[PEN-L:11227] Re: on CEO Pay
Someone wrote: (Why is it that non-neoclassical economists avoid the issue of power?) They don't. Response: It is just the opposite. It is the neoclassicals, usually under the influence of some form of philosophical positivism, that consider "power" to squishy and "non-operationalizable" a concept to be modelled or incorporated into economic analysis. Further, they are fond of assuming all sorts of market structures and distributions of wealth and income as "given" thus summarily assuming away issues of power. I had a part-time teacher who was a hard-core Libertarian who fit the classical definition of a fanatic: "one who won't change his/her mind and won't change the subject." This guy told me that the whole concept of power was illusory, non-operationalizable and further, "power" or "market power" is dilluted through competitive checks-and- balances of market processes such that "power" does not play a role in long-run market sollutions. Remember the typical neoclassical tautology: forms of market "failure" result from the system not being "market-like" enough and government "intervention" and the answer to failures of capitalism is more capitalism. I noted that as a philosophical positivist he believed that the only real test of theory is prediction, and since he believed that "power" was an illusory concept, would he care to make a prediction about my ability or inability to drive him out of the classroom--he was obviously infecting with his dogmatism--by exercising my "illusory power" to pre-empt him and take any of his classes at my discretion as Dept. Chair. The reason for attempting to discuss CEO pay within the confines of marginal productivity theory is simply to illustrate how utterly bankrupt, devious and polemical the whole paradigm is. Perhaps we could even evolve a concept of "net MRP": Take change in total revenue as a result of a marginal increment of CEO input (including schmoozing, networking, PAC contribution authorization, machiavellian intrigues, fixing jobs for cronies), of course "assuming" quality and quantity of capital, land and labor constant as otherwise how would we know that the change in total revenue was due to the marginal increment of CEO input, MINUS the lost productivity and total revenue due to marginal increments of CEO policies that involve imperial arrogance, hollowing-out the productive base, divide-and-rule, the mediocre hiring the more mediocre, golden parachutes while thousands of workers are being laid off etc. I suspect that the "NET" MRPs of most of these CEOs would be negative. Jim Craven *--* * James Craven * " For those who have fought for it, * * Dept of Economics* freedom has a taste the protected * * Clark College* will never know." * * 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. *Otto von Bismark * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * * * (360) 992-2283 * * * [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:11228] H-B: Radical economist: Doug Dowd (fwd)
Forwarded message: Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 13:25:41 -0500 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: H-B: Radical economist: Doug Dowd X-UID: 574 = H-BUSINESS POSTING = I'm writing a review essay for American Quarterly focused on a quasi-memoir by Doug Dowd, the radical economist, one-time chair of the ecconomics department at Cornell, and author of the Twisted Dream: Capitalist Development in the United States Since 1776. I am most interested in any comments on Dowd, his writings, or his activism. Personal reminiscences would be great. Please let me know if I may quote from your comments. David Farber University of New Mexico FOOTER TO H-BUSINESS POSTING For information, send the message "info H-BUSINESS" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11225] tenure attention
Wait a sec! if it weren't for tenure, I couldn't contribute so much to pen-l! ;-) I guess that ability is a form of rent. Tenure does create a form of rent, though I think that the ban on mandatory retirement (in the US) is a bigger problem when it's applied to tenured faculty. (It makes sense for nontenured jobs.) As to University Presidents, getting beyond the corrupt ones of the sort that Jim Craven mentions, their main job is to give speeches and more importantly, to raise money. As such they produce nothing except a warmer temperature in the room, since raising money is just a redistribution. Maybe the solution is to do what we do: our Pres. is a priest, whose salary mostly returns to the university's coffers (with some sticking to the Jesuit community's piggy bank). Of course, then you get a lot of religious baggage. (It's a little like Plato's REPUBLIC, where the place is run by a bunch of ascetic Guardians. No communal sharing of women that I know of, though.) Frankly, I think universities should be workers' co-ops (with the limits I mentioned in previous posts). Two messages bring up the fact that not everything that's posted to pen-l evokes a response. god knows I try, but one can't pay attention to everything, respond to everything! The US actions toward Cuba have been one big war crime since 1959. I doubt that the pen-l members in the US were silent on this because they approve of US foreign policy. Rather, what can one say at this point? is there a demonstration we can go to? We're ruled by Clintonbush sleaze-bags who will continue to commit such crimes until there's an extraparliamentary movement pushing them to stop. I'd like to bring in the war crimes tribunal at the Hague, but calling for such is idle and futile. Why should they listen to me? The other message is from Max: ... I find it pathetic that this is the first mention on PEN-L this year of a little thing called the Federal budget... Anybody ever consider how academic discourse, including the "marxian" variety (replete with fantasies of "extreme class struggle") becomes a shield from politics? Discussions of the Federal budget show up in the L.A. TIMES at least three times a week. Just because it doesn't show up on pen-l doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in pen-l members' minds. Maybe the lack of comment on this issue represents an admirable restraint in posting (something that I tend to lack, mea culpa). But unless something especially interesting or useful is said, I see no reason to have pen-l posts. Anyway, Max, you could have posted a lot of stuff on this subject, just as Dave Richardson used to post the interesting labor updates. (I, for one, miss them.) Why didn't you do so? didn't you think it was important? BTW, I haven't seen any references to "extreme class struggle" on pen-l. (BTW, it's no fantasy: that's what Clinton and Gingrich are doing.) Also, it should be noted that pen-l does not simply consist of academics and politics is more than parliamentary maneuverings. Only one person here took me up on my query regarding advice to the French social- democratic movement. I don't expect anyone to jump at my signal, but the deafening silence is testimony to the same problem. Perhaps people were so dismayed by the French SDs' growing sell-out that they didn't see any point to answering your call. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but it seems a bit futile to propose policy solutions to people who will ignore them (especially given that my suggestions would come from the US). Given the balance of political forces in France and the international constraints, maybe it's reasonable for the French SDs to ignore them. If I were in France, I would be trying to change that balance... That said, I am not against policy proposals. It's not my specialty, but I'm always interested in creative ones, especially ones that are designed to keep our rulers honest rather than being based on faith in their benevolence. BTW, telling people to resist wage cuts attacks on civilian programs (to avoid underconsumption, etc.) is a form of policy advice. It's aimed at the people, a more worthwhile audience than the policy elite. This is the best context for understanding, for example, the knocks here on "micro-credit" or labor-owned/managed firms. I don't remember what was said about micro-credit, but I remember that positive things were said about labor-owned firms, in addition to the negative things. Max, did you want pen-l to be a one-sided chorus endorsing labor-owned firms or whatever policy initiative you're into? I've always thought that criticism was part of the thinking process. The fact seems to be that NO scheme under capitalism is deemed worthy of support, so the Johnny-one-note criticism of any particular one is of reduced interest. Potentially useful, if not world-shaking, measures are dismissed for failing to live up to world- historical standards. That may be true for some on pen-l, but it's not true for all.
[PEN-L:11226] Re: on CEO Pay
While agreeing with the sentiment of Paul's comments, I'm puzzled by many of their details. He writes: I must admit I am a little suprised that Pen-l-ers would be debating this issue in terms of neoclassical marginal productivity. This is the equivalent of arguing, what is the marginal productivity of a mugger? (i.e. someone who has market power because of some non-market force.) I don't see this point. Re the first sentence, we've been discussing the issue in terms of marginal productivity because that's how the question was first framed. That doesn't mean anyone believes that marginal productivity explains executive salaries, it means the question is being addressed on its own terms. In my original post, I argued that executive marginal productivity is essentially beside the point, since executives might be expected to earn economic rent whether or not they are paid their marginal product, however that might be defined. Re the second, one can certainly speak of the marginal productivity of a mugger without paradox, but I doubt the analogy. The power muggers possess is not "market" power; e.g. Paul isn't arguing that muggers get an above-competitive return from fencing their ill-gotten gains. Conversely, CEOs don't need to mug boards of directors to get compensation exceeding competitive levels. The moment one moves to a non-neoclassic frameworke (as Jim D suggests) then the problem is "solved". There is a surplus distribution problem. This is not a market problem, but a power problem. I don't see that the distinction as phrased is particularly useful, since power is expressed in and through markets. Certainly this is the case with CEO pay, granting that the *basis* for this power may originate outside of markets. And I don't see what being inside or outside a neoclassical framework has to do with this, since the latter can *represent* distributional outcomes, although it doesn't have any way to *evaluate* them. (Why is it that non-neoclassical economists avoid the issue of power?) They don't. One can utilize rent theory to justify the resulting justification. But, if we were honest, that is really crap. Let us put it a different way, what is the mp of a crime king (and are CEOs really different?) What? Saying that some portion of compensation is economic rent in no way "justifies" it. I take Paul's point to be that putting this discussion in "marginal productivity" terms shifts attention from the fact that CEOs enjoy inappropriate levels of power. But this is not a necessary consequence. Again I return to the question originally posed. I don't think Wojtek would have considered his question answered by the riposte, "CEOs are like muggers and crime kings." And on a different stream, a colleague of mine posted a document documenting horrendous war crimes against the Unites States Government, specifically with regard to the use of biological warfare against Cuba. Yet, despite the level of despisity (is that a word) of the offense, not one member of this list from the US has responded. Comment? If the suggestion here is that silence implies approval, far from it. As Jim says, we can't comment on everything. And this is a case of same old same old. US policy toward Castro's Cuba has been despicable from the get-go. Paul's comment reminds me of one by another Paul, the conservative commentator Paul Harvey, who once criticized some human rights activists for their "selective indignation." The only way to avoid such a charge is to be vocally indignant about everything obnoxious, and at every opportunity. But that would take some of the fire out of it, don't you think? In solidarity, Gil
[PEN-L:11230] Article of Interest
For those who do not receive CovertAction Quarterly, they may be interested in an article in the new Summer CAQ: "Policing Activists: Think Global, Spy Local" by Mitzi Waltz. As a matter of fact, they may be interested in the other articles as well. Jim Craven *--* * James Craven * " For those who have fought for it, * * Dept of Economics* freedom has a taste the protected * * Clark College* will never know." * * 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. *Otto von Bismark * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * * * (360) 992-2283 * * * [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:11234] Democrats Cry Foul at a GOP Plan For 1.4 Million Labor
Democrats Cry Foul at a GOP Plan For $1.4 Million Labor Investigation By Juliet Eilperin and Jim Vande Hei With the blessing of Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga), House Republicans this week quietly dipped into a controversial reserve fund for the first time to approve a $1.4 million investigation into labor laws and union activity. In a contentious session Tuesday night, the House Oversight Committee, which controls the $8 million reserve fund, OKed a request by the Education and the Workforce Committee to give Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich) $1.4 million and 11 new staffers to launch oversight hearings on the state of American workers. Democrats, who were not informed of the plan until late Monday, complained vehemently about the scope of the probe and its financing through what they have called a GOP "slush fund." Key Republican Members told Roll Call that Hoekstra, chairman of the panel's investigation and oversight subcommittee, will use a portion of the funds to probe the AFL-CIO's political activities. "Hoekstra plans to look at the ways labor leaders are not representing workers," said Rep. Jim Greenwood (Pa), a member of GOP leadership Chairman Bill Paxon's (NY) "vision team," which plots strategy for oversight and investigations. "This will include using [compulsory] dues for political purposes." Hoekstra said that "he doesn't see how investigating [union political activity] ties into his oversight" plans. But two GOP Members said Hoekstra and Paxon's vision team discussed using the $1.4 million to flog the AFL-CIO, which spent more than $35 million last year to defeat GOP candidates nationwide. "This was coordinated with leadership, Hoekstra, and members of the Education Committee," said a member of Paxon's vision team who asked not to be identified. "The [AFL-CIO] will come up throughout this probe." Paxon's team includes Reps. Mark Souder (Ind), Mike Parker (Miss), Jo Ann Emerson (Mo), and Greenwood. Souder said: "I would expect the [AFL-CIO] to come up because of the Beck decision," the 1988 Supreme Court ruling that restricts union leaders from forcing rank-and-file workers to help fund political activities. Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-NH), who sits on the Education and the Workforce Committee, said the new group would investigate issues ranging from alleged corruption in setting Davis-Bacon wage standards to whether unions violated federal labor practices by hiring young organizers last summer to help with union campaigns. "I would think we could find some stuff," Ballenger said. "It's there. It will probably take staff to do it." Hoekstra's plan, which allocates 70 percent of the investigation's resources to the majority and the rest to the minority, calls for hiring 11 Republican and five Democratic aides. The new positions, which would exceed the committee's staff ceiling of 75, include three attorneys, a $70,000 communications director, and a $25,000 media assistant. It also proposed hiring a $95,000 project manager and two researchers. Democrats are furious not only with the GOP's plans to slap the AFL-CIO, but also with the manner in which House Republicans approved the investigation. Democrats charge that they were not informed of the GOP's plans to release the $1.4 million until less than 24 hours before the House Oversight panel approved the plan. GOP sources said the plan was purposely kept secret until the 11th hour. Democrats were also outraged that House Oversight Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif) did not postpone the meeting until ranking member Sam Gejdenson (D-Conn) could return from a NATO trip in Europe. "If we're going to be fair, if there's some comity, some pretense of fairness, the ranking member should have known we were having a meeting," said Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md), who acted in Gejdenson's place. But Thomas said he would have expected Gejdenson to attend the meeting, since the House took five recorded votes shortly after 5 p.m. "This is not the Senate," he retorted. "We do not shape our agenda to a single Member's desires or wishes." This level of hostility persisted throughout the meeting, which lasted late into Tuesday night, as Thomas and Hoyer repeatedly clashed over the GOP's tactics. At one point, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Mich) felt compelled to remind her colleagues that they were charged with carrying out "the people's business." "I hate the antagonism I keep feeling every time I walk in the room," she lamented. "If we're going to talk about rules, let's follow the rules. I don't think we're following the rules." Thomas defended the decision to spend the money from the reserve fund, saying the GOP leadership had decided to allow committees to petition for additional funds because they had adopted a two-year funding cycle, which made it difficult to anticipate some demands. According to the reserve fund guidelines approved by House Oversight on Tuesday, panels can
[PEN-L:11237] Re: critique and politics (was re: Tax bill may...
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (S. Charusheela) Subject: [PEN-L:11233] critique and politics (was re: Tax bill may...) Max Sawicky notes his dismay at how academic quibbling becomes a shield for political inaction. I am sympathetic, and agree that this is often the case. One correction, however, about microcredit. I wish to note that while some, perhaps even much of the critique does follow the type of 'shield for politics' Max is quite rightly critiquing, that is not the whole story. There are very concrete reasons that many folks, including me, are critical of the euphoria around micro-credit. This is not because one is against I hold no brief for or against micro-credit (I'm mildly sympathetic, but I claim no knowledge of the subject). I'm just not going to be as interested in a critique when the general patter of criticism is to reject most anything. . . . to work, and that is a political intervention, no? For the record, I will reassure Max that many of us 'nasty critics' work with and . . . Please don't attribute words to me that I never used! I DID NOT use the term "nasty critics" in my post. I wasn't even talking about critics of micro-credit per se. My post was not about micro-credit at all. Cheers, 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 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11238] More On CEO Administrative Pay
First, I would like to thank anyone who replied to my question of "executive rent." That discussion was indeed very informative and leads me to conclude, on the pain of oversimplification that, assuming the exec's rationality and decision making power -- all his salary is economic rent (since under "ideal conditions" he is in the position to delegate all work and repsonsibilities to others for as much little pay as possible, while paying himself as much as possible for doing nothing) -- unless external circumstances (such as pressures form lending institutions, government, or stiockholders) force him to assume some of the responsibilities he would otherwise delegate to others. If that interpretation is correct, the proportion of rent in executive salery would be inversely proportional to the effectiveness of the outside oversight and regulations (which, BTW can explain the difference between executive pay in the Us and that in Japan or Germany, if we focus on the entire managerial class that includes middle management as well). As far as marginal productivity is concerned, I am somehow skeptical that it can be zero or even negative, as some argued. While form a Marxist point of view that can be said of the owners, the same cannot be said of the management because the management produces and maintains technology (organization) that, at least in theory, increases the productivity of labour. While individual managers may be quite inept producers of such technology, this cannot be said of the entire managerial class. Of course there is the issue of the stock option that turns managers into "partial owners" but that, IMHO, diminishes exec's marginal productivity. This is so, because the more stock in the hands of the CEO, the greater his capability to withstand the external pressure for other stockholders, and thus the fewer the constratints to prevent him from commanding pure rent for his "non-contributions" to the marginal product. Approaching the issue form the transaction cost economics or TCE (cf. Oliver Williamson, _Markets and Hierarchies_) -- the marginal productivity of administrative hierarchy can be conceptualised as net savings in transaction costs resulting from implementing the hierarchy over its alternative, independent agents in competitive markets. Please note that this explanation does not address the issue of marginal productivity of individual CEOs, but of the entire managerial hierarchy. From that standpoint, it matters little whether the CEO rakes in a lot and pays his henchmen who do the wage-slave driving for him next to nothing, or whether the pay is distributed more evenly across different echelons of the managerial hierarchy. If we take that into account, the cross-national differences in remuneration of the managerial class as the whole (rather than just the top layer of it) may not be as large as they seem to appear. Another point is that, from the TCE perspective, the marginal productivity of managerial hierarchy depends, for the most part, not on the individual skills of the members of that class, but on the transaction cost of the "next available alternative" -- individual agents in competitive markets. That is, the lesser the transaction cost of doing business via purely competitive markets (due to the bonds of trust, strength of informal social networks, or government oversight), the fewer the savings resulting from insituting the adminsitrative hierarchy, thus lower the marginal productivity of the managerial class, and hence lower the managerial salary. This is another possible explanation of the differences in managerial pay in the US and in Germany and Japan. The latter are characterised by a relatively great deal of social cohesion which brings down the transaction cost of doing buisness via competitive markets, while in the US, where thanks to the suburbs and the automobile, social cohesion is low, the cost of market market transactions is high, and so are the savings resulting from implementing administrative hierarchies. To summarise, the TCE approach to managerial salary as a class can offer a plausible explanation by referring to the interaction between society and economic instituions rather than evoking individual excesses, such as those of the Chief Mickey Mouse Eisner who rakes in $750 thousand salary, $7.3 million bonus and $2.3 million in stock awards (I got that info from the proxy statement available at http://www.sec.gov/edaux/formlynx.htm). From that standpoint, execs make a lot of dough not beacuse they are greedy, power-hungry pigs (although some of them undoubtedly are), but because the forces of capitalism destroy the fabric of the society which, in turn, increases the reliance on administrative hierarchies in carrying out economic transactions. I find that more in line with the Marxist approach than "voluntaristic" approaches relying on the "moral character" of individual execs. Any comments? PS. I presented some of the
[PEN-L:11239] critique and politics (was re: Tax bill may...)
Apologies for misunderstanding your earlier reference: the use of 'NO scheme under capitalism is deemed worthy of support, so the Johnny-one-note criticism of any particular one is of reduced interest' in reference to criticisms of microcredit (along with other stuff) made me worried, that perhaps folks might be inclined to dismiss politically relevant critiques of microcredit in process of rightly dismissing critiques which were possibly apolitical. Just wanted to stop that before the critiques of micro-credit were written off on these grounds. I hold no brief for or against micro-credit (I'm mildly sympathetic, but I claim no knowledge of the subject). I'm just not going to be as interested in a critique when the general patter of criticism is to reject most anything. Fair enough. However, to my dismay, I find that important and politically relevant critique is often dismissed on just such grounds, especially in the higher levels of NGO and policy-making circles and out here where much of the support/push for various types of aid allocations and policy promotion comes from. So I try and make the political point every chance I get, it gets loss in the general mass of critique of the apolitical type you rightly critiqued. . . . to work, and that is a political intervention, no? For the record, I will reassure Max that many of us 'nasty critics' work with and . . . Please don't attribute words to me that I never used! I DID NOT use the term "nasty critics" in my post. I wasn't even talking about critics of micro-credit per se. My post was not about micro-credit at all. Apologies again, responding more to the general climate in which I and others make this intervention, and this, alas, is the subtext I get much too often. And tho' your post was not about microcredit, do spread the word to your policy-activist oriented colleagues that there are good real-politic reasons to temper general sympathy with critique on this particular issue. yours, Charu. *** * * * * S. Charusheela * PH: (O) (717)-291-3936* * Economics Dept. * (H) (717) 390-8906* * Franklin Marshall College * FAX: (717) 291-4369* * Lancaster PA 17604 * email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * ***
[PEN-L:11240] Re: More On CEO Administrative Pay
Wojtek Sokolowski wrote: That discussion was indeed very informative and leads me to conclude, on the pain of oversimplification that, assuming the exec's rationality and decision making power -- all his salary is economic rent (since under "ideal conditions" he is in the position to delegate all work and repsonsibilities to others for as much little pay as possible, while paying himself as much as possible for doing nothing) -- unless external circumstances (such as pressures form lending institutions, government, or stiockholders) force him to assume some of the responsibilities he would otherwise delegate to others. If that interpretation is correct, the proportion of rent in executive salery would be inversely proportional to the effectiveness of the outside oversight and regulations (which, BTW can explain the difference between executive pay in the Us and that in Japan or Germany, if we focus on the entire managerial class that includes middle management as well). Response: In "mainstream" theory, economic rent arises out of relative inelasticities of factor supply and demand; relative inelasticities which are shaped by relative importance, scarcity, mobility, complementarity with other factors, percentage of total costs spent on the factor, information symmetry, time period available for decision-making etc governing the factor. Economic rent is said to be that portion of factor earnings above transfer earnings or factor earnings necessary to bring the factor into supply. Delegating work to subordinates who are grossly underpaid (some) by those who are grossly overpaid is a result of the factors contributing to economic rent not the source of economic rent per se-- according to neoclassical theory. Obviously institutions, power relations/structures, ideologies, myths etc throughout society have something to do with economic rent, but in neoclassical theory, such are simply assumed as "given" if even acknowledged at all. W.S wrote: As far as marginal productivity is concerned, I am somehow skeptical that it can be zero or even negative, as some argued. While form a Marxist point of view that can be said of the owners, the same cannot be said of the management because the management produces and maintains technology (organization) that, at least in theory, increases the productivity of labour. While individual managers may be quite inept producers of such technology, this cannot be said of the entire managerial class. Of course there is the issue of the stock option that turns managers into "partial owners" but that, IMHO, diminishes exec's marginal productivity. This is so, because the more stock in the hands of the CEO, the greater his capability to withstand the external pressure for other stockholders, and thus the fewer the constratints to prevent him from commanding pure rent for his "non-contributions" to the marginal product. Response: Most large modern corporations are controlled by groups who hold less than 5% (even less in many cases) of the voting stock. With stock dispersion (just like vote dispersion) and stockholder apathy (most stockholders don't known or give a whit about much more than dividends and stock price at sale vs at purchase) a small minority of cohesive stock/vote holders can maintain effective control; and further, the actual managers hold very small percentages of stock-- not enough to hold off major shhareholders who have it in for them-- they maintain power through effective networking, shared interests, "quid-pro-quoing" etc. Management "produces" very little effective technology as their role is primarily acquisition of technologies produced elsewhere and parisitically grafting it on; in any case, the concept of negative MRP was said only half in jest. The fundamental imperatives of capitalism, the bankrupt managerial paradigms (including the neoclassical one you seem committed to remain within), necessary conditions of labor, management policies all contribute to chocking off productivity and MRPs relative to levels found and demonstrated with alternative paradigms, managment policies etc) and thus, we might speak of the MRP resulting from a marginal increment of CEO input (or should it be increment of a marginal CEO), rembering of course all that must be assumed ceteris paribus (reality) and then deducting losses in MRPs as a result of clearly abusive and dysfunctional CEOs and their bankrupt policies/paradigms. This analysis is not anecdotal or above particular CEOs. It is about the fundamental imperatives/constraints/contexts of capitalism and the typical profiles/intentions/interests of CEOs generally. Again I ask why discuss this within the parameters of a fundamentally bankrupt/apologetic paradigm? This illustrates the tyrrany in many of the universities etc. To discuss any serious questions, they must be discussed/constrained/mystified within and through bankrupt paradigms
[PEN-L:11241] Re: Latest Monthly Review
friends, Iwant to thank louis p. for favorably commenting on the summer special issue of "monthly review" on labor movements. i hope pen-lers will check it out and recommend it to others. MR is looking for other articles on this topic, i.e. on woemn in th eworld's labor movemtns and on movements in other parts of the world, such as the rest of latin america, africa, etc. of course, i am biased but mr is definitely continuing its tradition of good left-wing analysis of a wide range of subjects. ellen wood, a new editor, along with paul and harry, are really doing a great job. i hope pen-lers will keep mr in mind for articles(and subs!). michael yates
[PEN-L:11236] Latest Monthly Review
PEN-L'er Michael Yates is the co-editor of the latest Monthly Review, which is a special issue on labor. There's an article by Doug Henwood on the disappearance of work question (check out today's NY Times for the article on how labor is being absorbed into the new round of hiring); Kim Moody on "American Labor: A movement again?"; the Korean and Mexican labor movements; etc. Looks really good. Louis P.
[PEN-L:11235] Albania: An Election To Disarm The People For The Imperialists
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info. --59B410CD3B0D For all intents and purposes, the June 29 to July 6 Albanian election was one required solely for the purpose of legitimizing a vassal state under the dictate of the U.S. imperialists and the Europe of the monopolies. It was not an election for Albanians to decide on the direction of their society, on its economy, or on any other issues. A process of disarming the resisting Albanian people, especially the Salvation Committees that were formed when the Albanian state collapsed, also required the holding of an election to lend it legitimacy as the "mandate of the people." On June 30, after the first round of voting, Socialist Party leader Fatos Nano announced that his party had won the election. President Sali Berisha conceded Monday that his party had lost and that it would now become "a loyal opposition." Over 500 foreigners "monitored" the election. Some flew over the country in helicopters, while others went from poll to poll, accompanied by dozens of armed troops. The "monitors" turned a blind-eye to all the "irregularities." The OSCE declared, as the election approached, that it would be unrealistic to apply "normal Western standards" to Albania's election. The joint report issued on June 30 by the heads of the OSCE, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly describes the election as "adequate and acceptable; voters were generally able to cast their ballot without fear or intimidation, although there are reports of some serious problems..." These "problems" which could be overlooked by the "monitors" included the murder of a polling officer; the closing of polls at 6pm instead of 9pm because of "security problems;" complete suspension of voting in some areas for the same reasons; and the seizure and burning of all ballots in the polling station in Rrushbull. Dozens of people were killed during the election campaign, with all parties accusing each other of the deed. Numerous other problems can be cited, not least of which is the fact that the election was conducted in conditions of foreign occupation. Over 7,000 UN interventionist troops, led by the Italian military, were stationed throughout the country. What was of concern to the imperialists, however, was simply that an election should be held to create a new government. They ensured that no matter what the result, the government would be a willing puppet regime. Thus, Nano has declared that the most pressing concern for Albania is to disarm the population. In his first appeal to the Albanians after proclaiming victory, he called on them to "surrender arms." In their "monitoring" report, the OSCE and EU once again declared: "It is essential, however, that all Albanian political parties observe the commitments they have made to respect the results of the elections..." OSCE special envoy for Albania, Austrian former Chancellor Franz Vranitzky stressed in a pre-election meeting with the Albanian Central Election Commission the importance that the polls outcome be recognized. "It would be a catastrophe for you and for us if the outcome would not be accepted." In a similar vein, on June 29, Fatos Nano told Albanians: "These elections are of extraordinary importance. This will be a society of free citizens no different from other European nations. Tomorrow will be a new day." During the election campaign, it was reported that Nano spent much of the campaign "stressing his credentials as a defender of the market." "Like you," he told a rally, "we want free enterprise and private property. It is our historic obligation to make Albania part of Europe." "The philosophy of privatization, social assistance, denationalization and decentralization of power is the future of my country,'' he said. CPC(M-L) Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED] --59B410CD3B0D--
[PEN-L:11233] critique and politics (was re: Tax bill may...)
Max Sawicky notes his dismay at how academic quibbling becomes a shield for political inaction. I am sympathetic, and agree that this is often the case. One correction, however, about microcredit. I wish to note that while some, perhaps even much of the critique does follow the type of 'shield for politics' Max is quite rightly critiquing, that is not the whole story. There are very concrete reasons that many folks, including me, are critical of the euphoria around micro-credit. This is not because one is against credit *per se* (I mean, who is against poor folks getting hold of a few more resources?), or one thinks credit is irrelevant (just as one may critique banking sector policies without thinking that banks and credit are irrelevant and to be eliminated!), or even because it is not 'earth shatteringly world-historically transformative.' We are articulating critiques because: a) The strategies work under certain contexts, the overall macroeconomy being one of them. When the previous success of strategies in a given context is *then* used by various folks (as, alas, it is being used right now by many governments, aid agencies, World Bank, etc.) to justify a *shift* in resources and policies away from the very overall macro-policies and contexts which enabled various credit-groups to succeed, then one is bound to protest precisely in order to intervene in the political process of budget and other policies. After all, if in the budget debates in the US, folks were to selectively take some of the successes of local volunteers in shifting folks from welfare/homeless shelters to economic independence/housing, and *use* this success to say that we don't *need* a macro-policy etc. since we'll get poverty alleviation on the cheap by such strategies as we slash the budget, then I suspect many including Max are going to protest the strategy and say no, the strategy can *only* work when we *also* have a decent macro-environment and without that it is not going to work, and that is a political intervention, no? For the record, I will reassure Max that many of us 'nasty critics' work with and express the opinions of many local activists who use micro-credit in their own activism. Micro-credit as the highly touted policy alternative for 'poverty alleviation' when the financial structure is being redone and liberalization is causing skews in the macroeconomy, is a boondoggle solution designed to fail, and it is eminently sensible and political to protest its earlier successes being used in this manner and point out why the new environment and context will make it fail. The critique of microcredit for many of us is about the realpolitics of budgets and state policy, make no mistake. b) The critique is also urgently needed for a second very important reason: when the context is not appropriately in place or the design of the program not carefully matched to local context, credit is not simply 'not earth shattering, but a small good step, etc.' Credit HURTS and makes things worse because of the way the projects are designed with the various rotating credit groups and group liability stuff, and the way in which resources enter the local political economy. It hurts SERIOUSLY when the context shifts as I and others have been arguing (I am in the process of setting up a careful project *WITH* local NGO credit-giving groups precisely because folks find that the stuff is not easily replicable, and without a clear sense of the context and design etc., the thing ends up making a bad local political economy much worse, but why and how and to what extent, etc. we have only now begun to work through). If this makes little sense, think of the earlier research on food aid, on the introduction of stuff like the rural development programmes, tube wells, etc, into a local political economy, and how that resource incursion became a vehicle for *intensifying* poverty and inequity rather than a vehicle for *betterment* in many arenas. The problem is not that these were 'not world historically earth shattering but helped in small ways,' etc. These policies were not benign: if they had simply ended up not working period, that would not be so bad, but the problem was that they made things *worse* in many contexts. Credit seems to become a vehicle for asset ownership and income redistribution *away* from poor and towards slightly more powerful and better off folks when put into a context inappropriately or without adequate guards on the design of the policy or when the macro-context shifts, and *that* is where the problem begins. We are as yet unable to figure out whether the 'success' of credit in some localities (not *all* localities, it has clearly worked in some places and we need to do a much better job of figuring out what the specifics and context for success were) -- anyway, we have not yet figured out whether the credit infusion is income/job creating in a net/macro sense, or whether this is equivalent to
[PEN-L:11232] FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, JULY 8, 1997 The number of announced layoffs dropped 28 percent in June, compared with May, and was the lowest monthly workforce reduction total since May 1993, says a report by Challenger, Gray Christmas, Inc. Employers announced 15,091 job cuts in June, 28 percent fewer than May's total and 62 percent less than in June 1996. Not since May 1993, when employers announced 14,086 job cuts has the number of layoffs hit this low a mark (Daily Labor Report, page A-5). Nursing homes are labor's new target in its promised return Elder care, often recognized for its low pay and hard work, is one of the fastest growing segments of the nation's labor force. But nursing homes are usually small, dispersed, and hard for labor unions to organize. About 10 percent of the 17,000 nursing homes in the U.S. are unionized. Now, there is evidence of change Many of the nursing home recruits are women, who are a growing percentage of the union movement. The new members work mainly as nurses' aides, cooks, launderers, and other low-wage staffers (Wall Street Journal, page A1). Half the workers with carpal-tunnel syndrome missed 30 or more days of work in 1995, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says (Wall Street Journal, "Work Week," page A1). The prom may be over, but for the high school class of 1997, the good times are just starting, says The Wall Street Journal (page A2). Graduating seniors looking for full-time work are facing the best job market in years. Nationally, the unemployment rate is a low 5 percent. Freshly-minted high school graduates don't have it nearly that good -- 16.8 percent of l6-19 year-olds were jobless in June. But for teens, that's not a bad figure; 23 percent of them were jobless in June 1992. National prosperity, it seems, is trickling down to the youngest workers, with employers increasingly desperate to fill the kind of entry-level slots that new, noncollege-bound grads traditionally seek Work is plentiful for grads with basic skills The wage gap between high school grads and college grads began to widen rapidly during the late 1970s with a degree bringing ever-greater wages and opportunities. In recent years, however, that wage gap has leveled off
[PEN-L:11231] FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1997 An interagency committee recommends to OMB that it reject proposals to add a multiracial category to the federal government's race and ethnic categories, according to the report scheduled to be published in the Federal Register. Rather than offer a multiracial choice, the panel recommends offering respondents a chance to choose more than one category when asked to identify their race. Publication of recommendations triggers a final 60-day public comment period, with final new standards expected in mid-October (Daily Labor Report, page A-7)_U.S. proposes multiple racial identification for 2000 census The proposal is an attempt to resolve how the federal government should describe a population made up of an increasingly complex blend of racial and ethnic groups and growing numbers of people of mixed ancestry The proposal represents the unanimous recommendation of 30 federal agencies that have studied the issue for three years Before the recommendation, government demographers had sampled the population to gauge how people would respond if the census forms were changed. That research showed that only an estimated 1 percent to 2 percent of the population would classify themselves as multiracial (Washington Post, page A1)_A task force urged that, instead of adding "multiracial," the census let people list themselves as members of more than one race (New York Times, page A12). The rate of increase in the premiums of employer-sponsored health care plans lagged behind the rate of inflation in 1997, according to a survey released by KPMG Peat Marwick. Premiums rose 2.1 percent in 1997, marking the third consecutive year that the rate of premium increases was less than the overall rate of inflation as measured by the CPI (2.5 percent) and growth in workers' earnings (2.9 percent), KPMG reported. The survey findings are based on telephone interviews of 1,502 randomly selected employers with more than 200 employees (Daily Labor Report, page A-3). Many experts believe that much of the slowdown in employers' health-insurance costs reflects a one-time shift from fee-for-service plans Once this transition is completed, say the experts, costs will start rising sharply again. Economists Alan B. Krueger and Helen Levy of Princeton University aren't so sure. In a recent study, they find that employer costs have waned because of several developments: a steady decrease in the fraction of workers with coverage, a big slowdown in the growth of insurance premiums for both fee-for-service and managed-care plans, and a modest shifting of premium costs from employers to employees (Business Week, July 7, page 30). "Inequality Amid Prosperity" is the title of a Washington Post op-ed column by Laura D'Andrea Tyson, President Clinton's economic adviser in his first term and now a professor of economics and business administration at the University of California, Berkeley. Tyson writes, "During the past four years, the American economy has enjoyed a robust expansion with low unemployment, greater international competitiveness and modest inflation. Unfortunately, the economy's expansion has failed to reverse two disturbing long-run trends: stagnant or falling real earnings for the majority of workers and increasing income inequality among workers and households. Although average real earnings for nonsupervisory production workers increased slightly in 1996 (a trend that is continuing in 1997), they remain far below their postwar peaks of the mid-1970s. In addition, the gap between rich and poor households is much larger than it was 20 years ago. Much of the increasing inequality in family incomes has its origins in the marked increase in inequality of labor earnings There appear to be three major forces behind these troublesome trends. Technological changes have increased the demand for -- and relative wages of -- highly skilled, college-educated workers. Globalization, including import competition and immigration, has increased the supply and depressed the relative and absolute wages of less-skilled, high school-educated workers. Institutional forces, including a sharp decline in unionization and in the real value of the minimum wage, also have put low-skilled workers at a disadvantage. Most economists accord the greatest weight to the technological explanation for rising wage inequality Economists, politicians and commentators are waging a debate about the globalization explanation of wage inequality Opinion is shifting toward the view that globalization has had a `moderate' effect ... and the estimate of this effect has been creeping up over time " Dr. Tyson then discusses how policy-makers should respond. Sons raised by employed single moms do almost as well professionally as those raised in traditional two-parent homes, a new study by
[PEN-L:11229] Re: tenure attention
From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11225] tenure attention . . . Two messages bring up the fact that not everything that's posted to pen-l evokes a response. god knows I try, but one can't pay attention to everything, respond to everything! Jim, You are among those least open to criticism regarding lack of output on PEN-L. . . . The other message is from Max: ... I find it pathetic that this is the first mention on PEN-L this year of a little thing called the Federal budget... Anybody ever consider how academic discourse, including the "marxian" variety (replete with fantasies of "extreme class struggle") becomes a shield from politics? Discussions of the Federal budget show up in the L.A. TIMES at least three times a week. Just because it doesn't show up on pen-l doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in pen-l members' minds. Maybe the lack of comment on this issue represents an admirable restraint in posting (something that I tend to lack, mea culpa). But unless something especially interesting or useful is said, I see no reason to have pen-l posts. Anyway, Max, you could have We could re-phrase to say that nobody found anything interesting or useful to say. posted a lot of stuff on this subject, just as Dave Richardson used to post the interesting labor updates. (I, for one, miss them.) Why didn't you do so? didn't you think it was important? I don't want to spam mailing lists in which I participate. I did post a notice of my web page, where my journalistic forays on the budget, among other things, can be found. BTW, I haven't seen any references to "extreme class struggle" on pen-l. (BTW, it's no fantasy: that's what Clinton and Gingrich are doing.) Also, The quote is from Louis P., and he wasn't referring to Bill or Newt. it should be noted that pen-l does not simply consist of academics and politics is more than parliamentary maneuverings. Right on both counts. But the budget is about more than parliamentary maneuverings. It's about who gets roughly a third of the national income. Only one person here took me up on my query regarding advice to the French social- democratic movement. I don't expect anyone to jump at my signal, but the deafening silence is testimony to the same problem. Perhaps people were so dismayed by the French SDs' growing sell-out that they didn't see any point to answering your call. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but it seems a bit futile to propose policy solutions to people who will ignore them (especially given that my suggestions would come from the US). Given the balance of political forces in France and the international constraints, maybe it's reasonable for the French SDs to ignore them. If I were in France, I would be trying to change that balance... The question was not on telling the SD's anything in particular, but what could a left government in their position do in a practical vein, under present circumstances? Basing political program on unforeseeable, rare political events (e.g., a general strike), rather on routine, existing political conditions is a form of escapism. That is my point. I'm not, incidentally, accusing you of unique and/or grave susceptibility to this criticism. I do think it's a fair description of the list's output. That said, I am not against policy proposals. It's not my specialty, but I'm always interested in creative ones, especially ones that are designed to keep our rulers honest rather than being based on faith in their benevolence. BTW, telling people to resist wage cuts attacks on civilian programs (to avoid underconsumption, etc.) is a form of policy advice. It's aimed at the people, a more worthwhile audience than the policy elite. Mostly well and good. . . . That may be true for some on pen-l, but it's not true for all. Sure. There are exceptions to rules. BTW, why didn't pen-l comment on the absorption of Hong Kong by China? on the adventures of the Mars rover? We can't comment on everything! we shouldn't. The budget could have been written by Martians who have already taken over Hong Kong, for all the interest it has aroused here. Nobody in particular should comment on everything, quite right. And some people shouldn't comment at all, though you are clearly not one of them. I'll close by noting a few time bombs in the pending budget agreement with major political-economic import: * a tax bill which threatens to severely curtail future revenue growth, in particular by virtue of the indexation of capital gains income subject to taxation; * a deregulation of Medicaid and Food Stamps which would allow state governments to privatize administration of most welfare programs; * means-testing of Medicare, which threatens to open the door to privatization of what publicly-financed health care we have in the U.S. * an utter failure to address long-term factors promoting gross expansion of Federal
