Dennis - I'm a sociologist as well, and extremly interested in finding a
net where many others will want to discuss how to deal with the basic
changes in the nature of work and the availability of paid "jobs". If you
know of such a net(s), please tell me. Thanks! Sally Lerner
>When I saw the posting inviting more people to participate in Pen-l I
>had the feeling that it would provoke the usual responses: some calling
>for more relevance and defensive posturing by current participants.
>As someone new to this virtual email stuff and as a sociologist, I've
>been content to read and learn. I agree that more information could
>be passed on and more topics discussed and a general call for more
>participation is not only a good idea but should be a periodically done.
>But. But lets not rush to economize. Geez, the fetish of scarcity
>among economists seems strong. The problem of the commons is valid,
>but since the amount or nature of email traffic on pen-l ebbs and flows
>I suspect it is a problem to the extent that pen-l continues to grow.
>Perhaps not. I suspect that right now it is the effort to wade through
>a lot of email that is a problem for some folks. Thats e-life.
>
>I'd also like to remind folks of a good rule of thumb in dealing
>electronic discussion lists. Not all threads in a discussion have to
>be read. If you aren't interested in a thread, then discard those
>postings and move on. I'm not terribly enthusiastic about the LTV and
>tend toward C. Wright Mills' dismissive comment about the labor metaphysic,
>but I found the discussion interesting. More important its what I would
>expect to find on this list and I encourage those who contributed to
>continue. Theory is relevant. And it doesn't drown out other concerns.
>More participation is not the same as a different kind.
>
>Dennis
>BRES@UCONNVM
