[PEN-L:8554] request
Friends, I hate to use the list for a personal request, but I promised to fax an article to A.S.Fatemi at the American Univ. in Paris. I can't get through by either fax or phone. So, A.S., if you see this, please let me know if the numbers are correct: phone 33 01 40 62 06 40 fax 33 01 47 53 88 03 thanks and sorry, Michael Yates
[PEN-L:8555] Innovative fund raising technique
I thought this may be of interest. The letter, forwarded by Sid Shniad, is genuine: last week I spoke with David Noble, of York's History Department, who debated York's President on Canadian television. The controversy generated by the letter has been widely reported in the Canadian media, although I have not seen reports in the US (where was the Left Business Observer on this one?) Looking for an appropriate logo, Phil Philip Kraft Department of Sociology SUNY-Binghamton Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (607) 777-2585 (607) 777-4197 (fax) YORK UNIVERSITY ATKINSON COLLEGE 4700 KEELE STREET * NORTH YORK * ONTARIO CANADA* M3J 1P3 January 21, 1997 Dear _: For you and many others, Atkinson was the catalyst to help move your life forward by obtaining your university degree. When you made the choice to attend Atkinson, you chose one of Canada's leading educational institutions for adult part-time studies. By participating in York's $100 million National Campaign, you will help move Atkinson more confidently into the 21st century. Based on our Alumni's previous contributions, Atkinson College, among other achievements, was able to launch a new Division of Multi-Media Learning in May 1996. This new Division offers the first degree-credit courses in Ontario delivered entirely on the internet This academic year, eight courses will be offered through the VRAIE (Virtual Reality Assisted Interactive Education) program. In addition, the Division is offering over 30 media-enhanced correspondence courses serving over 4,000 enrollees. With your help, we hope to double the number of enrollees this academic year; however, it has become increasingly difficult for students to keep up with the rising cost of education. In response, York has launched The National Campaign to raise funds for student financial aid. In light of the government's new 'matching gift' legislation, all gifts designated towards student financial aid will be matched dollar-for-dollar by the government. This support will help to strengthen Atkinson's future. Our Alumni support the leading centre for adult education in Canada. We hope you will work with us to improve Atkinson College as we embark upon the National Campaign. Your now have the opportunity to have your name associated with your college in perpetuity. For instance, a gift of $5,000 will enable you to attend our annual awards night banquet to see a deserving student win an award that will be given out in your name annually. Not only will the government match your gift to create a perpetual endowment of $500 or more a year, but your donation itself can be used as a tax deduction and may be divided over the next three years to make payments easier. For a gift of $10,000, on the other hand, you or your corporation can become the official sponsor for the development and design of one of our new multi-media, high-tech course which will bear your name or company logo for as long as that course, or a version of it, is offered by Atkinson (two to three times a year). If you cannot become one of our life-long sponsors at this time, we would ask you to consider a leadership gift of $200 per year over the next three years for a total gift of $600. Of course, you may wish to give more or less -- only you can decide what's best for you this year. Atkinson prides itself on meeting the needs of a special clientele -- adult part-time students determined to make their lives count. As education and teaching techniques changes, Atkinson must continue to place itself in a position where it can serve the students of not just today but tomorrow as well. In addition, Atkinson has a dedicated faculty of the highest quality. Did you know, for example, that in the last three years, the CASE Award -- the highest teaching award attainable in north American -- was won _twice_ by Atkinson faculty members? When you consider the 30 universities in Canada nominated their best, this is an astounding honor. Please give serious consideration to your contribution to Atkinson. We have asked a Student Caller to contact you by telephone to discuss recent developments at Atkinson and your gift to The National Campaign. Whatever the amount you choose as your gift for the Campaign, your may rest assured that your gift will be greatly appreciated and wisely invested. Sincerely, Harold Bassford Peter Such Varpu Lindstrom DeanAssoc. Dean, Director Master Atkinson CollegeMulti-Media LearningAtkinson College
[PEN-L:8559] Nairu,etc.
(The Devine) Jim responded to my comments about the illogicality of heterodox economists even accepting NRU OR Nairu as the basis of macroeconomic debate by talking about shifts in the institutions governing the labour market and the effect that this can have on the trade-off between inflational and unemployment. Now, of course, no one can deny that institution change can improve or reduce the efficiency of the trade-off i.e. can shift the Phillips curve (though I reject the sexist and classist explanations for the shift offered by orthodox economists as explained in my last post). But Jim seems to ignore the whole point I was trying to make. Whether one is talking Nairu or NRU, you have to accept a VERTICAL PHILLIPS CURVE by definition. There is no trade-off. Nairu stands for Non-accellerating inflation rate of unemployment. i.e. below that unemployment rate inflation must continue to accelerate so that attempting to reduce that level of unemployment will automatically accelerate into runaway inflation until that Nairu rate of unem. is reestablished at which the rate of inflation will stabilize. That means you can not reduce unemployment through macro policy without first changing the institutions (destroying unions, capping wages, reducing minimum wages, UI payments, deregulating labour markets, etc., all the elements of the neo-con agenda.) This is what is so dangerous in accepting this approach. Now with Bill M's, my own, and someone else on the list that posted on this the "class stuggle rate of unemployment", this problem is averted because it isn't the rate of unemployment that is the determinant, but rather the rate of inflation acceptable to the capos which is also compable with the minimum rate of profits acceptable to the capos. It forces the debate onto not why wages and employment must be contained, but why profits and rentier income have accelerated to the point where unemployment has had to rise to keep wages down so that productivity gains can be expropriated virtually entirely by property. Paul Phillips, economics, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:8561] Re: Nairu,etc.
Paul Phillips wrote,
...[NAIRU, vertical phillips curve...] means you can not reduce
unemployment through macro policy without first changing the
institutions (destroying unions, capping wages, reducing minimum
wages, UI payments, deregulating labour markets, etc., all the
elements of the neo-con agenda.)
...
... the rate of inflation acceptable to the capos which
is also compable with the minimum rate of profits acceptable to the
capos...
At the risk of blowing the discussion wide open, I have to challenge Paul's
one-sided listing of anti-working class institutional changes ("destroying
unions, capping wages," etc.) as if change were all bad. Strategically, the
heaviest burden for the left for the last 25 years has been the defence of
welfare state institutions, which, at best, were poorly designed and
unresponsive or, at worst, were actually intended to contain social unrest
and channel it away from political action (in which case they were not so
poorly designed, after all).
I've been called everything from a laissez-faire libertarian to a frothing
at the mouth right-winger for suggesting that some of those welfare state
institutions may not be worth defending at all. In fact, I maintain that it
is in the best interest of working people to dismantle some aspects of the
welfare state that are downright regressive. My advocacy is not based on a
hare-brained strategy to "make things worse so the masses will revolt" but
on an analysis of the political trade-offs contained in specific welfare
state policies.
Similarly, I think we miss a lot of the complexity if we insist that ruling
class policy goals are concerned _solely_ or even predominantly with
ensuring profits. Maintaining political hegemony is also high on the agenda
for the "capos" and that isn't always compatible with the most direct route
to profitability. Contra Mao and Chomsky, I'd have to argue (with Gramsci
Aristotle) that political power comes neither from the barrel of a gun nor
from the ownership of the media. Persuasion still has something to do with it.
What the neo-liberals (I prefer this term to neo-con) have succeeded in
doing with their NAIRUs and their 'deregulation' is seize the platform as
proponents of a _possible_ future. They have only been able to monopolize
this stance because the left(s) have vacillated between being defenders of a
(illusory) comfortable recent past and advocates of an unlikely, apocalytic
vision.
Frankly, all of us, right and left, are a lot more bureaucratic and
conformist than any of us would care to admit. Thrust into political power,
we invariably peek into the file cabinets to see "how it's always been done."
To get back to Paul's comment about not being able to exercise "macro policy
without first changing the institutions" -- it's true in the most
fundamental sense. There is no macro policy exogenous to the institutions
that exercise it and on which it is exercised. The dispute between right and
left should not be about WHETHER to change institutions but about HOW to
change institutions.
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^
knoW Ware Communications |
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |does life unfold as fate."
(604) 669-3286|
^^
The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:8563] Berkley Rosser, Jerry Levy
Just made my reservations. Will be arriving in Columbia at 7PM on Wed and leaving on a 3PM flight that Sunday. The reservations became a bit more complicated since the week's delay changed availability somewhat and the also the price became about $35 higher. Robert
[PEN-L:8564] Query: Canada/US health care merger data?
Do our Canadian comrades or others have leads on data, - even anedotal data - on cross-border mergers or acquisitions or expansions of health care firms between the US and Canada over say the last 10 or 5 years? This is for a quick study Dave Ranney and I are doing where we are trying to make some links between downsizing/restructuring in health care and "free trade"/globalization; in the context of downsizing/restructuring at the University hospital here. i p-l s ___ Robert Naiman 1821 W. Cullerton Chicago Il 60608-2716 (h) 312-421-1776 (here there is voice mail) Urban Planning and Policy (M/C 348) 1007 W. Harrison Room 1180 Chicago, Il 60607-7137 (o) 312-996-2126 (here there is voice mail also) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://icarus.uic.edu/~rnaima1/
[PEN-L:8570] No to Maastricht!
/* Written 5:35 PM Feb 7, 1997 by theorganizer in igc:alt.pol.soc.tr */ /* -- "Feb 1 London Workers Rally Success!" -- */ From the upcoming Feb. issue of THE ORGANIZER Resolution OF THE London Rally Against the Maastricht Treaty, February 1st 1997 1997: This is the year when governments in all European countries -- European Union member countries and candidates for entry -- have decided to heighten the pressure in order to meet the well-known convergence criteria included in the Maastricht Treaty. 1997: In each and every country wage-earners and unemployed workers, youth, pensioners, small farmers, the self-employed, and all defenders of democracy are expressing their growing resentment. 1997: The preservation of social gains, workers' and democratic rights, labor legislation, collective-bargaining guarantees and nationally recognized job status, the welfare state, pensions, schools and public services is diametrically opposed to implemen ting the Maastricht Treaty. Even the most elementary civil liberties -- the right to organize trade unions, the right of association -- are being jeopardized. No one could venture to say that Maastricht is compatible with social justice and democracy. 1997: The legal framework for collective protection and the rights won through working class struggle are being undermined everywhere in the name of reforming the state and dismantling the welfare state. We the peoples of Europe, wish to place on record our demands for full employment, lifelong healthcare and education, decent wages, benefits and pensions, so that those who create the continent's wealth shall share fully in it. We demand that military expenditure be diverted from the means of death to the means of life. We are also committed to the democratic control of our destiny and reject completely the convergence criteria imposed by the Maastricht Treaty, which would lead to the domination of our lives by bankers and commissioners we did not elect and cannot remove. .. 1997 must be the year for international action, since internationalism is the answer to globalization -- another word for the imposition of capitalism. We invite all the democratic, progressive and labor organizations in Europe to prepare their own plans for this year and coordinate them. This is the conclusion we draw after hearing delegates of workers and organizations from 18 European countries meeting in London on February 1st, 1997. We launch the following appeal: Repealing the Maastricht Treaty is a prerequisite to any step forward toward a Workers' and Peoples' Europe. The Maastricht Treaty must and can be repealed. The socially regressive policies imposed in each country in the name of convergence criteria and the single currency can and must be defeated. We propose that public protests for the Maastricht Treaty's repeal be convened, in forms best adapted to each country, on May 30th and 31st, the two days of action against privatization and deregulation. We, the undersigned, in due respect of the prerogatives of the organizations and the diverse political opinions represented at this conference, call on all labor and democratic organizations to organize these events in their own countries. We call on them to designate their delegates to join the European delegation which will request an audience with Mr. Santer, chairman of the European Commission. Repeal the Maastricht Treaty! No to the single currency and the convergence criteria! No to privatizations and deregulation! Defend labor, trade union, and democratic rights! OrganiZe the united fightback of the workers and peoples of Europe in defense of their rights and gains, to uphold democracy First endorsers: * Tony Benn, MP (Great Britain) * Jeremy Corbyn, MP (Great Britain) * Eddy Loyden, MP (Great Britain) * Alf Lomas, MEP, (Great Britain) * Jacky Johnson,NATFHE, Lecturers Trade Union (Great Britain) * Geoff Martin, convenor, UNISON London regional Committee (Great Britain) * Jimmy Nolan, Chairman Merseyside dock workers, Liverpool (Great Britain) * Bob Crow, RMT (railway workers) (Great Britain) * Daniel Gluckstein, National Secretary of the Workers Party (France) * Jo Salamero, trade unionist, (France) * Jean-Jacques Karman, Deputy-mayor, French CP, Aubervilliers (France) * Aires Rodrigues, Socialist Party, MP from 1975 to 1979 (Portugal) * Juan Uriondo, Informacion obrera editorial board, CCOO trade unionist (Spain) * K.-H. Gerhold, AfA leadership (SPD Labour work group), Saxe Anhalt, OTV trade unionist (Germany) * Lorenzo Varaldo, UIL teacher trade union leadership, Turin (Italy) * Aristidis Chetzjissoviolis, president of the Federation of industrial trade unions (Greece) * Tage Hvilsom, SID, on his personal capacity (Denmark) * Alexandre Jidenkov, Solidarnost (Russia) * Rolandas Medziunas, Education Workers Trade Union (Lithuania) * Florin Constantin, Committee for Trade Unions Independence (Romania) * Laszlo Asztalos, EWA Committee, steel workers
[PEN-L:8571] Labour teach-in
Please circulate this widely. Ask those who wish to endorse the teach-in to send an e-mail note to both [EMAIL PROTECTED] and to Jeremiah Jeffries ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) who is keeping the master list. [Ralph Nader, who isn't listed below, will also be speaking at the teach-in.] Workers' Rights are Civil Rights: A Teach-in with the Labor Movement The revitalization of American democracy requires that the rights to free speech, to fair treatment, to assembly, and to self-organization must be protected with as much vigor at the worksite as in the community at large. Human dignity is indivisible. Indeed, the rebirth of a dynamic, democratic, multicultural labor movement is essential to the social and political health of our nation. "Workers' Rights are Civil Rights: A Teach-in with the Labor Movement," scheduled for February 27-28 on the grounds of the University of Virginia, will promote the engagement of a new generation of students, academics, and organizers by exploring the links between economic injustice, on the one hand, and racial, social, and gender inequalities, on the other. Among the speakers and panelists are Richard Trumka, Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO; Barbara Ehrenreich, author and feminist, Julian Bond, civil rights leader and lecturer at the University of Virginia; Pamela Karlan, professor of Law, Edward Ayers, Hugh Kelly professor of History; Daniel LeBlanc, president, Virginia AFL-CIO; Barbara Pnear, chair of the University of North Carolina Housekeepers Association; Deborah McDowell, professor of English; Sharon Hays, professor of Sociology; Adolph Reed, professor of Political Science at Northwestern University; Joyce Breeden, UVa classified staff; Nelson Lichtenstein, professor of History; Jimmy Brooks, president, American Postal Workers Union Local in Charlottesville; George Rutherglen, O.M. Vickers professor of Law; John McCutcheon, folksinger and labor activist; and Rebecca Hyman, teaching assistant in English. We endorse this important and timely convocation. Please join us. (Affiliations noted for identification purposes only.) Herbert (Chip) Tucker, professor of English Ann Lane, Director of Women's Studies Nelson Lichtenstein, professor of History John McCutcheon, folksinger Tico Braun, associate professor of English Susan Fraiman, associate professor of English Kendra Hamilton, graduate student in English John Mason, assistant professor of History Dan Geary, undergraduate in History Clair Kaplan, Sexual Assault Education Brian Owensby, assistant professor of History Mike Swanson, undergraduate in History Reginald Butler, Director of the Carter G. Woodson Institute Eric Lott, professor of English David Waldner, assistant professor of Government Elizabeth Thompson, assistant professor of History Jimmy Brooks, American Postal Workers, Charlottesville
[PEN-L:8575] Re: wrongful dismissals
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:8568] wrongful dismissals The point of the connection with the wrongful dismissal suits and the hiring of welfare recipients was that the firms wanted to dump some existing workers for no cause, so that they could chip in an contribute to the social good by hiring welfare recipients. I thought you were making a serious proposal to trade some amount of regulation for some added employment, something I wouldn't be against in principle but would try to consider in terms of gains and losses. MBS
[PEN-L:8576] Re: wrongful dismissals
I did not make the proposal. Business in Cal. is making this proposal. Sorry if I was unclear. Max B. Sawicky wrote: From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:8568] wrongful dismissals The point of the connection with the wrongful dismissal suits and the hiring of welfare recipients was that the firms wanted to dump some existing workers for no cause, so that they could chip in an contribute to the social good by hiring welfare recipients. I thought you were making a serious proposal to trade some amount of regulation for some added employment, something I wouldn't be against in principle but would try to consider in terms of gains and losses. MBS -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8574] Re: Women's work
Justin, Marilyn Waring in NZ has written a book about the valuation of women's unpaid work. Check the following WWW site. http://www.massey.ac.nz/~KBirks/gender/econ/waring.htm In the relatively new journal Feminist Economics Volume 1, Issue 1, Spring 1995, you'll find Becker's Theory of the Family: Preposterous Conclusions by Barbara Bergmann Also Volume 1, Number 2 Summer 1995 has a paper entitled The Discovery of "Unpaid Work": The Social Consequences of the Expansion of "Work" by Susan Himmelweit In Volume 2, you'll find a number of papers. Counting Outputs, Capital Inputs and Caring Labor: Estimating Gross Household Product Duncan Ironmonger Unpaid Household Work and the Distribution of Extended Income: The Norwegian Experience Iulie Aslaksen and Charlotte Koren An Estimation of Time and Commodity Intensity in Unpaid Household Production Iulie Aslaksen, Trude Fagerli, and Hanne A. Gravningsmyhr Scenarios for a Redistribution of Unpaid Work in the Netherlands Marga Bruyn-Hundt Of Milk and Coca Cola Meena Acharya Thou Shalt Not Live by Statistics Alone, but It Might Help Lourdes Beneria Measure it to Make it Count Robert Eisner The Valuation of Unpaid Work at Statistics Canada Chris Jackson Priorities for Research on Non-Market Work Duncan Ironmonger. That lot should keep you going for some time! Martin Watts 27 November, 1995Justin Schwartz wrote: I am working on a paper on women's work--housekeeping, childcare, etc., as exploited labor. I am looking generally for bibliographical references that deal with this in helpful ways. I am also looking for a couple of specific things: Any attempts to either value the total contribution of women's nonmarket labor as part of the the total economic product; including methodologies for doing this, and any quantitative results. I think Nancy Folbre did some work on this. Theoretical accounts of the sense in which women's work so defined is exploited (or not); Useful critical discussions of Becker on the gender allocation of women's work in the household; Citations to the old "wages for housework" proposal, and any literature on that idea, if anyone still holds out for it. Other proposals for ending the exploitation of housework and childcare. In this connection I am playing with the idea of a guaranteed annual income intended specifically as remuneration for this sort of caregiving labor. Has anyone considered such a proposal? --Justin Schwartz -- Martin WattsEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Economics Office: (61) 49 215069 (Phone) University of Newcastle Office: (61) 49 216919 (Fax) New South Wales 2318, Australia Home: (61) 49 829611 (Phone/Fax)
[PEN-L:8572] Women's work
I am working on a paper on women's work--housekeeping, childcare, etc., as exploited labor. I am looking generally for bibliographical references that deal with this in helpful ways. I am also looking for a couple of specific things: Any attempts to either value the total contribution of women's nonmarket labor as part of the the total economic product; including methodologies for doing this, and any quantitative results. I think Nancy Folbre did some work on this. Theoretical accounts of the sense in which women's work so defined is exploited (or not); Useful critical discussions of Becker on the gender allocation of women's work in the household; Citations to the old "wages for housework" proposal, and any literature on that idea, if anyone still holds out for it. Other proposals for ending the exploitation of housework and childcare. In this connection I am playing with the idea of a guaranteed annual income intended specifically as remuneration for this sort of caregiving labor. Has anyone considered such a proposal? --Justin Schwartz
[PEN-L:8569] Re: wrongful dismissals
The point of the connection with the wrongful dismissal suits and the hiring of welfare recipients was that the firms wanted to dump some existing workers for no cause, so that they could chip in an contribute to the social good by hiring welfare recipients. I kinda thought the firms wanted to hire the welfare recipients so they could turn around and fire them at the first opportunity, thus using them as an example to keep their existing work force on their toes -- sort of an employee morale boosting program. Call it "Operation Phoenix". Regards, Tom Walker ^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art [EMAIL PROTECTED] |does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286| ^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:8568] wrongful dismissals
The point of the connection with the wrongful dismissal suits and the hiring of welfare recipients was that the firms wanted to dump some existing workers for no cause, so that they could chip in an contribute to the social good by hiring welfare recipients. With innovations like this, I hope that my chauvanism is not showing, the U.S. will certainly win the race to the bottom. USA. USA. USA. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8566] Re: Nairu, etc.
I agree with Paul Phillips that NAIRU/NRU makes favourable institutional change seem unacceptable. I just don't happen to believe that the ascendancy of NAIRU/NRU was inevitable and I don't believe it's now invulnerable. None of this is at all unfortunate for my position. My position is that the left hasn't really challenged NAIRU/NRU with something fundamentally different and effective. Here comes the broken record part: all this talk about inflation and wages and social wages and social safety nets goes around in circles. It is way of talking founded on the false claim that exchange relations are central to economic life. It's not necessary to accept such a dogma, nor is it particularly unheard of to explicitly reject the dogma. Marx did a credible job of rejecting it in Chapter 1 of Capital -- you know, the bit about the commodity fetish making relations between people appear as if they are relations between things. But if you want to insist that economic relations are relations between things and not people (and I'm not saying that you, Paul, are insisting any such thing), then NAIRU/NRU is probably as good a way as any to explain such a fetishized economy. (I wouldn't say for certain because I don't want to get bogged down in metaphysics). How do you move away from talking fetish about inflation, wages, supply, demand, etc.? Well, you can look at the relations of production (I'm not coining a phrase here, y'know) and the production of surplus value. Here we find, or Marx finds, an astonishing peculiarity of capitalism: that labour power is the only commodity whose use value produces value. No matter how you slice it, at this point in the analysis the focus has to shift from VALUE (which, at any rate, is always relative) to TIME which is the stuff in which life is lived OR NOT LIVED. In other words, the "class struggle" can only ever be about control over the disposal of the workers' TIME. I beg to differ with Tom Walker but not with the basic point he makes -- that there is a need to modify, change, update etc. our institutions to keep up with social and technological change. If he looks carefully at what I said,however, it was to emphasize that the verticle Phillips curve acceptance (and the causes for it) clears the way for the neo-lib agenda which, in the absenc e of alternative institutional change only serves to hurt labour for the benefit of capital. Unfortunately for Tom's position, the Nairu/NRU analysis is based on neo-lib assumptions which makes favourable institutional change outside the pall of acceptable policy solutions. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba Regards, Tom Walker ^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art [EMAIL PROTECTED] |does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286| ^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:8567] What is UNEMPLOYMENT?
Let's not be fooled by the contentiousness of the prefixes. Who can argue with the neo-liberals' "natural rate" or "non-accelerating inflation rate" of unemployment after conceding the self-evidence of the term "unemployment". And in case Doug Henwood thinks this is an attack on the stinking hyena bourgeois statistics from the BLS, it's not. It's just to say there is no way to get from those stinking hyena statistics to the qualitative differences between, say, varieties of employment and unemployment. To use a very U.S. example, is it a "good thing" that the unemployment rate is lower than it would be if so many black men were not imprisoned? Or, lets take two societies, each with 20 people in their labour forces. In one of the societies, 18 people are at work 35-40 hours a week at trades and professions and two people are receiving full pay while on temporary layoff: unemployment rate 10%. In the other society, three people are working 50-60 hours a week in trades and professions, another two are working that many hours in sweatshops, five people are working 35-40 hours a week in trades and profession, another three 35-40 hours in sweatshops, four are working 10-20 hours in convenience stores, three people work on call and their hours vary from week to week and two people have been out of work for the past two years and no longer qualify for unemployment benefits, some of the people working long hours would like to work less and some of the people working short hours would like to work more, there are also one or two people who used to be unemployed but have given up looking for work: unemployment rate 10%. "Obviously" the unemployment rate of the two societies is the "same" with or without theories relating unemployment to inflation. Of course, anyone can readily see that my second example greatly simplifies the picture of occupations and hours of work. So, what could a *RATE* of unemployment *possibly* mean, "natural" or otherwise? Compared with "the unemployment rate", measuring I.Q. is about as straight-forward as weighing a pound of butter. Regards, Tom Walker ^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art [EMAIL PROTECTED] |does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286| ^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:8562] Nairu, etc.
I beg to differ with Tom Walker but not with the basic point he makes -- that there is a need to modify, change, update etc. our institutions to keep up with social and technological change. If he looks carefully at what I said,however, it was to emphasize that the verticle Phillips curve acceptance (and the causes for it) clears the way for the neo-lib agenda which, in the absenc e of alternative institutional change only serves to hurt labour for the benefit of capital. Unfortunately for Tom's position, the Nairu/NRU analysis is based on neo-lib assumptions which makes favourable institutional change outside the pall of acceptable policy solutions. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:8560] Goodbye, PEN-L'ers
Okay, everybody. I'm disappearing. Things are going to get straightened out on marxism-international. God bless you one and all, except for Jerry Levy and Jim Devine. Louis Proyect - Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:52:37 -0500 (EST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Louis R Godena) Subject: M-I: list matters Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Returning from an unexpectedly long sojourn into the bowels of a Connecticut tool-and-dye factory, I was looking forward to a day or two of rest before returning to M-International. This, alas, is not to be.I will not even ask what in the hell is going on.The rules are very clear -- there is no flaming permitted on this list.By "flaming", I mean the persistent personal abuse of other members. I am in the process of contacting the other moderators, whom I am sure have suffered through this long enough.This needs to end. Now. Louis Godena, co-moderator --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
[PEN-L:8558] Re: California Dreaming and Welfare Reform
On 10 Feb 97 at 15:31, Michael Perelman wrote: The Sacramento Bee had an article over the week end. Business says it is willing to hire more welfare recipients. All it wants in return is a limit on wrongful dismissal suits. Sounds fair Where is labor on all of this? Am I deaf or is the new radical labor leadership silent? I can't speak for the AFL-CIO, but nobody is going to object to business hiring anybody. But why should they be rewarded for doing so by receiving some dose of deregulation? Since our power is far from absolute here, you could make a case for a trade, but the terms are important. It's not necessarily a very good deal to apply some kind of deregulation on all employed workers for the sake of facilitating the hiring a few extra people. Moreover, if the Fed is all-powerful, there will be no net new hires in any case. The labor movement does look askance at arrangements where welfare recipients replace current employees through such devices as contracting out in the public sector or outsourcing in the private sector. Using tax credits to facilitate hiring is also problematic. Don't forget, a good half of all current welfare recipients are going to go back to work in a few years with no government assistance at all. Subsidizing hiring runs into the same difficulty noted above: high inframarginal costs for the sake of small marginal gains. My one-sentence, two-fisted remedy is a more expansionary monetary/fiscal policy and geographically-targeted employment programs. Incidentally, I don't mean to drop names but when James Tobin visited EPI when we did our anti-balanced budget press conference, he told us he favored a Fed policy of probing for the true natural rate of unemployment by easing monetary policy until inflation appeared to be a threat. To the best of my knowledge, this is something of a departure for the mainstream Keynesians. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:8557] Re: Macroeconomics of advertising
Anders Schneiderman wrote: Has anyone done any work in economics on the macroeconomics of advertising--i.e., to what extent advertising shapes markets? I'm sure nobody in mainstream economics has touched it, because it raises too many issues they'd rather ignore, but have any of our lefty bretheren? Not true. The subject of advertising has been widely discussed in mainstream industrial organization literature. For an empirical study, see _Advertising, Competition and Market Conduct in Oligopoly Over Time: An econometric investigation in Western European countries_ (Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1976). Jerry
[PEN-L:8556] Macroeconomics of advertising
Has anyone done any work in economics on the macroeconomics of advertising--i.e., to what extent advertising shapes markets? I'm sure nobody in mainstream economics has touched it, because it raises too many issues they'd rather ignore, but have any of our lefty bretheren? Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications
[PEN-L:8553] Re: Letter to Randy Martin
To follow this continuing saga, subscribe to the new home of the undead: marxism-international. Send "subscribe marxism-international" message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Join m-int and have the honor of reading 3 rambling, accusatory, and dogmatic posts per day by Louis N Proyect. Although LNP wants to emboil this list in this controversy in an effort to drive me off of m-int, the discussion itself will remain on m-int. Jerry
