Additional Workers on the Labor Market in Depressions: A Reply to Mr. Humphrey
Additional Workers on the Labor Market in Depressions: A Reply to Mr. Humphrey
复制标题
萧条时期劳动力市场上的更多工人：对汉弗莱先生的答复
DOI：
10.1086/255613
复制
发表时间：
1940
影响因子：
8.2
通讯作者：
W. S. Woytinsky
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. S. Woytinsky
正如它的序言所指出的那样，这本小册子《额外的工人和大萧条时期的失业人数》以非常简明的形式呈现了一项更大规模研究的主要发现。正如汉弗莱先生所假设的那样，额外工人的假设并不只适用于商业周期的一个特定阶段。小册子中使用的“萧条”一词是指失业率相当高的时期。但是，在某些行业和某些地区，即使其他地方的商业繁荣，也可能存在相当大的失业率。由于在任何时候都有通常挣钱养家的家庭暂时失业，劳动力市场上也总是有“额外的工人”。如果小册子中讨论的假设是正确的，那么在商业周期的所有阶段，失业集中在同一家庭中必然会发生。汉弗莱认为这是对我的假设的关键检验，他无意回避：将两个时间点的情况进行比较，一个是繁荣时期，另一个是萧条时期。我很乐意将我的公式提交给这类统计检验，但是，正如小册子（第7页）所解释的那样，为此目的所必需的两次连续枚举必须在同一个日历月进行，具有相同的定义和分类，在两次枚举之间不得有大量的迁入或迁出所调查的地区。不幸的是，无法找到满足这些条件的失业统计数字。汉弗莱先生提到的费城的统计数据是经过仔细审查的，但这些数据涉及的样本规模不一，并没有显示出整个城市工作人口的变化。汉弗莱认为，我的假设（因此，他的假设也一样）不可能用一年的统计数据来检验。实际上，这意味着两个假设都不成立
AS ITS prefatory statement points out, the pamphlet Additional Workers and the Volume of Unemployment in the Depression presents, in very condensed form, the principal findings of a more voluminous study. The hypothesis of additional workers does not, as Mr. Humphrey seems to assume, apply to only one particular phase of the business cycle. The term "depression" is used in the pamphlet for a period with appreciable unemployment. But in some industries and in some regions there may be considerable unemployment even though business is flourishing elsewhere. And inasmuch as there are in all times families with usual breadwinners temporarily out of work, there are also at all times "additional workers" on the labor market. If the hypothesis discussed in the pamphlet is valid, concentration of unemployment in the same families must take place in all phases of the business cycle. There was no intention of avoiding what Mr. Humphrey considers the crucial test of my hypothesis: a comparison of the situation in two points in time, one in prosperity and the other in depression. I would be glad to submit my formulas to a statistical test of this type, but, as explained in the pamphlet (p. 7) the two successive enumerations necessary for this purpose would have to be made in the same calendar month, with the same definitions and classifications, with no considerable migration into or out of the canvassed area between enumerations. Unfortunately, unemployment statistics which satisfy these conditions could not be found. The Philadelphia statistics to which Mr. Humphrey refers were intensively scrutinized, but they refer to a sample of varying size and do not show what were the changes in the whole working population of the city. Mr. Humphrey suggests that my hypothesis (and, consequently, his hypothesis likewise) cannot possibly be tested by statistics for a single year. Practically, this would mean that neither hypothesis can be