Reddit reviews Cost-Benefit Analysis (4th Edition) (The Pearson Series in Economics)
We found 2 Reddit comments about Cost-Benefit Analysis (4th Edition) (The Pearson Series in Economics). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
6.9% is actually fairly low. It signals people who are in between jobs, mainly; creating "new" jobs won't necessarily lower it. The "new" jobs would attract as many people who are already unemployed as it would those who weren't. So, on a net basis, unemployment wouldn't decrease.
If unemployment was over 10%, that's roughly when people would go from "unemployed" to "employed" in enough numbers that solely the creation of "new" jobs would decrease unemployment.
In this case, I'm treating booting TFW's from wherever they're working at as creating "new" jobs for non-TFW's as it opens up "slots" that didn't exist before
Of course, these are all rough estimations.
Source: Boardman et al. 2010. Cost Benefit Analysis.
This is my field of study, so if you have questions or comments don't hesitate to ask, but I think you need to think this through a bit. What is your goal? Are you writing a paper? Or are you just trying to understand the impact of privatization? In short, I will say that some people made their entire careers on understanding the complexities of telecom regulation. It is a dense subject with a lot of nuance that shouldn't be taken lightly.
As a general matter, then, I think you should shift the framing away from good or bad and talk about the effects for consumers or how it changed the status quo. You can make the assessment of whether or not it was good or bad after you have laid out the costs/benefits. If you need a solid read on cost-benefit analysis or public policy analysis, check this out.
A couple of words on terminology. Do you really care about the privatization OR do you care about the regulatory regime that BT was put into afterwards? The UK government owned all of the shares of BT and then one day said that they were going to put them up for sale. Is that important and if so why? A quick search turned up this paper, suggesting that the private/public distinction didn't matter much.
What did matter was the change in the regulatory regime. In the US, we didn't have a national telecom company, we had a government granted monopoly. But we did enact much of the same regime on AT&T as was enacted on BT, as did a lot of other countries. To this effect, I would check out this paper from Jerry Hausman where he talks about the effect of unbundling and such around page 33. Hausman, if you haven't taken a lot of econometrics, has a number of statistical tests named after him. He is highly respected.
As I see it, the paper entitled "Public ownership, privatisation and regulation: social welfare counterfactuals for British Telecom" is the best since it is using a counterfactual analysis. I would start there and try to understand the gist of the social effects.
Finally, a word about prices. In the US, IIRC, prices did go up for short distance calls, but long distance calls prices went down. Interestingly, the immediate effect of an increase in prices was that people talked more often using long distance and less often with a short distance. In other words, consumers budget didn't change, but how and what they consumed did. Be careful of this.
Other comments / resources: