4 ms·
I would suggest that there are many less jobs than there were 100 years ago, and that the reason it didn't seem that way in, say, 1999, was that there were lots
by randallsquared 15y ago
I would suggest that there are many less jobs than there were 100 years ago, and that the reason it didn't seem that way in, say, 1999, was that there were lots of non-market reasons to avoid firing people which kept those jobs until a real recession hit.
- protomyth 15y agoI would dearly love a link to hard stats proving the number of jobs has been reduced. See brianbreslin's comment for a counter example.
- randallsquared 15y agoHere's a link: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2644.pdf http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2644.pdf After a bit of reading, though, it seems I'm wrong. If this study is to be believed, employment rates around 1900 were quite chaotic.
- protomyth 15y agoWow, they are going through some serious gyrations to figure out the rates. You're right, that is some serious chaos. If I get their figures right (kinda hard), it seems like the number of jobs available is greater now than in 1900, but that might take a while more to verify. nice find.