Virtually all economists and policymakers agree that, within limits, higher employment is better. If this is true, couldn't the government create more employment by hiring people to dig holes and fill them in again? Is this good economic policy?

Classify the following:A student who has begun applying for jobs but has not yet found one:  employed, unemployed, not in the labor force, or not in the adult, civilian, non-institutionalized population. An actor who works part-time at a restaurant but is looking for full-time work:  employed, unemployed, not in the labor force, or not in the adult, civilian, non-institutionalized population. A retiree who will work if a job becomes available but is not actively applying: employed, unemployed, not in the labor force, or not in the adult, civilian, non-institutionalized population. An employee on temporary maternity/paternity leave:  employed, unemployed, not in the labor force, or not in the adult, civilian, non-institutionalized population.

The New York Times newspaper cost $0.15 in 1970 and $0.75 in 2000.  The average wage in manufacturing was $3.23 per hour in 1970 and $14.32 in 2000.  Given what you know about the increases in the price of the newspaper and wages, what does this tell you about workers’ well-being (as measured by standard of living or purchasing power)?