Talk:Types of unemployment

Split Apart

This article should be converted to a disambiguation page with each type of unemployment getting its own main page. Keeping all of the unemployment types grounded on this page will stunt their growth.=PSmallman12q (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

But they are not all grounded on this page! There are full articles for several of the main types of unemployment mentioned here! I think the current format is pretty good, though I would support the idea of starting pages for some of the types that don't yet have their own pages. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

McJob

I don't think using the term "McJob" is appropriate for this article, as it's intended to slander a particular company which actually has pretty decent benefits and wages compared to it's competitors. -- 67.34.232.41

It might be inappropriate due to being too informal and unencyclopedic if used in the wrong context but wikipedia is here to provide information that's factual and informative, not to cater to the MacDonald corporation's feelings. Why is McJob "slander" but something like the "big mac index" a legitimate subject? --I (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

André Gorz

I noticed while cleaning up some grammar and spelling that the latter few paragraphs of Structural Unemployment focus heavily on Gorz. There are three whole paragraphs that quote him verbatiem. I don't know anything about this topic, but is this appropriate? Ross Ogilvie 123.243.93.169 (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not in my opinion. He is not a leading figure in the definition of the subject. I guess he is just one of many critics. --HJensen, talk 06:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Cyclical unemployment

This term is mentioned several times in this article, but is never defined. Cyclical unemployment links back to Unemployment types however, so it should be explained on this page. Could one of you economist types add a section for that? -- Kimiko 20:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it turns out that on December 26, an anonymous User:59.182.23.181 removed the sections for classical and cyclical unemployment. Those are the only changes on their contribution page. No reason was given for them. I am not an economist, so I have no idea if this removal is legitimate or vandalism. Can someone knowledgeable help please? -- Kimiko 20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Real Wage Unemployment

Is Real Wage Unemployment the same as Classical Unemployment and, if so, does it deserve a mention? St3f 11:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Economists distinguish between five major kinds of unemployment, i.e., cyclical, frictional, structural, classical, and Marxian."

This is quite misleading. Marxian unemployment is not at all widely recognized among economists as a "major kind" of unemployment.

Frictional v Structural

I have rewritten the section on frictional unemployment according to how this was defined in the 1980s. Now I am noticing a significant overlap in definition with what is presently written about structural unemployment. Not sure how to proceed from here. IMHO, structural unemployment relates to long-term factors only. Guido den Broeder 14:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming

Surely better English would be to call this article "Types of Unemployment", or even "Kinds of Unemployment"? Thedreamdied 12:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would. 'Kinds of' is used most, but since a classification is suggested, I'd go for the more formal 'types of'. Regards, Guido den Broeder 13:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio notice

Guido den Broeder added Copyvio notice this edit, stating "Violation of attribution rights after removal of source", which refers to the removal of a referrence to work by Guido den Broeder.

• See ongoing discussion with GDB re COI - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder and previously Wikipedia:COI/N#Guido den Broeder vs. others.
• P.S. {{Cvs}} template used is named for "Copyvio Signature" and not anything to do with words "violation" or "source".

However we should note the reference was added back in October 2007 (long before any recent COI discussion with this editor, WP:COI/N or the WP:RfC) and he had given a clear forthright edit summary of "sources added; please check one case of COI for relevancy".

Whilst I think adding ref to ones own work is generally unwise (but is permitted), impossible for any English-speaking editor here to verify the material for relevance (foreign language references are of course permitted if required - but a potential COI own-reference in a foreign language seems very difficult to defend). Given though that no one previously objected to this reference in the last 6 months, for the moment lets focus on the Copyvio tagging of the article (vs perhaps adding just a {{fact}} tag and seeking on talk page for another editior to add a citation):

Guido den Broeder, I fail to understand the Copyvio complaint - material included into wikipedia must be under GNU Free Documentation License which allows anyone to later edit or amend. If the added material came with conditions, then it was not appropriate for you to include in the first place (presumably as the author of the work you self-referred to you may release your own previously copyrighted material under GNU). But having released material under a free license, you can not restrict its editing or claim material needs removal because a reference to ones own material was removed (as edit screen states "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."). A justified grievence would be if your reference was used to support a fact contray to that made in your book - but that is not the senario here. I would have understood adding a {{fact}} () tag for piece of information that nolonger had a supporting footnote (under need WP:Cite to WP:Verify), but that does not seem to make this a copyvio which seems case of WP:OWNership ? David Ruben ^Talk 19:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no template for attribution violations, so I used this one and explained the case by adding text.

Attribution rights have nothing to do with the GNU license. They are unalienable rights. If a source is used, attribution rights say that it must be mentioned, with proper credit to authors and publisher.

Please note that the publication is in English, not Dutch. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the text justified by both references, and the tag. The bit on distributions was referenced to a master's thesis, which is not a reliable source. If it was published as a journal article, then it works but just a thesis is uncitable. And the second part of the text was now unsourced, so I removed it. GDB - I suggest you flag down a regular contributor to the page, present your statement and source, and ask them to review it. As you said earlier today, wikipedia's not done, so there's no need to have the information on the page now. This eliminates the need for a massive, ugly tag at the top of the article, and any concerns over attribution or copyright violations. Naturally, if a neutral, non-COI editor feels the text and source is worth including, then they should replace both. As you well know and have been told by numerous contributors, you have a conflict of interest regards adding your own material and it has been viewed as a systemic problem. Ask a contributor, bring it up at a wikiproject, but please do not simply replace it. WLU (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It removes the attribution violation, but the consequence is that the text now contains an unsourced statement. That is something that I would never willingly do, when I have the references. (Btw, Peter Kooiman's was a ph.d. thesis, not a master's thesis.) And yes, that template is ugly, but procedure says that the article must be tagged. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, as I already have done all the flagging way back, I don't see why I would be obligated to do so again. If there are no content objections, then the removal was unwarranted, and I hope that you or David will simply revert. If not, I will. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the content incorrect? Do you contest its factual accuracy? Because if you think it's accurate, then it's not really a problem that it's unsourced and the fact tag is not really needed - fact tags are for statements that need citation because they are contested. And I think everyone would agree that an innocuous, unsourced and uncontroversial statement is far better than copyright and conflict of interest violations.

An unpublished PhD thesis is still not a reliable source because it is unpublished. Many PhD theses get published as journal articles. Why wasn't this one? It could have been because it's a terrible thesis, or it could be because the author didn't submit it.

Please do not revert again, that could only be seen as tendentious editing. Take your concern to a knowledgeable contributor, and ask their opinion. Also, your book was published in 1983, surely a more updated version is available. Have you kept up on the literature and research, could you cite something that's less than 25 years old? Google scholar turns up some things, but it would take someone knowledgeable in the subject matter to determine the appropriate citation. If David reverts and replaces the information and citation, I've no problem and neither will you - the person who added the statement won't have a COI.

And I believe the statement you have tagged "It is possible to derive this curve mathematically by aggregating (infinitely small) submarkets of the labour market, if it is assumed that these submarkets follow a probability distribution." was never sourced to your book or Kooiman's thesis. So even if the text and citations are replaced, the fact tag should stay since it flags a statement that was unsourced in the first place. WLU (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a published Ph.D. thesis. Books are publications, too. There are other publications by the same authors, but these two are the most complete sources.

The references also pertain to this statement, which followed logically from the text (but feel free to add them twice). Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is it published? If it's published in a peer-reviewed journal, cite that. Not the thesis. If it's only published as part of the usual process of publishing a thesis for an intrauniversity publication, your portrayal of 'publication' is disingenuous. Is it on the web somewhere? Is it cite in a journal somewhere? WLU (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Wikipedia contains many references to books. A book is not by definition less notable than a journal article, and whether it's on the web is completely irrelevant. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As for my own publication: no, there is no updated version. There is nothing to update, the mathematical proof is what it is. My later work refers to it, but does not repeat it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone develop on your work? That would also work as a citation. If you are speaking of Kooiman's thesis as a book, it would work if it was published as a book, using {{cite book}}. Was it? Does it have an ISBN? What was the publishing company? Books are of course suitable, but a thesis may be bound, but is not considered published as a book, and again portraying it as such is disingenuous. If it's a book, can it be bought on Amazon? If it's a book, all you need is an ISBN and publisher, then you can cite it. If it's an unpublished thesis, and I haven't seen any indication it is anything but, then it is not a reliable source. WLU (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the incivilities and the trolling. It's a book if it's thick. It's published if it has been multiplied and distributed. Not if it's available on Amazon. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)A reliable source is reliable if it is is from a third-party publisher that has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I don't believe thickness of the text is mention as a criteria. The publisher is the source of reliability - if it has not been published it is not a reliable source. This is why self-published sources are problematic and have very limited use. What third party publisher published Kooiman's thesis? You have been equivocal, but would I be correct in surmising the answer is 'it has never been published by a third party, by a reliable publisher, or any scientific or peer-reviewed journal'? In which case it is not a reliable source and should not be used to justify information. It may be a book (by your definition of a thick section of paper) but it may not be reliable. Mein Kampf is thick, but it's not reliable. This comment on what is a reliable source in you mind is troublesome to me. WLU (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

re assertion above that "If there are no content objections, then the removal was unwarranted, and I hope that you or David will simply revert. If not, I will" - let me reiterate WLU's advice - "don't". Please don't a) insert - a thesis is not a WP:RS, you've asked and been informed not so and this is a strongly adhered to guideline, b) stop being aggressive and threatening to other editors (with the "do as I insist or else...") - WP:AGF is another strongly held guideline. Such reinsert of an inappropriately verified material in breach of consensus would be disruptive and warrent your blocking (given your arrogence at RFC and failure to listen to what has become quite disproportionate input from other editors including several admins to work constructively with the rest of the community). Likewise "Please stop with the incivilities and the trolling", sorry questioning whether a self-bound or self-published thesis is a reliable source or not is not being incivil and such accusation is itself breach of AGF.David Ruben ^Talk 01:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please show me where WP:RS says that a thesis is not a reliable source. Many articles on Wikipedia link to theses. Do you have any idea what an insult this is to the author and the university?

It has been verified by me, thank you. I have a copy in front of me. It is also referred to in other publications. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now more than once been accused of being disingenuous. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

@WLU: Mein Kampf is perfectly reliable as a primary source. It is used as a reference in numerous articles on Wikipedia.[1] Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the Reliable sources Noticeboard fully supports my stance with regard to the reliability of PhD theses in general as well as Kooiman's in particular.[2] Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, MK is used as a primary source of Hitler's views on a subject, but would you use as anything except a primary source of Hitler's views? Would you use it to justify information on the social character of Jewish people? What are the sources that cite the thesis, are they journal articles? Scholarly books? Do they develop the ideas? In which case, consider using them as a source for the statement, and the discussion will cease. And once again, I find your comment on the input of others at RSN to be problematic. Ceedjee advised you caution. Itsmejudith stated it would be easier to cite the articles. Relata refero said it depended, and also pointed out the European Economic Review published portions of the third chapter. Again, all three urge caution. The path of least resistance would be to use the EER publication as a source. Why not take that path? Is there a problem with the EER article? And even the RSN archive you link to urges caution and citing not the thesis, but the book that the thesis was later published in. Wikipedia is not a battleground - you apparently have an option to use a perfectly good source, yet you're fighting it. Was chapter 3 of Kooiman's thesis published in EER? Could that article be used to source the statement? Best yet, ask Relata refero review the statement sourced and see if he, a neutral editor, thinks it works. Many options that don't involve a long, drawn-out discussion simply by engaging with and using the resources of the community. WLU (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No and no to your questions. User:Relata refero has already expressed his opinion. With nobody contesting the content, and no controversy relating to the second source, I have reinserted the removed text. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the second reference is WP:COI because the inserting editor, you, wrote it. What questions are you answering, I've asked about 6. Are there no articles or books that develop the thesis' ideas and thus would be much better choices for sources, in terms of reliability and accessiblity? WLU (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No. There are many publications that use the idea. They could be added, but can't replace these references, both of which are perfectly accessible. The fact that I wrote the second reference does not constitute a controversy. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That you wrote the second book is not a controversy, it is a conflict of interest. It is your ongoing insertion of agencies, documents and books on which you have a conflict of interest, in the face of numerous editors who have repeatedly objected that is controversial. If there are many publications, why not google scholar them, and pick out a newer article that develops the idea and has an abstract? It would be newer, allow for a more updated representation of the information, be more accessible than a print document, and is unarguably reliable. WLU (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no newer publications that develop the idea. A perfect mathematical proof needs no development. A COI is no excuse for you to vandalize the article. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, if you would just stop editwarring, canvassing and proceduring for a moment, then I might find the time to add to the article and some of the follow-up studies in this area will definitely show up. They are, however, not updates, and therefore cannot replace this reference. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added the journal article suggested by Relata refero. WLU (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That is chapter 2 of the thesis. It has nothing to do with frictional unemployment. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To divert a little: The text that uses the two Dutch references is unnecessarily detailed and at the same time completely uninformative. No reader can guess what this UV relationship looks like, and one is just told that one moves along the curve ("If the economy changes, the labour market will move along this curve"). Then some distributional information is thrown at you, and finally one is told that it has been applied on Dutch data. Nothing about how, when and why this is of any interest to the subject. If I hadn't seen that the self-referencing is subject of an intense debate, I would mercilessly had removed the paragraph (including the references). Why not make references to some of the pioneers of search theory? Pissarides, Mortensen, Burdett? --HJensen, talk 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

These are references to some of the pioneers. That said, a better balance between this article and the main article on search theory does seem desirable. The two empirical models were subsequently used to find ways to combat unemployment. Articles on empirical models of national economies are still missing in Wikipedia, but that gap could be filled in the future. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Peculiar then that the reference "G. den Broeder (1983), "A family of market transaction functions", Foundations of Empirical Economic Research 1983/1, Rotterdam: Netherlands Economic Institute" is not more cited according to the Social Sciences Citations Index. I would have expected to find more citations when looking for a pioneer.--HJensen, talk 23:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that index, but this is applied mathematics so I wouldn't expect it to show up there at all. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The index is the one currently used in econmics for ranking determinations (it may have been unknown in the 1980s). I actually found surprisingly few citations of Broeder as well as Kooiman (Kooiman has one article from EER in the 1980s which has 15 citations - that is fine but significantly few for a pioneer). Authors who are pioneers would, even when doing applied mathematics, show massively up in that database. Well, pioneers or not, my main point, that the whole paragraph is completely uninformative and should be removed, still applies. --HJensen, talk 06:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, it is relevant to inform readers that this macro-economic concept has been shown consistent with micro-economic behaviour. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not finished. There was a red link to UV curve. If you don't know what that is you may have some trouble understanding frictional unemployment. However, this has just been remedied. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Good fix. I still think the paragraph is incompresensible (it has the emptiness like statements "it can be shown that" and "something happens under some circumstances"). Either explain what is found on Dutch data, present it so it appears notable, or don't mention it at all. --HJensen, talk 10:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I'll have a look at the wording, and will opt for the first. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thesis as RS

Aside from issue of repeatedly reverting & inserting of self-reference against COI/N and Rfc, only fair to acknowledge Guido den Broeder's point above linking to WP:RS/N discussion that theses can in principle be a RS. This acknowledgement needed to revise my previous absolutist rejection of theses. I must say that theses do not (on my initial reading) seem directly covered by Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship section, which repeatedly mentions peer-review journals as a aspired level. Anyway thanks GBD for that talk-thread link, and I've leant something new today (the various editors' raised cautions and caveats still makes this a tricky area). David Ruben ^Talk 00:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mum doin'

Mr. Guido.

Please refer to WP:NPOV before needlessly editing this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.10.226 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Beveridge curve

The 'U-V curve' Guido den Broeden mentioned was redlinked because nowadays it is more commonly called a Beveridge curve. It is a standard part of the mainstream model of frictional unemployment nowadays, called search theory. So I think the paragraph is appropriate. The references included in the paragraph are less so. Guido's self-cite is not appropriate, of course, so finding other references would be helpful.--Rinconsoleao (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)