As far as I can tell, the term "jobless growth" makes sense in two different ways. (1) in a recovery period like circa 1992 in the US, businesses respond to increased demand for their products by using "overhead workers" (long-term employees) more intensively and extensively (longer hours) rather than taking on new employees fast enough to keep up with the normal growth of the labor force. So the unemployment rate doesn't fall and may even rise a bit even though real GDP is rising. This effect is temporary, as long as the recovery continues. (2) if the long-term growth rate of labor productivity accelerates, then a constant growth rate of real GDP can be associated with a falling growth rate of employment (labor-power demand). The growth rate of employment may fall below that of the labor force, causing unemployment to rise; more likely, unemployment won't fall. The possibility of the latter type of "jobless growth" might be happening now in the US as, to paraphrase the hype, "the information revolution is finally paying off as companies are finally figuring out how to use those PCs." However, the solution to this kind of "jg" would simply be to have faster growth of real GDP (ignoring the environmental effects of such acceleration). At the same time, the inflationary potential of the economy would be reduced. This is what happened in the 1960s in the US. The above seems very mundane, hardly the kind of stuff that Rifkin talks about (if I understand him correctly). BTW, Rifkin and Reich have very different views. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
