this discussion is like converting a catholic to atheism and vice versa. kung sino ung catholic and atheist well up to you guys.

i just think that we all agree that the people trying to oust pgma are no better than her.

and when those people successfully ousted pgma then basically they will just go back to square 0.

And yes, those cut off led to a decrease in the labor participation rate.

But policymakers don’t seem to care about it as based on the April surveys for 4 consecutive years.

Obviously this will be just for information exchange.

April 2005 was the start of the implementation of the new criteria.

So I linked the labor force survey matrix.

April

2005- //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2005/lf0502tx.html

2007- //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2007/lf0702tx.html

in that link was already a comparison for the 2006 rates.

2008- //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2008/lf0802tx.html

Based on the matrices indicated; the labor participation rate from 2005-2008 have been

64.8% – 64.8% – 64.5% – 63.2%

Well the Labor participation rate was indeed falling.

And whatever policy you claim would arise out of policymakers noticing a falling Labor participation doesn’t seem to work.

Very well.

I believe that the criteria doesn’t fulfill the wishes of the Constitution THAT THE STATE PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR ALL THAT WILL FREE THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY!

You may read further below if you wish that statement to be clarified.

Like i said, I believed the availability issue was valid.

But since I can’t find any data on how many will be cut by using either the availability and the 6 month term for cutting off those who did not look for jobs; I was forced to use the TOTAL cut from the labor force by using the new criteria as against the old criteria.

As indicated in the 2006 matrix; 1.024m persons were cut off from what would have been considered as unemployed if the old criteria was still used.

And hence those 1.024m persons are no longer in the labor force.

I shall copy paste now pertinent issues from a previous post so it will be easier for you to read without referring to the old ones and add further issues as I believe important.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –

But at the end of the day, the policies, rules, laws, etc… of this land must conform to the Philippine Constitution.

Article II- Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and FREE THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY through POLICIES that provide adequate social services, PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life FOR ALL.
It should be obvious that the FOR ALL applies to all from provide adequate social services onwards.

So its …. Through policies that provide adequate social services for all

PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR ALL

A rising standard of living for all

And an improved quality of life for all.

Article XIII Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT and equality of employment opportunities FOR ALL.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth.

Same applies there.

But compared to the similar provision in the 1973 Constitution which states:

Section 9. The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment and equality in employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed, and regulate the relation between workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. The State may provide for compulsory arbitration.

The framers of the Constitution deliberately inserted FOR ALL in the present Constitution.

The provision that includes the issue of full employment is even issued TWICE in the present Constitution while it is issued only once in the 1973 Constitution.

And that’s because then Commissioner and future CJ Hilario Davide jr. lobbied that the provision not only be in the state policies but also in the ARTICLE XIII SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS because of its importance.

Apparently the framers believed his view.

The DEFINITION of unemployment TO USE in GATHERING STATISTICS will have a bearing on the statistics itself.

“The yearly observance aims to promote, enhance and instill awareness in the public about the need for statistics.
Statistics TELL decision-makers on where the country is, the rate it is proceeding, and whether targets are being met, Fusilero said.
Statistics HELP policy makers DRAFT THE RIGHT POLICIES in response to real problems, he said. “

The new criteria at it is now runs counter to the wish of the Constitution for the State to promote full employment for all.

The very idea that a group of the “discouraged” are going to be cut from the labor force is not aligned with Constitution.

Since they have disappeared from the labor force, how can the State promote full employment for them?

The criteria itself serves as a disincentive for the State to lure the discouraged back to the labor force unless their jobs are assured.

Unless their jobs assured, these people once they seek jobs and fail to get one will bloat the labor force for the unemployed; bringing down the employment rate and raising the unemployment rate. Not a rosy picture.

It would be more in favor for a government wanting more to look good rather than fulfill the Charter to leave them as they are. Discouraged!

But criminal activities for gain are not legitimate jobs. But once caught and sent to prison, the government in turn teaches them livelihood projects. They are encouraged by the government to seek work upon re-entering society.

It’s as if it would be better for “discouraged” people to turn to a life crime.

by lost FROM THE LABOR FORCE as against getting lost from STATISTICS i thought you mean, cut off from the labor force, not really available for work, which is illogical.

Try to find out where they went.

like i said, they will show up in the decrease of the participation ratio.

You seem to have had a change of heart.

BUT STILL NO DEFENSE OF YOUR STAND FOR THE CRITERIA AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.

you were not paying attention. i said, the criteria gives better statistics (policymakers will notice the falling participation ratio, rather than the constant unemployment rate). better statistics leads to better policy. how is that not aligned with the constitution?

sorry, but i don’t find the discussion interesting anymore.

gtg.

Don’t ask me a question or refer to another entry…just tell me what you think is right/wrong about this/that.

“i was being generous. it’s illogical to think someone can be cut off from the labor force just by not being counted as unemployed!”

You’re definitely confused now.

Grd actually used a matrix often and you likely didn’t read his/her posts.

He/she actually made a good representation of the matrix on his/her Nov. 22, 3:53 am.

And it came from

//www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2006/lf0601tx.html

The labor force is ONLY COMPOSED OF THE EMPLOYED + THE UNEMPLOYED.

If you are considered as neither, you are not in the labor force.

There is a difference of 1.024m persons between using the old and the new criteria.

Try to find out where they went.

Unless of course you are equating NOT being counted as unemployed = being counted as employed.

And that was Anthony Scalia’s strawman tactic.

“sorry, but like geo, i don’t understand what you are arguing anymore. you’re all over the place!”

Why don’t you try the Constitutional stance of the criteria.

BTW, weren’t you the one who implied that definition of unemployment to use in gathering statistics was far off topic from what the government should do (policymaking)?

You seem to have had a change of heart.

BUT STILL NO DEFENSE OF YOUR STAND FOR THE CRITERIA AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.

Unless you do so, only Geo’s return matters.

sorry, but like geo, i don’t understand what you are arguing anymore. you’re all over the place!

May have misread your claim but you are still not defending your stand against the Constitution.

“you are confused. the discouraged workers not counted as unemployed will not get lost from the statistics. it will decrease the unemployment rate but at the same time decrease the labor participation ratio. the criteria in fact gives better labor statistics, and hence lead to better policymaking.”

Nope.

You are the one confused.

Either that or you are trying to replicate Scalia’s strawman tactic.

You are confusing getting lost FROM THE LABOR FORCE (which I claim) as getting lost from STATISTICS (which you claim that I claim).

And the Constitution still doesn’t back you up.

Well since you can’t defend your stand against the Constitution; only Geo’s return is relevant now.