Display:
No they don't. They exclude everyone in institutions and the military, and they don't correct for passive job seekers as far as I can see. The OECD numbers certainly don't. The OECD uses the ILO agreed methodology. The ILO themselves charge for reports so I can't get at their info as easily as the OECD.

The agreed definition of unemployed is as above, and it's a matter of national policy of exactly what "actively sought work" means, as the document linked to discusses. The ILO guidelines are subject to interpretation in several places. Incidentially, I don't think the ILO have numbers - they use the numbers compiled by the national labour surveys with various corrections based on data available in the surveys.

The ILO requirements don't even tie down the two-week vs. one-week availability issue. I'm reasonably certain that no-one corrects for these things because no-one knows how to.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 30th, 2005 at 04:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That 2000 paper from the BLS makes this clearer than I can at 10pm on a Friday night.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 30th, 2005 at 05:00:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And there is no attempt to account for the discouraged or marginally attached in those figures. None at all.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 30th, 2005 at 05:02:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series