Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Distinction without a difference. And you get the point. No need to defend Rain Man here. Neither of you is on the econ faculty anywhere. Drilling the definition down to one so narrow you can claim to refute mine and Less's practical point is tantamount to conceding the point.
It's structural. There's a huge mismatch. And I'm not even getting in the portion of unemployment attributable to people being unable to move due to the housing mess. Which is, again, a for of structural unemployment.
|
This is not a semantic point. We all know there are no jobs for construction workers. If we had an economy where there were lots and lots of employers looking unsuccessfully for, say, high-tech workers, then we would have structural unemployment, with a mismatch between construction and high tech.
That's not the economy we have. There is no mismatch, because there is massive unemployment and there is NO part of the economy creating lots of jobs which are going begging. Structural unemployment is not the reason we are so full from full employment. If you think it is, you have to not only point to some part of the economy where things are lousy for workers, like construction, but also to some part of the economy where the opposite is true. There isn't one. The employment situation is lousy all over the place.
