you want to add information about "long-term unemployment", then please do. --EGeek (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long-term unemployment - broader measure available in the U.S.

The U.S. Dept. of labor recognizes that its standard "uneployment rate" fails to capture all unemployment and under-employed, and provides a number of alternative measures, which tend to be higher than the usually quoted rate which excludes many unemployed and underemployed. Unemployed "discouraged workers" whose benefits have expired, for instance, are included only in the broader measures.


The DOL lists number of alternate measures of unemployment as part of its Emp. Sit., e.g.,

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

The broadest of these is U-6:

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached

      workers, plus total employed part time for                                                                                         
      economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian                                                                                     
      labor force plus all marginally attached                                                                                           
      workers...........................................    8.7      9.9      9.5      8.1      8.4      8.4      8.8      9.0      8.9

NOTE Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. For more information, see "BLS introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures," in the October 1995 issue of the Monthly Labor Review. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Also highly readable background story on the undercounting that lowers the main measure is

Unemployed, and Skewing the Picture |Economic Scene |By DAVID LEONHARDT |New York Times |Published: March 5, 2008, correction appended | |http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/business/05leonhardt.html?fta=y&pagewanted=all

This information is already in the article. Also, February unemployment was down on all of the broader measurements (seasonally adjusted, not seasonally adjusted was down farther). In my opinion it seems this reporter went for the low hanging fruit instead of investigating why the cps was different to the ces. --EGeek (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Citation needed

Am I the only person to notice the "citation needed" tags littered all over this article? And where ARE the citations? I have provided one, and I will be happy to provide others. But am I the only author of this article to read and understand Wikipedia guidelines? Good lord!

David Schweickart and Robert A. Dahl provide plenty of reference to unemployment as it relates to capitalism. Jack Rasmus and Emily Spence provide tons of statistical data regarding unemployment and income in the United States and elsewhere. Wikipedia provides a freakin' TEMPLATE regarding worker cooperatives, and supporting information is scattered all over the Internet.

This article is obviously under attack from someone (a "capitalist"?) who is very displeased with your representation of "Unemployment". In some sense, this is a very good sign. I couldn't be happier -- but at the same time, I couldn't be more angry.

Please CITE YOUR WORK, according to Wikipedia guidelines. I'll be back to help as soon as I can. Thank you. Sincerely David Kendall (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, check this: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics by Lawrence H. Summers

I'll be back with other stuff. But for now, I gotta move on. David Kendall (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Social Costs cleanup

This section was written in a tone that is not encyclopedic, alternatingly polemical and sloppy. I've cleaned up some of the points (including one minor deletion of a subordinate clause) and added citation tags, but haven't removed any of the substantive content. The first paragraph still needs to be cleaned up.Youngea (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Finished it myself (and removed the tag) -- the section should be substantially more readable than it was. however, it still needs citations to back up the statements contained therein.Youngea (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Good start. Other sections are in need of cleanup as well, mainly for the same reason. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Adjusted" unemployment rate during the Great Depression?

What would the unemployment rate during the Great Depression have been if it had been calculated according to todays standards of excluding "discouraged workers" and other "marginally attached workers"? Ewlyahoocom (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)