{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02313561407826729, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015013536795471327, 'mean_word_length': 5.586709886547812, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Research Methods and Information Sources: What's Happening to American Labor Force and Productivity Measurements?

The question in this book's title reflects the low priority given to labor statistics by the Reagan administration (as reflected in the Bureau of Labor Statistics budget). The national Council on Employment Policy announces good news and bad news. The good news is that partisan political influence does not taint our labor force data system and productivity estimates; that the statistical sampling techniques and computer technology and analysis in use are the best in the world; and that our labor force statistics are "prepared by a highly competent cadre of experts" and retain "a high level of public confidence." The bad news is that "the system has been [too slow] in adapting basic concepts and definitions to reflect current conditions and workforce behavior. This has reduced the system's usefulness in the policy process." The NCEP also warns that "labor force and productivity data systems face deterioration because of a 'starvation budget' which has forced a decline in the quality and quantity of published information and a curtailment of needed research." Leon Taub's paper raises legitimate questions about utilization of labor and tightness in labor markets, labor market imperfections, transfer payments and job search incentives, and the need for subnational data. But his suggestions concerning the Current Population Survey are totally unrealistic and impractical given the already heavy load of questions in the 60,000household survey and the existing and prospective cost constraints. Even a doubling of the CPS would not accomplish what he wants, and supplementary surveys are very expensive. Robert Taggart develops the concept of labor market hardship, a concept originated by Sar Levitan and Taggart (Employment and Earnings: A New Social Indicator, 1974) and discussed at great length in the final report of the National (Levitan) Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics (Counting the Labor Force, 1979). Taggard declares that existing employment, earnings, and poverty statistics don't fully measure the welfare consequences of labor market problems, and that they "must be supplemented by new measures developed to integrate earnings, work experience and income data in a systematic way recognizing the complexities of varying family status, labor force attachment and patterns of work experience." The hardship measures Taggart proposes are Inadequate Individual Earnings, Inadequate Family Earnings, and Inadequate Family Income. He traces these indicators from 1974 through 1980 and estimates aggregate dollar amounts needed to raise individuals and families out of hardship. And he points out that use of hardship measures would result in a distribution of funds intended for unemployed and underemployed from low-income families substantially different from that based on unemployment and poverty. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is now producing an annual bulletin, Linking Employment Problems to Economic Status (Bulletin 2123, January 1982; Bulletin 2169, September 1983; and Bulletin 2201, June 1984), which presents a variety of measures of hardship resulting from low wages, unemployment, insufficient participation in the labor force, and family, household, and poverty-nonpoverty status. Elliot Grossman and George Sadler wrongly argue that labor productivity measures are biased upward and urge the importance of including capital input in a multi-input productivity measure. Grossman and Sadler are confused in their understanding of the social and economic meaning of labor productivity, and they seriously understate the difficulties of producing satisfactory capital input measures. A multi-factor productivity measure is of some value, but the measurement of capital input is difficult and controversial, and its conceptual foundation is very shaky. The Bureau of Labor Statistics points out (Trends in Multifactor Productivity, 1948-1981, September 1983, Bulletin 2178):