it looks like you're right. On 10/9/07, Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 9, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Jim Devine wrote: > > > Interestingly, the O'Neil data don't add much information to the > > official stats. Graphing the two over time with each measured on > > different Y axes, the O'Neil measure moves in the same general > > direction as the official measure, while the latter has has more > > cyclical movement (rising with unemployment). > > But the ratio of O'N's measure to the official one is procyclical - > in recessions and early recoveries, it was around 1.4-1.5, rising to > 1.7 late in expansions (note the highs in 1978-9, 1989, and 1998). I > wonder if a low unemployment rate is good for the very poor, but > doesn't do all that much for the near-poor. > > Doug >
-- Jim Devine / "The truth is at once less sinister and more dangerous." -- Naomi Klein.
