Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Not that it matters for these comparisons, but there are estimates of enormous prison labour effects on the Chinese economy.

Prison labour isn't common in the UK, we prefer to turn our prisoners into either drug addicts or more skilled criminals.

I've seen estimates for the US prison labour population as being around 100,000. I don't know if that could be said to represent a an impact on the accuracy of the "employment rate" figures.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 05:31:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe 1.3% of all males 25-54 are in jail in the US, this makes a noticeable difference.

Plus I see no reason whatsoever to not use the real population number as denominator here.

by Laurent GUERBY on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 05:38:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because they don't count people who aren't available for work.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 05:39:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
RIght, but is the fact that 100,000 of those 1.3% are actually working a significant distortion of the figures?

Or to ask bluntly, 1.3% = how many men?

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 05:42:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's the 1.3% reduction in the denominator that matters.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 05:47:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, up to a point. But in terms of prison labour as an issue, the 100,000 matters too.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 05:49:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
1.3% of the US male population should be 1M [to one significant figure ;-P ]

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 05:52:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, if you don't count the unavailable that's the definition of "active population" (which includes unemployed) and which is of course unreliable as discussed many times here.

I still see no reason not to stick with the real population numbers.

by Laurent GUERBY on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 07:29:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series