Our response to the announcement of ELSTAT is as follows:
1. In our Reports, we estimated the real unemployment rate based mainly on the principle that the jobs created must be full-time, so that we have a better assessment of the real situation in labour market conditions and the macroeconomic consequences. This principle expresses our own theoretical and ideological perspective in the labour market. In this advice I don’t accept.
2. In our Reports we do not question the official statistics of ELSTAT. Analyzing the economic fundamentals behind these, and even more behind, we evaluate the example of economic theory, ideology, economic policy and the economic interests that serve these sizes. Also, we strive, on the basis of the statistical data available to quantify economic values that best express our own values and our own methodology.
3. The calculation of alternative estimates of the unemployment rate is a standard practice, which is of particular importance in the present circumstances of prolonged crisis on the labour market. We note, for example, the very serious and credible american statistical service (Bureau of Labor Statistics) presents six different estimates of the unemployment rate, some of these is the logic of our own methodology, which is identical with that using the institutes which publish the Independent Annual Growth Survey.
4. In this context, we wonder when it generated a false impression, when a person working a few hours a week or month is considered to be substantially unemployed, or when it is considered working and is not included in the rate of unemployment? What are the economic and social interests served in each of these two statistical methodologies it? In democracies, everyone involved in the struggle of ideas. We don’t want to give advice to the hellenic statistical authority, or to make suggestions. We respect the independence of the. We wish reliability, which is not gained with announcements to impress.
Response of the institute of labour GSEE in ELSTAT
—