This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The word technology appears only once in this entire article. I think it goes without saying the relationship between technology and unemployment deserves its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
"Official statistics often underestimate unemployment rates because of hidden unemployment" remove, or clarify and source.
Add the following:
"these statistics almost surely undercount the number of unemployed, particularly as some governments like theUnited States consciously under- estimate unemployment (Goolsbee 2003)
Goolsbee, Austan. 2003. The index of missing economic indicators: The unemployment myth. The New York Times, November 30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
In modern macroeconomics, unemployment (i.e., the labor market in general) is explained with a search-and-matching model as developed by Diamond, Mortensen, and Pissarides (see, for instance, the New Keynesian DSGE model by Blanchard and Galí). The three were awarded the 2010 Nobel Price in Economics, which underlines that this approach is now mainstream in economics. Why is it, that this article does not mention this approach? --bender235 (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Diannaa: the text you removed isn't in the pages you said it was in the edit summaries of  or . What gives? EllenCT (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The one from China Daily in this diff is too-close paraphrasing of the second-last sentence of the first page of the source. The other one has a wrong url in the edit summary, it was from here. Sorry for the mistake. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)