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