Comments on: Unemployment more than just a number

By: ashtondesilva

ashtondesilva — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:08:03 +0000

Matt,
Changing the number from 7.2 to 7.6 does not change the conclusion we reached. That is “The effective full-time unemployment rate based on hours worked is almost at the maximum last seen during the early 1990s recession. This suggests…..”

Changing the value from 7.2 to 7.6 does have a numerical impact however:
- The effective full-time unemployment rate (the pink line) is shifted up. (NB: the pattern remains unchanged)
- This leads to an increase in the magnitude of the gap (yellow line) between the official unemployment rate (red line) and the effective-full time unemployment rate (pink line).

James, I am not aware of any studies, I will ask a few colleagues and post any results.

By: jossy

jossy — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:46:24 +0000

Why is it:
“RMIT University’s Sinclair Davidson and Ashton de Silva” at the start of the article with no mention of Sinclair’s IPA position except at the end of the article.

Has Crikey decided to adopt the A Current Affair and Today Tonight standards of journalism?

By: james mcdonald

james mcdonald — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 08:14:34 +0000

Government, I suppose

By: Matt C

Matt C — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:05:56 +0000

why 7.2 hours? Shouldn’t that be 7.6?

By: james mcdonald

james mcdonald — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:30:50 +0000

Hi Sinclair, is there any statistical support for the anecdotal observation that women, including mums returning to the workforce part time, hold onto their jobs better than men during tough times, while men become over-represented in the full-time dole queue?