Looking back, where we are seems to relate to a whole series of official statistical definitions of unemployment which have varying relationships to any underlying economic concept.

If we are trying to understand the degree of pressure which the 'reserve army of labour' puts on the economic power of workers ('insiders' etc.) or indeed of employers, then the concept to be measured has to relate to the labour market behaviour of the reserve army. 

If we are trying to measure poverty, state dependence etc, then different measures might apply.

We actually have official measures of unemployment which, sequentially, relate to those seeking work through labour exchanges (the registrant count), those claiming those specific state benefits for which unemployment is the defining criterion, and jobseeking and availability for work. In addition, we have sporadic census measurements which are based on various questions, variously interpreted by respondents.

In the current policy context, it is reasonably clear that it is the aim of at least both major parties to bring many of those currently defined as economically inactive into the 'reserve army of labour' in order to maintain low rates of earnings increase while increasing employment. Parties, of course, differ as to the balance between sticks and carrots.

---------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bivand
Head of Analysis and Statistics
Direct Line: 020 7840 8335

Inclusion
3rd floor, 89 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TP
Tel: 020 7582 7221
Fax: 020 7582 6391
Inclusion website: www.cesi.org.uk
Welfare to Work website: www.w2w.org.uk

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient please return the e-mail to the sender and delete from your mailbox.
The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are intended solely for the use of the addressee. 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Thomas [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 15 January 2005 10:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: WHERE IS REALITY?[Scanned]
> 
> 
> Paul's message gives good explanations.
> 
> > I actually think the ILO definitions are the best we have, despite
> > difficulties, because they are reasonably close to economic 
> behaviour.
> 
> But the ONS Press Release does not say that the ONS believes that ILO
> definitions are the best we have.   Nor does it say that the 
> ONS believes
> that the LFS provides the best estimates of employment and 
> unemployment.
> It just states that employment and unemployment ARE as measured by LFS
> statistics.
> 
> Maybe I've become a stickler after reading 'Eats, Shoots, & 
> Leaves'.  I
> thought that Lewis Carroll had long ago disposed of the idea that the
> meaning of a word is what the author says it means.   But 
> this lesson from
> cultural history seems to have escaped the ONS.
> 
> A few years ago the ONS declared that the word unemployment 
> should be used
> only to refer to unemployment as measured by ILO criteria.   
> More recently
> the ONS have declared that the term UK unemployment should be 
> used instead
> of ILO unemployment.   And the ONS keeps on going on about 
> 'the headline
> figure' as if they want to take over the power of writing 
> headlines from
> newspaper editors.
> 
> What is the point of this brainwashing?    I suspect the 
> target audience is
> ONS staff themselves and other civil servants.    The ONS 
> don't want their
> staff or anyone else in the civil service even to think about the
> complexities of the real world.
> 
> The  problem may be is that  this brainwashing is largely 
> effective.  If so
> government statisticians turn themselves into 'cheerful 
> robots', to use
> Wright-Mills classic phrase, who cannot distinguish between 
> their success
> and the morality of their actions.
> 
> Ray Thomas
> 35 Passmore, Tinkers Bridge, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Tel/Fax 01908 679081
> 
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> to [log in to unmask]
> *******************************************************
> 

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************