Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1+some 2/3/84; site dual.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!dual!fair
From: fair@dual.UUCP (Erik E. Fair)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Reagan FLAME
Message-ID: <418@dual.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Apr-84 02:52:58 EST
Article-I.D.: dual.418
Posted: Thu Apr 12 02:52:58 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Apr-84 04:29:21 EST
References: <433@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Organization: Dual Systems, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 35

>	From: bitmap@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
>	Date: Mon, 2-Apr-84 01:14:54 PST
>
>	Perhaps you'll accept a possible reason from me, instead.
>
>	A statistic that comes to mind (from dim memories) is that the
>	number of people EMployed, as a percentage of all possible
>	workers (i.e., not just of those "looking for work or already
>	employed) is at an all time high.  This would seem to indicate
>	that many people (as "types" rather than individuals) who did
>	not choose to work in the past (e.g., women in particular, I'd
>	guess) are now desiring or have employment.
>
>	Also, I seem to recall hearing, several years ago, that
>	economists felt that the base percentage for unemployment such
>	that the economy was chugging along with what they call
>	(something like) "full employment" would have to be raised.  (I
>	guess that implies that they don't think that the unemployment
>	rate could be any lower than a certain rate, under normal
>	circumstances).
>
>	Sam Hall, UCB
>	decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap

In the economics classes I took, the theory was that you would always
have some percentage of the workforce as `hardcore' unemployed. The
type of worker who was outlined was one who worked in `smokestack
industry' which is dying off or automating, and the worker (for
whatever reason) cannot be retrained.

	Erik E. Fair

	dual!fair@Berkeley.ARPA
	{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!fair
	Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, California