[PEN-L:2592] Re: High Tech J
At 8:41 PM 1/24/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the previous postings from Doug et al about the MLR progection of job opportunities, what they stressed was the 'shit' jobs that were projected to be created. To me, however, what is even more frightening is the list of jobs they (it) expects to be destroyed. This list must be doubly frightening for women -- the list of jobs to be destroyed are almost all the "better jobs" that women have. I note "Occupations with the largest job decline" Farmers -21% Typists and word processors -33% Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks- 8 Bank tellers - 27% Sewing machine operators - 26% Cleaners and servants, private household-22% Computer operators-38% Billing, posting, and calculating machine operators--67% Duplicating, mail, and other office machine operators -25% Textile draw-out and winding machine operators and tenders -25% If I am not totally confused, that means that 8 of the 10 job destruction categories are predominately "women's" jobs, many of them "better" jobs. This is totally frightening for what it means, if true, to the social structure of our emerging society. Do others read the same message from these projections? Well, if the recent past is a guide to the future, no. In the US at least, women's wages have been rising in real terms while men's have been falling, and there's nothing in store for women that can compare with the effects of deindustrialization on men. I'm certainly not trying to conclude from this that women aren't discriminated against in thousands of ways, but it's hard to argue that women are suffering more from the evolution of the labor market than are men. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:2593] Freedom and Rights
Fundamental to the question of freedom and capitalism is the position staked out by G. Cohen that the definition of freedom as simple noninterference with choice is indefensible. *Very* loosely, this stance is derived from the "your money or your life" example that all leftists are familiar with. Also very loosely, freedom has more to do with the set of available choices (and their likely consequences) compared to the set that is potentially feasible. If we pass a law that would have everyone executed who criticized the government, this would diminish the set of desirable choices available to citizens, compared to a feasible alternative (not having such a law). By analogy, the criticism of economic coercion and exploitation under capitalism depends on a comparison to a feasible alternative, socialism, in which the set of desirable choices available to most people would expand. There are a lot of fuzzy elements here -- particularly the term "desirable" -- and I am just scratching the surface. Peter Dorman
[PEN-L:2594] Re: labor -Reply -Reply
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/24/96, 07:41pm (2) How does one isolate and empirically measure changes in labor intensity when comparing different firms and branches of production? Lisa replies: Good question. How does one measure and compare intensity at all, ever? I guess it is easier to compare intensity of labor when other things are reasonably equal. That's a problem with trying to tease apart the variables in any area of research, including my own evolutionary biology and anthropology. I can make any definition I want, and try to figure out what is measurable and how to measure it. This sort of thing is quite flexible, and should be designed to address the particular question at hand. Re-definitions and new definitions are fine, as long as they serve a purpose, such as suggesting a new way of conceptualizing a problem, or making a point. I take one of your points of measuring output/worker-hour as emphasizing the employer's point of view, that is, output/variable capital affects profits. The capitalists is willing to increase productivity of equal labor intensity _and/or_ increase intensity of labor, depending on whatever is most profitable. My last point is that I would like you to allow me to agree with you on understanding the issues, even though I don't share the need for one absolute definition of anything. We may need to agree to definitions or just _know_ each other's definitions in order to be able to talk about productivity some other time. Lisa
[PEN-L:2595] how to get digested
In order to get pen-l in digest form, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with body of message set pen-l mail digest This took me some experimentation to discover, so just thought I'd share...
[PEN-L:2596] Women's wages
Doug brought up the fact that womens' wages have been rising. I think that some complex compositional factors effects are going on. In particular, how much of it involves relatively high wage professional women coming in as a second wage earner? What would womens' wages be if the composition of the job structure had not changed over the last decade? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2598] E;IPS/EP/DG: No Laughter in NAFTA (on its failures), Dec 20
In the article [EMAIL PROTECTED], of Wed, 17 Jan 1996 16:23:50 UTC, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (stephenh) wrote: I heard on the radio yesterday that a survey was done in Mexico about NAFTA. According to a couple of papers (I believe the Reforma was mentioned as one), 59% of Mexicans agreed that NAFTA had brought no advantages to their lives at all in the two years since it passed. (How about a survey in the USA??? --but no, perhaps that would be asking too much out of America's overburdened journalists and their controllers.) Steve According to the Institute for Policy Studies, NAFTA has failed. Here is a short article: : Institute for Policy Studies, Washinhgton, DC : Equipo PUEBLO, Mexico City : The Development GAP, Washington, DC : : On the Occasion of the 1 January 1996 2nd Anniversary of the : Implementation of NAFTA : : 20 December 1995 : : Tony Avirgan, D~GAP 202/898-1566 : John Cavanagh, IPS 202/234-9382 : Carlos Heredia, Equipo PUEBLO 011-525/514-4339 : : NO LAUGHTER IN NAFTA : : In the two years since the implementation of NAFTA, the : circumstances of workers, farmers and women, as well as : environmental conditions, in Mexico and the United States have : deteriorated, says a study released today by non- governmental : organizations in both countries. : : "The evidence shows that, instead of engendering sustainable : development, NAFTA is leading our countries down a path of : increasing inequality and environmental destruction," said Karen : Hansen-Kuhn of The Development GAP, which issued the report : along with Equipo PUEBLO and the Institute for Policy Studies : (IPS). : : The study, "No Laughter in NAFTA," reports that NAFTA-related : job losses in the United States doubled in 1995. Unemployment : also doubled in Mexico between September 1994 and September : 1995, and the purchasing power of the average Mexican wage fell : by 54 percent. : : At least 334 U.S. firms have moved to Mexico, many in highly : polluting industries, the study said. : : Rural communities in both countries are suffering under NAFTA, : according to the report. Mexican production of basic grains has : fallen over the past two years as the market is flooded with : grain imports from the U.S.. In the United States, nearly 40 : percent of NAFTA-related layoffs have been in rural communities, : particularly in low-wage manufacturing. : : The study documents the fact that women on both sides of the : border have borne the brunt of NAFTA. In the United States, the : largest number of NAFTA-related layoffs has been in the : electronics and apparel industries, both of which employ high : numbers of women. In Mexico, the booming "maquiladora" assembly : plants along the border prefer to employ women because they are : paid less and are perceived as more submissive. : : "The beneficiaries of NAFTA are the large U.S. corporations that : take advantage of cheap labor," said Sarah Anderson of IPS, : "while the people NAFTA was supposed to help, North American : workers, are worse off because of the treaty." : : "As a result, neither the Democratic White House nor the : Republican leadership in Congress, both of which promoted NAFTA, : will likely raise it as an issue in the upcoming election year, : much less advocate for its extension to other countries," said : Anderson. : : "The situation is much the same in Mexico, where NAFTA has come : to symbolize the now thoroughly discredited administration of : former President Carlos Salinas," said Carlos Heredia of Equipo : PUEBLO. "Here in Mexico, NAFTA is such an embarrassing subject : that President Zedillo never mentions it." : : The authors of "No Laughter in NAFTA," part of a broad-based : network of North American citizens' organizations that had : designed and advocated a fundamentally different approach to : continental development during the NAFTA negotiations, urge a : rapid shift in policy before NAFTA's negative effects are : compounded. "Since NAFTA is failing to achieve its goals and : fulfill promises," they conclude, "the peoples of all three : countries and their elected officials should jettison the accord : and reexamine the rules and principles for a more democratic : framework of integration." --30-- : : Note: The full report, "No Laughter in Nafta," is available from : The Development GAP (202/898-1566) or The Institute for Policy : Studies (202/234-9382). : : *** End of text from cdp:econ.saps *** : This material came from PeaceNet, a non-profit progressive : networking service. For more information, send a message to : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : *** Courtesy of Rich Winkel ** Jai Maharaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] *-=Om Shanti=-* %:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%
[PEN-L:2599] The future of employment - interview with Robert Reich
From: "Sam Sternberg" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date sent: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 08:15:37 -0400 Subject:The future of employment - robert Reich gets it right. Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Priority: normal Date:Wed, 24 Jan 1996 17:27:21 -0500 From:"David S. Bennahum" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MEME 2.02 - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= meme: (pron. 'meem') A contagious idea that replicates like a virus, passed on from mind to mind. Memes function the same way genes and viruses do, propagating through communication networks and face-to-face contact between people. Derived from the word "memetics," a field of study which postulates that the meme is the basic unit of cultural evolution. Examples of memes include melodies, icons, fashion statements and phrases. - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= MEME 2.02 In this issue: o Interview with U.S. Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich. "Ultimately, we have to decide whether we are no more than an economy sharing a common currency in which the primary social glue binding us together is the business transactions we do with one another, or if we are still a society in which we have special obligations to one another as citizens." --Robert Reich, in MEME 2.02. In the first week of January, ATT fired approximately 40,000 employees out of a total workforce of approximately 305,000 people. This came several months after ATT shocked the world by announcing its intention to divide into three separate companies: a telecommunications service company (known as ATT), an un-named second company based at Bell Labs which will build the hardware behind telephone networks, and a third company specializing in computers, to be named National Cash Register (NCR). ATT, one of the oldest, and arguably most successful, corporations in the United States, made this decision for several reasons. One, according to CEO Bob Allen, included making ATT more competitive in the changing world of communications, a world where simply carrying telephone conversation is replaced by complex layers of "content" -- from multimedia to video-conferencing to unknown digital network applications. Simultaneously, the U.S. Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, made several pronouncements about the significance of these firings for the US economy at the start of the so-called Information Age. Reich used the term "electronic capitalism" in a New York Times op-ed to describe the changing nature of the world economy and work. I managed to get the Secretary on the telephone for about a half-hour, and we discussed the implications of ATT's actions and the changing nature of capitalism in the Information Age. What follows is a transcript of that conversation. David Bennahum: Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for taking the time to speak to me today. I read your op-ed piece, and I'm hoping in this conversation to really sink our teeth into the nature of work in an era of electronic capitalism and the degree to which capitalism is changing, in a sense, because of, shall we say, the Information Age or the arrival of an economy based on information. Reading your Op-Ed, you had this phrase "electronic capitalism" and that it's replaced the gentlemanly investment system that we used to have before. So I'm wondering, maybe to begin with, if we can start by looking at what do you mean by "electronic capitalism"? Robert Reich: A form of capitalism in which investment decisions are made with extraordinary rapidity. Money can be moved at the speed of an electronic impulse. And there are a wide range of alternative places to park money, not only inside the borders of one country, but literally around the globe. Capital has never been as mobile. In fact, it is hard to conceive of how it could be more mobile. People, however, are still rather immobile. In fact, two-wage-earner families are becoming the norm, and two wage-earners have a harder time moving from place to place and getting jobs than one wage-earner. It's also difficult for people to leave friends and family when they depend on friends and family as never before for baby-sitting, support, economic support, and even loneliness. And finally, it's become difficult for people to move because often much of their assets are tied up in their homes, in property values. The rich rely upon stocks and bonds. The middle-class relies upon their own home as their primary savings vehicle. But when the economy turns sour in a particular region because of a massive layoff, housing values begin to deteriorate. It's more difficult to afford to move to a place where jobs are growing and property values are, accordingly,
[PEN-L:2600] Re: Women's wages
At 9:33 AM 1/25/96, Michael Perelman wrote: Doug brought up the fact that womens' wages have been rising. I think that some complex compositional factors effects are going on. In particular, how much of it involves relatively high wage professional women coming in as a second wage earner? What would womens' wages be if the composition of the job structure had not changed over the last decade? This is certainly the case; women's wages as a percentage of men's in the same educational/occupational grouping shows nowhere near the kind of catch-up we've seen in the aggregate figures. Still, women's entry into previously all-male professions isn't an insignificant social development. And I brought up the point only to dissent from the view that the restructuring of the labor force has been/will be particularly hard on women. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:2601] Wisconsin: Hundreds Protest Welfare Cuts (fwd)
Forwarded message: From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 25 01:08 PST 1996 Date: 23 Jan 1996 00:00:00 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Workers World Service) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Via Workers World News Service Reprinted from the Jan.18, 1996 issue of Workers World newspaper - WISCONSIN: HUNDREDS JAM WELFARE HEARINGS TO PROTEST CUTS By Phil Wilayto Madison, Wis. Over 400 people marched into the State Capitol here Jan. 4 to oppose the governor's proposal for so-called welfare reform. Over half the protesters were from Milwaukee's Hmong community. After rallying in a nearby church, the protesters marched to the Capitol to attend a Joint Finance Committee-sponsored public hearing on the bill. It is known as W-2, a euphemism that stands for Wisconsin Works. After singing songs, the demonstrators began to chant, "No justice, no peace--stop W-2!" The legislative leadership holding the hearing had told the crowd they would have to meet in a room that holds barely 100 people. In response, the people began chanting, "Move the hearing!" They brought their children to sit right up in front of the committee's podium. When more and more people crammed into the hearing room and the chanting grew louder and more militant, the legislators finally relented and agreed to move the hearing to the larger Assembly chambers. W-2 is known as the brainchild of Gov. Tommy Thompson, who has made a national reputation for himself by cooking up increasingly Draconian attacks on welfare. The proposal, however, was actually hatched by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank funded in part by the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation. The foundation also funded the racist pseudo-scientific book "The Bell Curve." Under W-2, all recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children would be forced to take jobs assigned them by the state. The proposal would affect some 70,000 families, most of them headed by single mothers. Critics charge that fully three-quarters of the assigned jobs would pay less than the minimum wage, with no provision for education or child care for children over 10 years old. AFDC families in Milwaukee County, where unemployment in inner-city neighborhoods already runs as high as 25 percent, would be hit hardest. W-2 isn't welfare reform, charged a leaflet handed out by the Job is a Right Campaign, a grassroots labor-community organization that has been agitating against W-2. It is Thompson's attempt to create a super-low-wage, captive work force for Wisconsin corporations. Wisconsin's unemployment rate of 3.7 percent is one of the lowest in the country. The state's corporations publicly complain they must pay above the minimum wage to attract entry-level workers. Among the most angry opponents of W-2 are the Hmongs, who come originally from the mountains of Southeast Asia. Some 40,000 Hmong soldiers lost their lives during the Vietnam War after being recruited by the CIA to fight in the U.S. secret war in Laos. Brought to states like Wisconsin and Minnesota after the war under church-sponsored refugee programs, the Hmongs have found only unemployment, poverty and discrimination. Asian children in Wisconsin now have the highest infant mortality rate in the United States. Since many Hmongs speak no English, and W-2 offers no provisions for language education, the Hmongs fear they will be forced into slave-like jobs and unbearable living situations if the proposal passes. With the exception of the tightly organized Hmong community, opposition to W-2 has so far come largely from church groups, social-service agencies and a few progressive government officials. As more and more people become aware of the implications of W-2, however, the anger and the opposition are sure to grow. - END - (Copyright Workers World Service: Permission to reprint granted if source is cited. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For subscription info send message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
[PEN-L:2602] Re: desert? -Reply
Thanks for reply.
[PEN-L:2603] Re: labor
Well, Jerry, you know [and you do know it well] I could be more blunt, whether you prefer it or not, but I'd rather be diplomatic, today, if you don't mind, or even if you do. Not that my over-politeness will last... #:) Just keep teasing me for trying to be nice... you'll get it back some time! Thanks for the welcome. Best regards [grrr] Lisa Jerry wrote: You don't need me to "allow" you to do anything. Lisa replies: You got that right!
[PEN-L:2604] Re: Freedom and Rights
I think the following position is misattributed to Cohen. His view of freedom is even thinner than that stated: it is simply a matter of having more options, as Cohen sees it. This creates a problem for C, because it's not clear why more choices are better per se. As C himself recognizes, the significance of those choices matters, among other things. --Justin On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Peter.Dorman wrote: Fundamental to the question of freedom and capitalism is the position staked out by G. Cohen that the definition of freedom as simple noninterference with choice is indefensible. *Very* loosely, this stance is derived from the "your money or your life" example that all leftists are familiar with. Also very loosely, freedom has more to do with the set of available choices (and their likely consequences) compared to the set that is potentially feasible. If we pass a law that would have everyone executed who criticized the government, this would diminish the set of desirable choices available to citizens, compared to a feasible alternative (not having such a law). By analogy, the criticism of economic coercion and exploitation under capitalism depends on a comparison to a feasible alternative, socialism, in which the set of desirable choices available to most people would expand. There are a lot of fuzzy elements here -- particularly the term "desirable" -- and I am just scratching the surface. Peter Dorman
[PEN-L:2605] Neato Economic Literacy Computer Tools
After the success of our National Budget Simulation, the Center for Community Economic Research has decided to try to build a series of tools to make it easier for non-programmers to build simple online economic literacy tools. These tools could range from simple dressed-up calculators (e.g., comparing how much taxes a poor, working class, middle class, and wealthy family would pay under different tax systems) to something a bit fancier. We have lots of ideas, but we'd also like to hear from you. If you've ever done very simple economics games in your classroom or as part of economic literacy workshops or have built very simple computer economic simulations for teaching, we'd like to hear about your ideas and experience. The clearer and more detailed your explanation of your idea, the more likely we are to come up with tools that will fit your need. Please email your suggestions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Anders Schneiderman Co-Director Center for Community Economic Research UC Berkeley
[PEN-L:2606] Re: Freedom and Rights
Two mea culpas: (i) I haven't been following this thread from the
beginning, and (ii) I've been reading "The Economist" again.
Their issue of 13 January has a three-page article reviewing "Economic
Freedom of the World: 1975-1995", by Gwartney, Lawson and Block. It's
co-published by, amongst others, the notorious Institutes of Fraser and
Cato (not always approved of by "The Economist", let it be said).
My reason for bringing this up is to ask a question of any statisticians
who read pen-l. After all, "economic freedom" is set up as a construct by
Gwartney Co. and then correlated with such measures as GDP per person,
and average annual growth rates; the relationship is presumably significant
(I haven't read the book, only the article) and, inevitably, positive.
My question: should I tackle this in class by (i) showing that both
constructs are dogs ("Stripped to its essentials, economic freedom is
concerned with property rights and choice" --Economist--and of course GDP,
growth c are not above suspicion), so that the correlation is entirely
spurious? Or should I (ii) allow the correlation to stand, but show that
some other, common, factor lies behind each construct, thus accounting for
the positive correlation?
If I adopt the latter approach, what might this common factor be?
I suspect that the answer is pretty obvious, but that all this cold and
snow is going to my brain. Anything that will help me thaw it out would
help.
C.N.Gomersall
Luther College
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2607] womens wages
Of course Doug is right, women's average wages have been rising relative to men's, primarily, as Michael pointed out, because of the improved 'mix' of women's jobs. But what I was pointing to was that the projection is for relatively good jobs -- the 'middle' if you want -- for women to disappear over the next decade. The disappearing middle is compatible with both rising, falling, or for that matter, stable average wages. What wehave also noticed, however, at least in Canada (and I think in the US though I don't have the figures handy) is that since the '90 recession, the participation rate of women has fallen. If the absolute number of "women's jobs" declines, can we really expect that women will continue to improve their incomes relative to men? Or will they just drop out of the labour force? Paul Phillips, University of Manitoba
