Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] wasRe: Need advice...now why study toddlers for t...
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/3/2005 11:37:28 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
pamsoroosh@... writes:
I get your point, but have to correct one little thing - people don't
count as unemployed UNLESS they are actively seeking work. Parents who
choose stay home with their kids don't count as unemployed - they don't
hurt the employment statistics at all.
=====Schuyler's in England. They might be counting differently for the
purposes of whatever they were counting about.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pamsoroosh@... writes:
I get your point, but have to correct one little thing - people don't
count as unemployed UNLESS they are actively seeking work. Parents who
choose stay home with their kids don't count as unemployed - they don't
hurt the employment statistics at all.
=====Schuyler's in England. They might be counting differently for the
purposes of whatever they were counting about.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On Apr 3, 2005, at 10:48 PM, SandraDodd@... wrote:
> I get your point, but have to correct one little thing - people don't
> count as unemployed UNLESS they are actively seeking work. Parents who
> choose stay home with their kids don't count as unemployed - they
> don't
> hurt the employment statistics at all.
>
>
> =====Schuyler's in England. They might be counting differently for
> the
> purposes of whatever they were counting about.
Pam Sorooshian
They do it pretty much the same way we do. When computing the
unemployment rate, the numerator counts only those who: (1) are not
working (2) currently available for work, and (3) are actively taking
steps to seek work. The denominator is the entire labor force which
includes (1) the unemployed as defined in the numerator and (2) people
who are working.
So - if you have a population of 200 people and 75 of those are
stay-at-home parents (by choice) and 75 others are in institutions such
as schools, hospitals or prisons or retired or for some reason have
given up looking for work, then the labor force is composed of only the
other 50 people. If, of those 50, 45 are working and 5 are not working,
but are available and actively seeking work, then the unemployment rate
is 5/50 or .10 or 10 percent.
-pam
unemployment rate, the numerator counts only those who: (1) are not
working (2) currently available for work, and (3) are actively taking
steps to seek work. The denominator is the entire labor force which
includes (1) the unemployed as defined in the numerator and (2) people
who are working.
So - if you have a population of 200 people and 75 of those are
stay-at-home parents (by choice) and 75 others are in institutions such
as schools, hospitals or prisons or retired or for some reason have
given up looking for work, then the labor force is composed of only the
other 50 people. If, of those 50, 45 are working and 5 are not working,
but are available and actively seeking work, then the unemployment rate
is 5/50 or .10 or 10 percent.
-pam
On Apr 3, 2005, at 10:48 PM, SandraDodd@... wrote:
> I get your point, but have to correct one little thing - people don't
> count as unemployed UNLESS they are actively seeking work. Parents who
> choose stay home with their kids don't count as unemployed - they
> don't
> hurt the employment statistics at all.
>
>
> =====Schuyler's in England. They might be counting differently for
> the
> purposes of whatever they were counting about.
Schuyler Waynforth
You are absolutely right. The denominator is made of those people who
are "economically active". Which isn't a small point, really, it
blows my whole rant.
Sigh, well, anyhow.
Maybe it's down to GDP? The more women working the greater the tax
base? And the fewer pensioners later on who have to be fully funded
by the government?
Schuyler
--- In [email protected], Pam Sorooshian
<pamsoroosh@e...> wrote:
are "economically active". Which isn't a small point, really, it
blows my whole rant.
Sigh, well, anyhow.
Maybe it's down to GDP? The more women working the greater the tax
base? And the fewer pensioners later on who have to be fully funded
by the government?
Schuyler
--- In [email protected], Pam Sorooshian
<pamsoroosh@e...> wrote:
> They do it pretty much the same way we do. When computing theParents who
> unemployment rate, the numerator counts only those who: (1) are not
> working (2) currently available for work, and (3) are actively taking
> steps to seek work. The denominator is the entire labor force which
> includes (1) the unemployed as defined in the numerator and (2) people
> who are working.
>
> So - if you have a population of 200 people and 75 of those are
> stay-at-home parents (by choice) and 75 others are in institutions such
> as schools, hospitals or prisons or retired or for some reason have
> given up looking for work, then the labor force is composed of only the
> other 50 people. If, of those 50, 45 are working and 5 are not working,
> but are available and actively seeking work, then the unemployment rate
> is 5/50 or .10 or 10 percent.
>
> -pam
>
> On Apr 3, 2005, at 10:48 PM, SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>
> > I get your point, but have to correct one little thing - people don't
> > count as unemployed UNLESS they are actively seeking work.
> > choose stay home with their kids don't count as unemployed - they
> > don't
> > hurt the employment statistics at all.
> >
> >
> > =====Schuyler's in England. They might be counting differently for
> > the
> > purposes of whatever they were counting about.
Pam Sorooshian
On Apr 4, 2005, at 1:02 AM, Schuyler Waynforth wrote:
people into the labor force.
And - GDP gets bonus points when a stay-at-home mom goes into the
workforce. Not only does GDP count what she produces at work, but now
the "professional" childcare (that she used to do "for free") also gets
counted in GDP.
-pam
> Maybe it's down to GDP? The more women working the greater the taxYes. Definitely a way to increase GDP in the short run - get more
> base? And the fewer pensioners later on who have to be fully funded
> by the government?
people into the labor force.
And - GDP gets bonus points when a stay-at-home mom goes into the
workforce. Not only does GDP count what she produces at work, but now
the "professional" childcare (that she used to do "for free") also gets
counted in GDP.
-pam
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/4/05 11:33:24 AM, pamsoroosh@... writes:
<< And - GDP gets bonus points when a stay-at-home mom goes into the
workforce. Not only does GDP count what she produces at work, but now
the "professional" childcare (that she used to do "for free") also gets
counted in GDP. >>
When I was a teenager and Ms. Magazine was new and I bought my t-shirts from
their pages, I thought the most noble thing I could do would be to get a great
job and hire other women to clean my house and take care of my kids so we'd
ALL have jobs.
I'm reading Escape from Childhood by John Holt, and some of the basis for his
assertions in one section is purely women's-movement political spin on
medieval history. Having ever since then been more interested in medieval history
than any of the other of it, and then getting this through-the-knothole view of
the 70's through this John Holt book I'd never read, I'm embarrassed for what
passed for "research" in those days (as people in the future will probably be
embarrassed on bahalf of ours). He says over and OVER and over and over (I'm
going to count, but it passed six) that the modern family was "invented," but
rather than blaming the post-WWII return to the homes and all the new suburbs
which would seem justifiable to me, he was citing women's "historians"
talking about when, whether and why there could've been family units over the past
few hundred years in Europe, mostly. In the 70's, they'd've been reading
stuff collected earlier. And it wasn't until the 1980's that social history
really got its stride and GOOD evidence started being collected in sufficient
quantities that comparisons could be made.
There are other stories in the book I'm really glad he found, but that lame
invention of the family" was starting to make me twitch, partly because I
remember those days and how the women's movement would grasp at ANYthing that
justified going to work (which many women had been having to do all along anyway,
and the equal pay for equal work business was crucially important), and that
justified their not having children at all, or having children they didn't get
too attached to.
I remember their spin on the "infants need to bond" research. Yes, they
said, but it doesn't have to be with their mother, it can be with any adult.
I think back on that now with deepest sorrow for a badillion children who
might've bonded with the first few babysitters or daycare workers or elderly
relatives, and then the next one, and the next one, and then gave up from the
grief of instability of relationships. They're all around me, those adults.
Sandra
<< And - GDP gets bonus points when a stay-at-home mom goes into the
workforce. Not only does GDP count what she produces at work, but now
the "professional" childcare (that she used to do "for free") also gets
counted in GDP. >>
When I was a teenager and Ms. Magazine was new and I bought my t-shirts from
their pages, I thought the most noble thing I could do would be to get a great
job and hire other women to clean my house and take care of my kids so we'd
ALL have jobs.
I'm reading Escape from Childhood by John Holt, and some of the basis for his
assertions in one section is purely women's-movement political spin on
medieval history. Having ever since then been more interested in medieval history
than any of the other of it, and then getting this through-the-knothole view of
the 70's through this John Holt book I'd never read, I'm embarrassed for what
passed for "research" in those days (as people in the future will probably be
embarrassed on bahalf of ours). He says over and OVER and over and over (I'm
going to count, but it passed six) that the modern family was "invented," but
rather than blaming the post-WWII return to the homes and all the new suburbs
which would seem justifiable to me, he was citing women's "historians"
talking about when, whether and why there could've been family units over the past
few hundred years in Europe, mostly. In the 70's, they'd've been reading
stuff collected earlier. And it wasn't until the 1980's that social history
really got its stride and GOOD evidence started being collected in sufficient
quantities that comparisons could be made.
There are other stories in the book I'm really glad he found, but that lame
invention of the family" was starting to make me twitch, partly because I
remember those days and how the women's movement would grasp at ANYthing that
justified going to work (which many women had been having to do all along anyway,
and the equal pay for equal work business was crucially important), and that
justified their not having children at all, or having children they didn't get
too attached to.
I remember their spin on the "infants need to bond" research. Yes, they
said, but it doesn't have to be with their mother, it can be with any adult.
I think back on that now with deepest sorrow for a badillion children who
might've bonded with the first few babysitters or daycare workers or elderly
relatives, and then the next one, and the next one, and then gave up from the
grief of instability of relationships. They're all around me, those adults.
Sandra
Deb Lewis
***There are other stories in the book I'm really glad he found, but that
lame
invention of the family" was starting to make me twitch, partly because I
remember those days and how the women's movement would grasp at ANYthing
that
justified going to work (which many women had been having to do all along
anyway,
and the equal pay for equal work business was crucially important), and
that
justified their not having children at all, or having children they
didn't get
too attached to.***
Holt had this idea that the modern family was a place where children were
more like pets and were not taken seriously. They were inconvenient
little things that parents had to protected and shelter until they were
big enough to leave home. They couldn't really do much, didn't know
much, had to be supervised, etc. Holt believed that this view of
children wasn't always the view of children. Other era's saw children as
capable and, though it wasn't necessarily good for kids and rarely of the
child's choosing, kids were taken seriously, given serious jobs and had
big responsibilities at a young age.
He compared the attitudes that children needed to be taken care of with
the earlier attitudes that women needed to be taken care of and he did so
for shock value. He thought in the new age of awareness about women's
issues he could jolt people into thinking about children's issues in the
same way. I also think he sort of wanted to seem cool and hip to those
liberated women he was exchanging letters with. <g>
But I don't know diddles about medieval history or family units of Europe
hundreds of years ago. I just think his hope was to startle people into
new thinking about the way parents and schools were treating kids in the
sixties and seventies when he was spending lots of time looking at kids
and schools.
I think, if Holt had had a little more time on the planet, he would have
something new to say about "Escape from Childhood." He had that kind of
mind made him work a thing over and over and I think he would have
changed some of his ideas over time and probably did. I wish we could
have asked him.<g>
There's a letter Holt wrote to his editor at Dutton when he first started
working on Escape from Childhood. It doesn't go into the details of the
book but gives a little glimpse of the writer. In the letter he's not
sure what the title of his new book will be but he's considering Out of
the Prison of Childhood and Escape from the Prison of Childhood. The
letter appears in "A Life Worth Living, Selected Letters of John Holt"
and I can send you a copy of the letter, Sandra, if you don't have that
book. It's in my drafts folder, I think. Might be fun for you to see
his thoughts as he started the book you're reading now these thirty two
years later.<g>
Deb
lame
invention of the family" was starting to make me twitch, partly because I
remember those days and how the women's movement would grasp at ANYthing
that
justified going to work (which many women had been having to do all along
anyway,
and the equal pay for equal work business was crucially important), and
that
justified their not having children at all, or having children they
didn't get
too attached to.***
Holt had this idea that the modern family was a place where children were
more like pets and were not taken seriously. They were inconvenient
little things that parents had to protected and shelter until they were
big enough to leave home. They couldn't really do much, didn't know
much, had to be supervised, etc. Holt believed that this view of
children wasn't always the view of children. Other era's saw children as
capable and, though it wasn't necessarily good for kids and rarely of the
child's choosing, kids were taken seriously, given serious jobs and had
big responsibilities at a young age.
He compared the attitudes that children needed to be taken care of with
the earlier attitudes that women needed to be taken care of and he did so
for shock value. He thought in the new age of awareness about women's
issues he could jolt people into thinking about children's issues in the
same way. I also think he sort of wanted to seem cool and hip to those
liberated women he was exchanging letters with. <g>
But I don't know diddles about medieval history or family units of Europe
hundreds of years ago. I just think his hope was to startle people into
new thinking about the way parents and schools were treating kids in the
sixties and seventies when he was spending lots of time looking at kids
and schools.
I think, if Holt had had a little more time on the planet, he would have
something new to say about "Escape from Childhood." He had that kind of
mind made him work a thing over and over and I think he would have
changed some of his ideas over time and probably did. I wish we could
have asked him.<g>
There's a letter Holt wrote to his editor at Dutton when he first started
working on Escape from Childhood. It doesn't go into the details of the
book but gives a little glimpse of the writer. In the letter he's not
sure what the title of his new book will be but he's considering Out of
the Prison of Childhood and Escape from the Prison of Childhood. The
letter appears in "A Life Worth Living, Selected Letters of John Holt"
and I can send you a copy of the letter, Sandra, if you don't have that
book. It's in my drafts folder, I think. Might be fun for you to see
his thoughts as he started the book you're reading now these thirty two
years later.<g>
Deb
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/4/05 9:08:02 PM, ddzimlew@... writes:
<< The
letter appears in "A Life Worth Living, Selected Letters of John Holt"
and I can send you a copy of the letter, Sandra, if you don't have that
book. It's in my drafts folder, I think. Might be fun for you to see
his though as he started the book you're reading now these thirty two
years later.<g> >>
Okay, that'd be cool, or I
Zcould just buy that book too.
If it's an easy send, send it.
Thanks.
Sandra
<< The
letter appears in "A Life Worth Living, Selected Letters of John Holt"
and I can send you a copy of the letter, Sandra, if you don't have that
book. It's in my drafts folder, I think. Might be fun for you to see
his though as he started the book you're reading now these thirty two
years later.<g> >>
Okay, that'd be cool, or I
Zcould just buy that book too.
If it's an easy send, send it.
Thanks.
Sandra