Replies

I read an interesting editorial the other day that, unfortunately, I did not see posted here. It described the manner in which the jobs rate is calculated, using what is called (if I remember correctly) the Payroll Survey. It involves contacting businesses to determine if they have added to their payroll. The other means of measurement was called the Household Survey (I think), which involves calling households to verify employment. The latter was not being widely used to determine the employment rate. The point of the article was that the customary means of measuring employment (payroll) generally will omit self-employed individuals and new businesses. According to the author, the Household index results in very different employment figures. If in fact the job statistics being tossed around do not reflect self-employment and start up businesses, then they likely are not an accurate measurement of current employment. I am sure someone can explain this better (and with more detail and accurate recollection) than I have, but that was the gist of the article.

My wife was a volunteer coordinator for fourteen years. During that time she came in contact with the welfare to work program. I don't know the total specifics of the program, but the idea was to pay the recipient minimum wage for working part time. This was supposed to introduce them into the work community, and obtain them full-time employment. Sadly, the types of candidates my wife dealt with would hardly ever become full time emplyees. They were misfits and unsuited to the professional work environment.

Then I read an article one day that mentioned that these people are considered workers and taken off the welfare rolls. They still get welfare, and yet they were only working 8 to 16 hours per week. None the less, their numbers are reduced from welfare rolls and included in the employment figures.

Take that 5.6% with at least a little grain of salt fella.