look at that disgusting kikess
look at that disgusting kikess
This is true, "Full Employment" does not mean full employment.
Employment is actually a very complicated subject. The number and types of jobs available fluctuates each and every day, and people enter and leave the workforce each and every day. There is also the question of what qualifies as a job. What about very part time, occasional, and unpaid work? Volunteer work? Black market and other illegal work? Prison labor? When you get into the details you find the devil.
There are also problems with how the statistics themselves are acquired, calculated, and presented. Funny business and political corruption in the data system. The numbers are heavily manipulated to support the headlines in the media. Policy developed based on this data is badly flawed as a result. So much so that it is often better to look at other indicators as a measure of the status of the economy.
If a full time online gambler is winning, is he employed? What if he is losing?
You begin to see the problems, and this just scratches the surface. Things get even more complicated when you try to compare state to state, or country to country, because what constitutes legal employment also changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
There are other issues like this in economics. For example, a day care worker adds to the GDP in a measured way, (income is taxed,) but a housewife who raises her own children, her labor is not added in as a measured gain to GDP, even though it is both work, and adds future value to the economy. Same for families that keep their elders at home, instead of in an old aged home. That contribution does not show up in the statistics, even as it saves the nation a fortune.
It's not that economics is not a valuable science. Like all science, it is only accurate to a certain degree. Beyond that point, measurement becomes impossible, and accuracy cannot be obtained. Policy based on inaccurate measures can often lead one astray. At that point they are just guessing.
This is true, "Full Employment" does not mean full employment.
Employment is actually a very complicated subject. The number and types of jobs available fluctuates each and every day, and people enter and leave the workforce each and every day. There is also the question of what qualifies as a job. What about very part time, occasional, and unpaid work? Volunteer work? Black market and other illegal work? Prison labor? When you get into the details you find the devil.
There are also problems with how the statistics themselves are acquired, calculated, and presented. Funny business and political corruption in the data system. The numbers are heavily manipulated to support the headlines in the media. Policy developed based on this data is badly flawed as a result. So much so that it is often better to look at other indicators as a measure of the status of the economy.
If a full time online gambler is winning, is he employed? What if he is losing?
You begin to see the problems, and this just scratches the surface. Things get even more complicated when you try to compare state to state, or country to country, because what constitutes legal employment also changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
There are other issues like this in economics. For example, a day care worker adds to the GDP in a measured way, (income is taxed,) but a housewife who raises her own children, her labor is not added in as a measured gain to GDP, even though it is both work, and adds future value to the economy. Same for families that keep their elders at home, instead of in an old aged home. That contribution does not show up in the statistics, even as it saves the nation a fortune.
It's not that economics is not a valuable science. Like all science, it is only accurate to a certain degree. Beyond that point, measurement becomes impossible, and accuracy cannot be obtained. Policy based on inaccurate measures can often lead one astray. At that point they are just guessing.
(post is archived)