How many really suffer as a result of labor mar-
ket problems? This is one of the most critical
yet contentious sociapolicy questions. In many ways,
our social statistics exaggerate the degree of hard-
(5) ship. Unemployment does not have the same dire
consequences today as it did in the 1930 s when
most of the unemployed were primary breadwin-
ners, when income and earnings were usually much
closer to the margin of subsistence, and when there
(10) were no countervailing social programs for those
failing in the labor market. Increasing affluence, the
rise of families with more than one wage earner, the
growing predominance of secondary earners among
the unemployed, and improved social welfare pro-
(15) tection have unquestionably mitigated the conse-
quences of joblessness. Earnings and income data
also overstate the dimensions of hardship. Among
the millions with hourly earnings at or below the
minimum wage level, the overwhelming majority
(20) are from multiple-earner, relatively affluent
families. Most of those counted by the poverty
statistics are elderly or handicapped or have family
responsibilities which keep them out of the labor
force, so the poverty statistics are by no means an
(25) accurate indicator of labor market pathologies.
Yet there are also many ways our social statistics
underestimate the degree of labor-market-related
hardship. The unemployment counts exclude the
millions of fully employed workers whose wages are
(30) so low that their families remain in poverty. Low
wages and repeated or prolonged unemployment
frequently interact to undermine the capacity for
self-support. Since the number experiencing jobless-
ness at some time during the year is several times
(35)the number unemployed in any month, those who
suffer as a result of forced idleness can equal or
exceed average annual unemployment, even though
only a minority of the jobless in any month really
suffer. For every person counted in the monthly
(40) unemployment tallies, there is another working
