Assuming that US jobs are going away due to productivity gains and/or
offshoring, which policy response, if any, appeals?
To ask the same thing, which conflict is preferred?
There are three policy options with potentially big impacts to increase
domestic job numbers. Each results in profound conflicts so choosing a policy
implies choosing a conflict.
Three responses to jobs going away are:
1. Stimulus. Favored by liberals and large (and some other) businesses.
Opposed by Tea Party.
2. Lower the value of the dollar. Favored by (some) liberals and fellow
policy wonks, generally not supported by Wall Street.
3. Reduce the standard workweek. No current widespread advocacy.
STIMULUS. For the short run this seems to be a desirable policy to relieve the
hardship for millions of people now trying to cope with unemployment, low paid
employment and part-time employment. In the long run however, this implies a
commitment to endless growth in consumption.
Conflict: This sets up a conflict between humans and the natural
environment which neither side should lose.
REDUCE THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR. This could increase exports and reduce imports,
which could achieve job gains. Which groups in the US could be better off as a
result is a question. Newly employed will gain but rising prices for all
implies austerity for some.
Conflict: This sets up a conflict between US workers and those in
Honduras, Mexico, Turkey, Pakistan, Germany, and China, etc. This in turn
ultimately sets up a conflict between nation states, with implications.
REDUCE THE STANDARD WORK WEEK. This could reduce the supply of work hours on
offer. A substantial reduction in hours worked by the currently employed could
mean additional jobs.
Conflict: This sets up a conflict between workers and employers in a
struggle over the distribution of the production of the economy.
Which conflict or policy, if any, appeals?
Gene
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
