Thanks, Mike, for sending the copy of the speech by Bill Clinton.
For me the really profound observation made by BC was that "last
year, three out of four laid-off workers expected to lost their
jobs permanently - the highest figure since the Labor Department
began keeping these statistics." In this light, his plan
recognizes that people are not eventually going to get their jobs
back, and thus retraining is necessary. I'll buy that. However,
to what extent does such a plan make it easier for firms to pack
up, pick up and move wherever they please, because they will know
that the government will be there (minimally, to be sure) to pick
up the pieces? The real and psychological costs of unemployment,
the job security and stability that it undermines, the impact it
has on the incidence of alcoholism, drug use, and abusive family
relationships, seems to fall in the background because now "the
mobility and flexibility of our labor markets" will have all
barriers removed. Does anyone else see this Clinton program as
putting bandaids on cancerous lesions, claiming how much better
the patient looks with these uniform, progressive coverings? I
think I'd like to raise this question in my intro course next
fall. Can anyone suggest possible readings that might shed light
on such issues? Thanks, Roy
Roy J. Rotheim INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Economics BITNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skidmore College PHONE: (518) 584-5000 Ext.2350
Saratoga Springs FAX: (518) 584-3023
New York 12866
-------------------
End of network mail
