So unemployment has no value for:
Let me quote Dean Baker (it's on my blog with links):
Laurent, you are absolutely on the mark. In fact, many labor economists and increasingly macroeconomists are now arguing that the employment rate is the better measure since "unemployment," the state of not working, but actively looking for work, is ill-defined. As I noted before, using employment to population rations (EPOPS), the U.S. does not look better than old Europe, at least for prime age workers (source CEPR "Old Europe Goes to Work: Rising Employment Rates in the European Union"). I should also point out that the U.S. data likely overstates EPOPs by 1.0-2.0 percentage points because people who are not employed are less likely to answer the survey (source CEPR "The Impact of Undercounting in the Current Population Survey"). I give the media a bit more slack on using EPOPs as opposed to unemployment rates, because the switch in emphasis among economists is relatively new. On the other hand, there is no excuse for misrepresented a statistic, as the media does when it fails to note that the German unemployment rate is calculated with a different methodology.
you are absolutely on the mark. In fact, many labor economists and increasingly macroeconomists are now arguing that the employment rate is the better measure since "unemployment," the state of not working, but actively looking for work, is ill-defined.
As I noted before, using employment to population rations (EPOPS), the U.S. does not look better than old Europe, at least for prime age workers (source CEPR "Old Europe Goes to Work: Rising Employment Rates in the European Union").
I should also point out that the U.S. data likely overstates EPOPs by 1.0-2.0 percentage points because people who are not employed are less likely to answer the survey (source CEPR "The Impact of Undercounting in the Current Population Survey").
I give the media a bit more slack on using EPOPs as opposed to unemployment rates, because the switch in emphasis among economists is relatively new. On the other hand, there is no excuse for misrepresented a statistic, as the media does when it fails to note that the German unemployment rate is calculated with a different methodology.
Employment rates have their own problems, but they're useful as a spectrum of measures that tell you something about the labour market. Is the higher US employment rate among older workers a good thing or a bad thing? Why? Is taking early retirement inherently a bad thing?
Employment is ill-defined as well: when is someone considered employed?
There is no single statistic that allows us to carry out comparisons between differently structured local economies.
And I already said on ET what age/sex/hour worked/self-or-employee/public-private employment:population table I consider minimal to have an honest picture (this table is available to professional but not to the public AFAIK).
I'm just saying that unemployment stat is currently totally useless in OECD countries at least.
Employment can be cheated by saying "self-employed", but there's vastly less incentive (= none) to do so.
And as Dean said, I'm feeling less and less alone here.
Where exactly does the growing band of "self-employed" sit in all of this?
Certainly in Scotland we see a major statistical "black hole" in this area which I refer to as "micro-enterprise".
Networks of "self-employed", and maybe the re-emergence of something not a million miles away from "guilds" is what I see on the horizon...
It leads to what Marx called the "Abolition of Labour" ie people working WITH people rather than FOR them.
As I said when ET did talk about cooperative, we have zero data or studies on cooperative (small and big) vs current "normal" corporations.
Even something as simple as the share of value-added or number of employees is not available AFAIK.
