Paul Phillips writes:
> But Jim,
> As my last post pointed out, when I responded to Sabri's original
> post your whole discussion about the problems and additions to
> the U rate was not being considered. My original post was in
> response to someone (not you) suggesting that because the
> figures on registered unemployment were much higher than for
> survey unemployment, the figures for survey unemployment were
> deliberately meant to undermeasure unemployment. My point was
> that they were not measuring the same thing and there is good
> reason for the difference.
>
> I know you and Doug know the meaning and limitations of the
> unemployment rate and are concerned with the income distribution
> issues that are affected by unemployment and nowhere have I
> every said or suggested you don't. I was saying that I understand
> Sabri's sadness if it is because he believes that most public
> discussion about unemployment abstracts from the reality and
> fixates upon the number -- and that makes me equally sad, eh!
>
> And that is the last I am going to say on this issue.
>
> Paul
>
me too.
------------------------
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
