Professor Krugman, in his op-ed for the NY Times, reminds us of how labour statistics can be misread. I remember in my labour economics class at university where we learned about how unemployment/employment stats were compiled. In a nutshell here it is: a person is counted as unemployed if he/she is actively engaged in finding gainful employment. So, what does this mean? How is this translated? Well, if one is not 'gainfully employed' and remains at home and not out in the labour markets looking for employment, he/she is NOT considered or counted as being 'UNEMPLOYED'. I remember hearing my professor say that 'crazy definition'. In the class, a student asked the foolish question (he beat me by a fraction of a section), 'If I don't have a job and don't look for work, I am not unemployed?' - to which the professor answered in the affirmative.
Who said economics is logical???
Recent Comments