Re: Jobs, wealth, and change -- more reasons for optimism

["Chuck Martin" <cm -at- writeforyou -dot- com>]

"Richard G. Combs" <richard -dot- combs -at- voyanttech -dot- com> wrote in message
news:219984 -at- techwr-l -dot-  -dot-  -dot- 
>
> Chuck Martin wrote:
>
> <snip> According to the quoted figures, the number of people employed in
the
> U.S.
> > in the past 23 years, from 1980 to 2003, has risen from 91 million to
130
> > million. What's missing? How about (a) the total number of people in the
> > U.S. during those same years and (b) the total number of people who are
> > capable of working during those years. Without knowing these numbers,
the
> > quotes numbers are meaningless.</snip>
>
> Good point. Although, mind you, it's an op-ed, not a scholarly essay.
There
> are space constraints and the editor's desire to avoid the "my eyes glazed
> over" syndrome to consider. :-)

I know. I've spend not a little time working for newspepers--and I still do
occasional articles and photography for mass media.

>
> From the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsatabs.htm):
>
> Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate (employment/labor force):
> 1980 (annual) -- 63.8%      2003 (Oct.) -- 66.1%
> Over the 23 years, the annual rate varied between 63.8 and 67.1%.
>
> Employment/Population Ratio (employment/population (age 16+):
> 1983 (annual) -- 59.2%      2003 (Oct.) -- 62.4%
> Over the 20 years, the annual rate varied between 57.9 and 64.4%.
>
> In both cases, the percentage generally grew during the 80s, dropped
> slightly in the early 90s, grew again in the late 90s, and then dropped
> slightly in the last 2-3 years. But the range of variation is actually
> pretty small.
>
> So the percentage of the overall population and the percentage of the work
> force that's employed has _grown_ in those 23 years, not fallen as you
> suggested/suspected.

I wish I had the time to do all that research.  :)

Seriously, though, that's good news.


>
> <snip> Where is the rest of the story, and why as _technical_
communicators
> don't
> > we see that part of this story is missing? My optimism suffers when I
see
> > that people accept offered information without question. </snip>
>
> Hope I've put your mind at ease. ;-) As technical communicators, we should
> also know that you can't anticipate every possible question or provide
every
> bit of information available. And we should know how to find out more from
> readily-available sources.

Problem is, there are more and more "available sources," and not all are
trustworthy. Plenty of people even suspect "official" sources.


>
> <snip> P.S. Links that go to sites that require payment or registration
> should be
> > identified as such in thei source. </snip>
>
> My humble apologies. I've been registered (free) for the NYTimes for
several
> years, and a cookie makes it unnecessary for me to log in, so I just plain
> forgot.
>
I tend to block cookies except at sites where I need them. But then, if I
were in your shoes, I'd probably forget too. I guess I'm used to seeing that
notation commonly used at useit.com.

Chuck Martin



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ROBOHELP FOR FRAMEMAKER TRIAL NOW AVAILABLE!

RoboHelp for FrameMaker is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to online Help, intranet, and Web.  
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! Call 800-718-4407 for 
competitive pricing or download a trial at: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l4

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.