Re: Some more JG quotes
-- From: Steve Kurtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more JG quotes Date: Thu, Jun 3, 1999, 12:48 PM Hi Thomas, If JG is really saying what you think he is, I think you say it more clearly. George Soros has expressed a similiar position in his recent book and articles. The pendulum will likely reverse, but when? Cheers, Steve Thomas Thought this would provide a little documentation to back up James Galbraith's ideas. As to when the pendulum will reserve - who knows! Respectfully, Thomas Lunde Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 12:42:27 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sid Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: STUDY PAINTS BLEAK JOB SCENE IN CANADA The National Post June 3, 1999 STUDY PAINTS BLEAK JOB SCENE IN CANADA 52% BELOW $15 AN HOUR Jobless figures don't measure underemployment, report contends By James Cudmore Canadian workers are underpaid and underemployed, says a report released yesterday by Ryerson Polytechnic University. The study, conducted by the Ryerson Social Reporting Net- work, observes that 52% of Canadians are paid less than $15 an hour, and that 45% of the country's workforce is engaged in "flexible" work, with people unable to find full-time or permanent jobs. The study, which was produced through an analysis of labour force surveys by Statistics Canada surveys, stands in sharp contrast with the oft-expressed claim that the growing Canadian economy is creating a stronger, more secure labour market. "We hear an awful lot about the new economic boom," said Dr. John Shields, the author of the study. "But, I think there is still a real question about what that means for people in the labour market. "This study clearly reveals a great wage differential between people who have stable jobs and those with flexible employment," Dr. Shields said. "The labour market is polarized between stable, secure types of employment and insecure, inadequately compensated employment." According to Dr. Shields, 45% of Canadian workers are en- gaged in flexible work (defined as part-time and non-permanent), earning an average of $5 to $8 less an hour than full time workers. The study goes on to suggest that these flexible workers have little chance of improving their wage. "All of the indicators show that this is the emerging trend," said Dr. Shields, "It's the new labour market." The Ryerson report also introduced a new employment-vul- nerability measure intended to reflect the amount of underem- ployment in the society, rather than just unemployment. "Looking at traditional unemployment isn't enough," Dr. Shields said. "It masks the tremendous underemployment in our economy, people who are working part time who don't want to be. They want more work, but just aren't able to find it." While the official unemployment rate in the country is 8.4%, the Ryerson study estimates that as many as 20.3% of Canadians are underemployed or otherwise lack employment security and an adequate level of wages. "If we look at the employment problem from that perspective, the real unemployment rate is two-and-a half times larger," Dr. Shields said. "What's really going on in the labour market is an increase in more-peripheral and more-vulnerable types of employment," Dr. Shields says. "I think that's very serious for families."
Some more JG quotes
This book has intrigued me more than almost any other book since reading Friendly Facism. As I read it, I made notations of things that seemed important. JG spent a lot of pages on the concept that the K-sector operates as a monopoly - that was a big idea and one I still am ruminating on. Another big idea was an intensive analysis of the C-Sector which actually produces goods. Page 126 Created Unequal It seems fair to conclude that in investment, consumption, protection and war, we have the four most important forces determining differences in the way industries have performed in America since 1958. Thomas This idea of isolating forces that have affected change is a way of analysing data differently - the same data that convention economics use but with different insights. Page 128 Once again, we have looked at the sources of change through time in American industrial performance. And what have we found? We have found the traces of the main macroeconomic and policy changes of the past generation. These are, first and foremost, the heightened instability and more rapidly churning business cycle brought on mainly by unstable monetary policy-by the actions of the Federal Reserve-in the years following 1970. Second, we find the effect of slower growth, and the squeeze on American wages and living standards, turning up in a pattern of poor performance for industries most sensitive to consumption demand. Third, we have found the effects of trade protection, albeit strongly affecting a handful of industries, which fluctuate with the exchange value of the dollar. And finally we detect the traces of military spending on industrial performance. Macroeconomic and political causes of change in wage inequality are mediated, at the industry level, by the filtering and polarizing forces of technology, scale intensity, trade sensitivity, and war. Government policy did not determine, for the most part, which industries would be most strongly affected by which forces. But neither can the industries themselves, once they have chosen a particular path of development, escape from the circumstances that government policies create. And in recent times, three of the four major forces have been losers. Only investment have been a winner in the industrial performance sweepstakes, and this accounts for the vast relative success of the K-sector firms over the past twenty-five years. Page 133 As it turns out, the causes of rising inequality are mainly macroeconomic. Thomas: To my understanding, JG is saying that the changes in economics and the resultant inequality we now experience came about - not through market forces or globalization, rather they came about by political decisions at the macroeconomic level. Rather than blaming the capitalists - to the extent that I personally have been blaming them in my own thought, JG is reframing my ideas to the concept that it was the political changes that have caused the problem. Though that may seem self evident, it also has within it the solution, political changes are reversible! If it was the market or globalization as we have been led to believe - then there is a sense of helplessness - we are at the mercy of forces beyond our control. JG challenges this by reinterpreting the data and basically says that it was the political decisions affected strongly by economic theory being used as a guide that has led to most of the current problems. Government - plural - have been dodging this answer because then the onus would then be on governance to readjust the current situation with different policies. Once government-s are forced to face up to this through the data presented - then meaningful and productive change can come about. We are not helpless in the face of impersonal market forces - the invisible hand does not exist - or rather the invisible hand, like the emperor with no clothes is in reality denial and the refusal of governance to change and accept responsibility. New political leaders need to arise and challenge current political thought with new policies based on a different reading of our past experience. Once this dangerous idea shows the promise of a political following, then leaders will come forth who adopt differ policy basics. Enough musing for the night. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
