Talk:Involuntary unemployment

A fact from Involuntary unemployment appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 April 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that some economists question the relevance of involuntary unemployment because "however miserable one's current work options, one can always choose to accept them"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Involuntary unemployment.

Wikipedia

A question

I cite a sentence from this article:

All workers on the labor supply curve below the market wage would voluntarily choose not to work, and all those above the market wage would be employed.

Is this correct?

On this chart, it seems like the workers on the labor supply curve above the market wage are unemployed. Secondly, is really the red line on the chart "Goods market"? I think it should be a demand or supply curve of the labor market.--ShuBraque (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the red line is the demand curve of the labor? Well, I don't know the Malinvaud's typology well. I hope somebody helps me. Thank you. --ShuBraque (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC) edit: form→from --ShuBraque (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC) edit --ShuBraque (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC) edit --ShuBraque (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a supply and demand chart. The quotation does not apply. The "goods market" red line is the locus of all equilibrium points in the goods market. Based on this model, there are multiple sets of prices and wages that can lead to equilibrium in the goods market and multiple sets of prices that lead to equilibrium in the labor market, but there is only one point where both markets are in equilibrium, the "Walrasian equilibrium." The typical supply and demand chart only looks at one market, this model links together multiple markets and shows how changes in one market might have an effect on another. Disequilibrium macroeconomics and history of macroeconomic thought have more in depth descriptions of Malinvaud's typology.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. :) I'm sorry, it seems like I misunderstood it was an image of supply and demand chart. But I still have the same question. If the sentence cited above from the article means the chart below:

Current level of labor force should be represented as point of intersection of these two curves, isn't it? I think this means labor force below the market wage would work with the current level of wage. This is because the labor force (below the market wage) can work with the market wage (that is higher than their expected wage). But the labor force above the market wage, which means they expect higher wage than the market wage, wouldn't work with the market wage. They would look for a better paying job --> voluntary unemployment. This is my understanding, but the article says:

Quote from the article: all workers on the labor supply curve below the market wage would voluntarily choose not to work, and all those above the market wage would be employed.

I guess this sentence is incorrect. Could you correct me if I misunderstand something? --ShuBraque (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In short, if it is talking about reservation wage versus the market wage, the reservation wage should be lower than the market wage when labor is employed. Quote from reservation wage: the reservation wage is the lowest wage rate at which a worker would be willing to accept a particular type of job. --ShuBraque (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC) edit--ShuBraque (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I flipped the "above" and "below" in the sentence in question, so it should be correct now. Thanks for catching that.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer! Also maybe I will add some information when I have time to do so. -- 175.177.4.78 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly commented by IP... --ShuBraque (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Grieve's comment on this article

Dr. Grieve has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

I find ths entry on INVOLUNTARY UNEMPLOYMENT rather weak in that it doesn't bring out what Keynes meant by his novel concept of "involuntary unemployment", and doesn't make it clear that the concept has largely disappeared from mainstream modern economics, not because it is irrelevant, but because much mainstream thinking simply has no room for the idea that people can be idle, not because they have chosen leisure, but because there is no demand on the part of employers for their services. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8-wWhGFpGYCYlM1QzZTcG56S0U/view?usp=sharing

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Grieve has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference : Grieve, Roy H, 2014. "'Right Back Where We Started From': From 'The Classics' To Keynes, And Back Again," SIRE Discussion Papers 2014-001, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Off the labor supply curve

The lead says

All workers on the labor supply curve above the market wage would voluntarily choose not to work, and all those below the market wage would be employed. Given the basic supply and demand model, involuntarily unemployed workers lie somewhere off of the labor supply curve.[1]

I don’t understand what is meant by on a portion of the labor supply curve or off the labor supply curve. I can understand what the first quoted sentence is intended to mean, though there must be a better way to put it. But what does the second sentence mean by “off of the labor supply curve”? Loraof (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve rewritten it for clarity. Loraof (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]