Martin Hart-Landsberg wrote: > The argument is that the rigidities keep employers > from hiring workers so > there are more workers forced to work in the > informal sector with no > legislative protections, etc.
There are indeed rigidities and those rigidities are indeed discriminatory towards workers who are forced to work in the informal sectors. What we need to recognize, though, is that those rigidities in part evolved as a quid pro quo for the abandonment of other, more radical demands from workers. Employers would surely like to have their quid back without giving up the quo. That way they could have their quid and eat it too. If we assume that everything operates on the basis of exchange and abstract principles that should work just fine. If, however, we incorporate things like trust and institutions into our models the flexibility case looks a lot weaker. The Sandwichman ___________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
