god damn ... like the fall of the rupee, the Pen-L discussion of unemployment statistics will probably have to be censored from a young lady's education for being too sensational. But for a' that, I think that there were a lot of deep, important issue discussed in this thread, though perhaps at an excessive casualty rate. Random thoughts of my own:
Michael wrote: >Several times in the past, I mentioned that the unemployment rate should >include something to adjust for the quality of available jobs. My idea >never resonated. I am sure that it could not be calculated with any >exactitude, but I agree that an unemployment rate of 1% with everyone >flipping burgers might not be better than a rate of 5% with better jobs. which is certainly toward the point, but raises problems of its own in looking at the representativeness of statistics. One might suggest that a really great society would be one in which it was not such a terrible thing to flip burgers, which is after all an important occupation for all of us who like their burgers cooked on both sides. Which goes deep into the heart of the problem; what is the badness of unemployment -- the quality which distinguishes "unemployment" from "leisure"? It's clearly some sort of, highly complicated, social property which, for the time being, defies simplification. Unlike everyone else on the side of this binary opposition which I appear to be occupying, I *am* a reductionist, at heart, and I do hold out some sort of hope that (perhaps only in principle), it might be possible for somebody who thought about the problem enough to create a number which could be updated weekly and which was an acceptable proxy for what we don't like about unemployment. On the other hand, I'm less convinced than Doug, Jim and Christian that the data needed to create such an index are available in the supplementary BLS data, or that adjusting the headline unemployment rate is even necessarily progress in the right direction. I've spent enough of my life working with exactly precise measurements of things not worth measuring to become terribly cynical ... when I have some spare time, I'll rant long and hard about how even such a "hard" number as, say the price of a share of General Electric, is incredibly difficult to pin down without making vast and restrictive assumptions about what it is you're trying to measure. On the other hand, Jim brings us all back to earth with a bump with his reply to Carl: >so we shouldn't care about the number of unemployed individuals, even when this number is measured accurately, because it peniciously >objectifies the individual? so if I refer to the high unemployment rate of 1933 in the United States, I am objectifying people (and doing so >perniciously)? Or in other words, you play the hand you're dealt, not the one you wanted. It's obvious that there is a reality which the unemployment statistics describe and that, with suitable adjustments, it's the same as the reality that they puport to describe. This is absolutely invaluable for historical purposes, when we're trying to explain facts (the deprivation and despair of the 1930s) by use of quantitative, measured opinion. What I think Tom, Sabri, me, and others are worried about is that by focusing on the quantitative measures, it's quite easy to find yourself explaining things *away*, particularly when you're dealing with contemporary rather than historical events. The original post which started off this whole brouhaha was when Michael asked where the new jobs were coming from as "employment has held up very well". With all respect to our esteemed moderator, I do think that there's a danger when discussing this kind of question that one ends up taking the statistical measures as the fixed point, simply because they're there. Which is not to accuse anyone on this list of having done that, or to suggest that the personal criticisms were justified, but there is an important issue here; it's a while since we discussed the fetishisation of measurement in modern management, but I suspect that's because everyone agrees with it. Finally, Christian wrote: >But pointing out that this statistical >measurement is missing from a statistical data set is different (and more >germane) than saying that statistics don't capture suffering and therefore >can't be trusted or are incomplete. The latter amounts to beating your head >against the wall. Which might be true but .... anyone who wasted their youth in attempting to become a poor man's Bruce Lee will know that beating your head against a brick wall is not quite the apogee of pointlessness that it is usually claimed to be. The ringing sensation becomes quite pleasurable after a while, there is little risk of damage if you do it right, and it makes your head and neck get stronger. And sometimes, the wall breaks. cheers dd ___________________________________________________ Email Disclaimer This communication may contain confidential or privileged information and is for the attention of the named recipient only. It should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. (c) 2002 Cazenove Service Company or affiliates. Cazenove & Co. Ltd and Cazenove Fund Management Limited provide independent advice and are regulated by the Financial Services Authority and members of the London Stock Exchange. Cazenove Fund Management Jersey is a branch of Cazenove Fund Management Limited and is regulated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission. Cazenove Investment Fund Management Limited, regulated by the Financial Services Authority and a member of IMA, promotes only its own products and services. ___________________________________________________
