I'll start off by saying that I pretty much find all government statistics fairly unwieldy: calculation problem.
But, I was wondering, if your logic compells you to gravitate importance to a (labour) unemployment rate, then why wouldn't the same logic compell you to look at some sort of (business) unemployment rate? Also, how do you guys think (if you could measure such a thing) such a rate would look like over the past century?
"Keynesianomics is a Ponzi scheme."
"You are correct in that Capitalism does not help with poverty, because it eliminates poverty altogether..."
"That wonderful strawman: greed."
Inequality bad.
Yes, we need to measure all those involuntarily employee-less businesses.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Are you asking how many businesses might be unemployed?
How would you define such a thing? Is a business considered unemployed when it has no clients? How long does it have to go without clients for? If a shop is empty for half the day, then is it considered 50% unemployed?
Or perhaps the unemployment rate of a business should be the proportion of time that staff have nothing worthwhile to do. That would be easy enough to measure for the civil service...
LanceH, I ask the same questions about how regular labour unemployment can be accurately measured. I have and offer no idea about how business unemployment could be measured. My question is purely theoretical.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap