On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:19:28 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .

I think the idea is that there must be enough total jobs to employ a
substantial fraction of the population, but that they can include a
variety of types of new jobs -- each of which must require skills
that
are scarce.

Which, I believe, is a pipe dream. The writer has set up a
necessary,
but probably impossible, set of conditions to solve the employment
situation.

'Back to my sackcloth and ashes... d8-(

--
Ed Huntress

I don't remember from high school how many other people one
manufacturing job is supposed to support. IIRC the railroads figured
up to 10, the railroad employee plus one other family, when they
planned new towns along new lines, back before wives took jobs.

-jsw


FYI, CAR now is reporting a multiplier of 8.4 for jobs at GM:

http://www.freep.com/story/money/201...ring/26564257/

If you're going to use that number in any discussion, I'd be sure that
you understand how CAR measures it, and give some thought to what it
means.

There are a lot of ways to look at this issue. The one point that's
consistent from every source I've ever seen, over 40 years, is that
manufacturing has the highest job-multiplier number of any business or
industry.

--
Ed Huntress