I though we discussed his Foreign Affairs paper here a few months ago. On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 09:40:33AM -0700, Eugene Coyle wrote: > Jim, > My point in making the original post was not about the prediction > but about who was making it. Alan Blinder is a Princeton economist, > was on the Federal Reserve Board, and is the personification of a > mainstream economist. When he says that trade is going to cost jobs, > that is news. For Nafta it was Ross Perot predicting job loss. Not > the same thing. > > Gene > > > On Mar 29, 2007, at 8:36 AM, Jim Devine wrote: > > >> >But now he is saying loudly that a new industrial revolution > >> >-- communication technology that allows services to be delivered > >> >electronically from afar -- will put as many as 40 million American > >> >jobs at risk of being shipped out of the country in the next > >> decade or > >> two. > > > > Gernot Koehler wrote: > >> That warning is justified. On the other hand, the U.S. economy has > >> shown a > >> remarkable capacity over the last hundred years for also creating > >> new (and > >> alternative) employment. For example, the U.S. unemployment rate > >> in 1900 was > >> around five percent, and in 2001 it was also around 5 percent, > >> even though > >> tremendous restructuring and economic growth had taken place in > >> the hundred > >> years between the two dates. > > > > this is nothing new. Back when the NAFTA (and similar trade bills) > > were passed, people warned of job loss. The trouble with this > > prediction is that it misses the point. The _real_ issue is labor > > wages (relative to labor productivity). Though the process of > > adjustment may take a long time and be very painful for the workers > > involved, eventually most laid-off workers get jobs. Absent > > counteracting forces (i.e., ceteris paribus), the problem is that they > > don't pay very well compared to their previous jobs. (The rate of > > surplus-value tends to rise as a result of this process.) > > > >> I understand that Marx(ian)(ist) theory can > >> explain job destruction in connection with the process of the > >> accumulation > >> of capital. Is there also any Marx(ian)(ist) theory that explains job > >> creation? It seems to me, based on my admittedly limited knowledge > >> of that > >> vast body of literature, that there is a weakness in Marx(ian)(ist) > >> literature with respect to the theory of job creation in capitalist > >> economies, as opposed to theory of job destruction. (Or, which > >> pieces of > >> literature did I miss?) > > > > Marx's theory in CAPITAL (volume 1) is mostly about job destruction. > > This focuses on a representative industry, i.e., one that represents > > the abstract general laws of accumulation. But there are also > > processes of job creation in Marx: if aggregate accumulation is fast > > enough, that increases aggregate employment (which may or may not > > raise real wages enough to reduce the rate of surplus-value). > > > > -- > > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own > > way and let > > people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
