[PEN-L:12085] Re: Borscht Belt Reds
I will have to listen to Henry's tape. You're probably right. Lou At 07:32 PM 9/1/97 -0700, you wrote: Friends, Thanks, louis, for the interesting recounting of your visit to the catskills. If I am not mistaken, the Foner brothers had a band when they were young. By the way is there any more prolific historian than Philip Foner? michael yates
[PEN-L:12086] Re: radio
I was a bit taken aback by Stephanie Schmidt's research at first, but, as I read some of the debate on femecon, I realized that it was getting over the fear which allowed so many UPS workers to strike militantly. I think it is clearly in the interests of the ruling class to have a fearful--hence timid-- working class. People who are scared don't organize, don't talk back, and don't fight. For a few decades, especially since the dismissal of the air traffic controllers, I think much of the working class was frightened. IMHO, the constant fear has gotten old. Like Chicken Little screaming that the sky is going to fall, after a while fear has a way of giving way to "fuck-em, I'm sick and tired of putting up with this crap." (I can't think of a succinct emotion to summarize.) maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 97-09-01 15:00:38 EDT, you write: Initially I reacted to Stephanie's result with muted hostility, since you could take it to connote that life is just a bowl of cherries for the working class. But if it isn't obvious, there's an upside to the finding, if true. Less anxious workers can be more militant. Mao's dictum, "the worse, the better" doesn't follow. I had the same initial reaction, but she (i.e., Stefanie Schmidt of the Milken Institute) seems like a serious person with real evidence on her hands. She's got a 20-page version of the argument which I should be getting later today or tomorrow. I also had the same second thought, but that's when Alan Greenspan might come in, push up unemployment, and make sure fear inhabits the hearts of the working class once again. Doug --- Headers Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu (anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu [132.241.9.84]) by emin37.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) Mon, 1 Sep 1997 15:01:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from anthrax (localhost [127.0.0.1]) Mon, 1 Sep 1997 11:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 11:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: l03102817b030ca0c2568@[166.84.250.86] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:12073] Re: radio X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Progressive Economics Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mime-Version: 1.0
[PEN-L:12089] FW: BLS Daily Report
(See last item). Here at the Labor Dept. we are wondering what it is that we did so well to so disturb Mr. Armey. -- BLS DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, AUGUST 29, 1997: The government's summertime snapshot of the youth labor force picks up the tones of a robust economy, with total employment among workers ages 16 to 24 up by 2.4 percent in July, compared with a year ago. Jobless rates in virtually all demographic groups were down, compared with the summer of 1996, according to data released by BLS (Daily Labor Report, page D-15). Demand for labor remained strong in July, as the Conference Board reports its help-wanted advertising index held steady at 88 percent of its 1987 base (Daily Labor Report, page A-6; Wall Street Journal, page A12). U.S. economic growth in the second quarter was revised up to a strong 3.6 percent at an annual rate, due chiefly to a better performance by the trade sector and a larger inventory accumulation than first estimated, reports the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis. The revised figures for GDP mean the economy barely slowed after growing at a 4.9 percent pace in the first quarter of this year. Consumer spending was much weaker than in the first quarter, however, suggesting to many analysts that the third quarter will see a pickup in personal outlays (Daily Labor Report, page D-1)_The U.S. economy grew much more strongly this spring than previously thought, raising new questions for analysts and policymakers about whether inflationary pressures will build in coming months (Washington Post, page K1)_Even with the more robust growth, inflation remained subdued during the second quarter (New York Times, page A1)_The economy grew much faster than the original estimate. Meanwhile, prices inched up just 0.8 percent in the second quarter, and corporate profits jumped 1.9 percent (Wall Street Journal, page A2). New claims for unemployment benefits declined by 16,000 to 323,000 during the week ended Aug. 23, the Labor Department's Employment and Training Administration reports (Daily Labor Report, page D-13; Washington Post, page K2). The flow of three-year visas for skilled foreign-born workers has been temporarily cut off by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the agency says. The agency has tentatively reached the limit on the number of H1-B visas it can issue annually (Daily Labor Report, page A-3). Despite the best economic conditions in a generation, more than two-thirds of U.S. workers say their sense of job security is lower and job stress higher than it used to be, according to a new survey by Princeton Survey Research Associates (USA Today, pages 1A, 1B). House Majority Leader Armey (R-Texas) gives the Labor Department the worst marks in his overall assessment of federal agencies' preliminary plans for improving the way agency programs are run. In a letter issued this month, Armey ranks the Labor Department last in an evaluation of federal agencies' efforts to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act (Daily Labor Report, page A-7).
[PEN-L:12090] Re: Borscht Belt Reds
Unfortunately, her talk did not really get into the sort of detail I was looking for. So during the question period I stated that I was researching the left-wing bungalow colonies and hotels of the Catskill Mountains and If you're not already familiar with it, you might be interested in and find useful Paul Buhle's (Radical America) work on Yiddish labor activists, which I understand includes oral history as source and output. He's at Brown Univ. 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://tap.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:12099] Workers rights and democratic development--People's Summit
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 16:17:50 -0700 Reply-To: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Larry Kuehn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Workers rights and democratic development--People's Summit International Forum: Workers Rights Democratic Development The Canadian Labour Congress and the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development will organize a labour forum within the framework of the 1997 People's Summit on APEC. The Forum will take place in Vancouver, British Columbia on November 20-21, 1997. The objective of the Forum is to strengthen collaboration between trade unions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and labour support groups on the issues of labour rights and human rights. The Forum is comprised of two main components, The Tribunal on Workers Human Rights and the Conference on Workers' Human Rights Democratic Development. Guests and speakers include: (* denotes confirmed participant) Luis Anderson - trade union leader Warren Allmand* - human rights activist P.N. Bhagwati - supreme court justice Edward Broadbent* - human rights advocate Irene Fernandez* - human rights advocate Han Dongfang - trade unionist Pharis Harvey* - labour activist Ranee Hassarungsee* - women's rights advocate Charles Kernaghan - labour activist Apo Leung - labour activist =46rancisco Sionel Jos=C8* - author Yayori Matsui* - women's rights advocate Pierre San=C8* - human rights advocate Bob White* - trade union leader THE TRIBUNAL ON WORKERS HUMAN RIGHTS (Open Event) November 20, 1997 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Plaza of Nations, Vancouver Six workers from six different APEC countries will testify before a panel of internationally renowned judges and the assembled delegates to the Peoples' Summit. The testimonies will emphasize the individual and collective experiences of workers in the context of the global economy and will focus on the following issues: freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining; migrant workers rights; workers in free trade zones; child labour; discrimination against women; forced labour. To receive a conference registration kit: Margaret Blamey, The Canadian Labour Congress, 1176-8th Avenue, New Westminster, B.C., Canada V3M 2R6, Tel: 604-524-0392, Fax: 604-524-5165, email [EMAIL PROTECTED], or Carole Samdup, International Centre for Human Rights Democratic Development, 63 de Br=C8soles, Montr=C8al, Qu=C8bec Canada H2Y 1V7, Tel: 514-283-6073, Fax: 514-283-3792, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] THE CONFERENCE ON WORKERS HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT (By Registration ONLY) November 21, 1997 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Landmark Hotel , Vancouver In order to develop a better understanding of the relationship between trade union rights and democratic development, the conference delegates will exchange strategies for improving respect for workers' rights, and seek to improve coordination of future initiatives. 9:00 - 9:45:Opening Plenary A brief plenary will precede a series of workshops. The plenary will introduce the context in which the workshop issues will be addressed, that is; an overview of findings at previous APEC Labour Forums in Kyoto and Manila, a briefing on developments within the Asia-Pacific Labour Network, and an analysis of the relationship between human rights and democratic development. Copies of the judges recommendations from the Workers' Tribunal will be circulated to the delegates during the plenary. 10:00 - 3:30: Simultaneous Workshops: * Making Transnational Corporations Accountable: Will examine such issues as codes of conduct, monitoring, consumer campaigns, government regulatory mechanisms and the practices of corporations in the world today. * Trade Unions and Democratic Development: Will look at the role of trade unions in fighting for democracy and how repression of trade unions is an assault on democracy. * Organizing Experiences in the Informal Economy or the Challenge of Subcontracting: Will focus largely on women who are found at the end of the subcontracting chain in both developed and developing countries including domestic workers, agricultural labourers, and migrant workers. * The International Trade Union Movement and Human Rights Groups Working Together: How can we collaborate, take part in joint initiatives and understand each others' mandates, commonalities and differences? Can the Asia-Pacific Labour Network and the broader NGO community develop specific joint initiatives for APEC in 1998? * International Trade Agreements and Labour Rights: Will compare and analyse different trade agreements and the politics of protecting labour rights. What networking strategies have been successful? What are the limitations and strengths of social clauses?
[PEN-L:12102] Her Majesty vs. Katarina Blum
Much fuss is being made about Her Majesty's death (just like during the ancien regime -- when the only affairs worthy public knowledge were the royal affairs) and the contribution of the ruthless reporters to that death. That rings the bell... In the German film "The Lost Honor of Katarina Blum" (available on video)-- the protagonist (true, literary fiction, but so are the British Royal figures) falls in love with a fugitive "terrorist" affiliated with Red Brigades -- and as she becomes the subject of a police investigation, her private life is being exploited by the tabloid press. Her story ends somewhat differently than Princess Di's, however. Katarina Blum invites the journalist who pursed her to her flat, promissing him an 'exclusive.' When he arrives, asking her to start telling her story with having sex with him, she shoots him dead. The film ends with his funeral at which fat cats shed crocodille tears over the "assault on the freedom of the press." I am not a big fan of royalty, but given the role of the media nowadays I would not mind Princess Di shooting back at the "free press" the way Katarina Blum did. Blasting that dirty swine Rupert Murdoch or his agents would actually be a greater service to humanity than removing land mines. Or better yet, use media pundits as human triggers to expolde those mines... wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE. - John Dewey
[PEN-L:12103] work
Does anyone have more info on this (from the BLS Daily Report)? I don't have a USA Today anywhere nearby, and I'm drawing a blank on tracking down PSRA: Despite the best economic conditions in a generation, more than two-thirds of U.S. workers say their sense of job security is lower and job stress higher than it used to be, according to a new survey by Princeton Survey Research Associates (USA Today, pages 1A, 1B). Doug
[PEN-L:12106] Re: Surveys
Wojtek, Your comments are well taken on the issue of potential distortion of subjects' responses, the limitations of statistical technique in analysing results and the reliance of q on "completeness". First, I would like to say that if there is the potential for dissimulation, q would provide a better data set for testing that as a hypothesis. Furthermore, additional sorting could be conducted with "tell me what you think I want to hear" as the condition of instruction. That is, subjects could be asked to sort the statements according to a scale from what they think the surveyor most wants to hear to what they think the surveyor least wants to hear. The results of the resurvey could then be compared with the original results. Second, the statistical relationships revealed by factor analysis are *only statistical relationships*. They provide leads, they don't purport to be the "results" of the q study. Let's say I've got 30 subjects and 56 statements. I don't even want to do the math on how many different ways those 56 statements could be arranged -- many _billions_ of ways. All that the factor analysis does is help focus in on a managable number of relationships, say 30 or 40 for the researcher to look at more closely. If I may take liberties with the commissar and peasant story, the peasant's answer, "Because I have a sheep" is the punchline. But the commissar's unscripted question, ". . . you do not want give your sheep that is of much smaller value than the other animals. I do not understand that. Why???" is the hook. Survey research doesn't really allow you to ask that unexpected question; q does. You're quite right about the importance of completeness in assembling a list of statements. But, although the statements are taken as representative of opinion on a topic they are not held to be a priori *indicators* of one or another opinion. Whether or not the subjects interpret the statements in the same way is not important in a q study. That's because the statements *in isolation* are not assumed to "indicate" anything in particular; it is only in relation to one another that an attempt is made to interpret the meaning of statements. I should also qualify that completeness remains a subjective judgement, perhaps even impressionistic. The researcher stops collecting statements when it seems like there's nothing more to be said on the topic -- when even a vigorous search for new opinions turns up only the same old ones. I think I understand now what your expectations are regarding q method and I would agree with your criticisms if q lived up to those expectations. The difference may hinge on what you call "standardized cues". Yes, the same statements are shown to each of the respondents. But, no, it isn't assumed that they have the same meaning for all respondents. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ knoW Ware Communications Vancouver, B.C., CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 688-8296 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: HTTP://WWW.VCN.BC.CA/TIMEWORK/
[PEN-L:12107] Re: work
At 13:21 9/2/97 -0700, Doug Henwood wrote: Does anyone have more info on this: "Princeton Survey Research Associates." Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs: Princeton Survey Research Associates, via: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/programs/survey.html Information request e-mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NB: That is "wws" as the computer system name, not "www"). Enjoy tallpaul "To understand the probable outcome of the Libertarian vision, see any cyberpunk B movie wherein thousands of diseased, desperate and starving families sit around on ratty old couches on the streets watching television while rich megalomaniacs appropriate their body parts for their personal physical immortality." R. U. Sirius _The Real Cyberpunk Fakebook_
[PEN-L:12088] Re: Greenspan ...
In a message dated 97-09-01 15:38:23 EDT, Jim Devine writes: t's not true that banks don't pay for the services of the Fed. They have to hold reserves, which don't pay interest, which the bankers (at least) think of as a tax; they also have to live up to the Fed's large number of rules. But it's unclear whether or not the bankers get benefits exceeding such costs (I've never seen research on this question). I would guess yes, since bankers hardly ever complain about the Fed. Yeah, but the piddly amount they hold on to (generally less than 2%) in relation to the huge amount they loan out at exhorbitant rates is but a mere drop in the bucket. Also, in general, the Fed's large number of rules benefit banks to the detriment of others--all these decreases in the barriers to interstate banking have increased the profitabilty of the megabanks like Chase/Chemical and Shitty, oops, Citibank at the expense of community economic interests like small business loans, home owner loans in 'marginal' neighborhoods. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12091] Re: Greenspan on Govt. Intervention in Markets
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) Subject: [PEN-L:12076] Re: Greenspan on Govt. Intervention in Markets Max Sawicky wrote, It's true that policy tools and policy goals go together "to some non-trivial extent". . . . True but too general. That was precisely my point. I'm glad we agree. Or were your arguing with the elipsis? Not then, though I note it had one too many periods. 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://tap.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:12100] Re: Surveys
At 06:51 PM 8/28/97 -0700, Tom Walker wrote, inter alia: Why? . . . we can measure the "ideological temperature" of the environment (specific communities) to know what individual members on average think. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. But "the ideological temperature of individuals on average" doesn't sound like information I'd be particularly interested in. Sorry for the too cryptic of a metaphor. What I intended to say was that researcher/interviewer is often and correctly (cf. Foucault) perceived as a some sort of an authority figure, and the Rs tend to to throw back at him/her what they hear from the offcial sources: the government, the media, the pulpit etc. Many so-called "public policy" issue as formulated in such a way that have little direct relationship to people's everyday's lives -- consequently people have no personal stakes in this or that responses. In that context, giving the "politically correct" answers may be dictated by really trivial considerations, such as the desire to please the researcher by giving him/her the answers the Rs think they want to hear, the desire not to draw suspicion by giving "politically incorrerct" answers, or simply by a desire to get the researcher off one's back by giving him/her the "standard" answers. However, situation changes quite dramatically when people have personal stakes in an issue. Take the example of abortion. If formulated in abstraction, people may associated it with the way it is often portrayed from the pulpit or by government officials: as abstract "liberated" women having it for the heck of it, or to destroy 'family values' and 'our way of life' etc. And it is quite obvious what kind of answer are they likely to give to the question "do you support abortion on demand?" The situation changes quite dramatically when the Rs herself, or his/her daughter or relative become pregnant -- in such a case the options (abortion vs continuation of preganancy) are formulated in a way that reflects that person's personal stakes. So the person may say "no" to the survey question "do you support abortion on demand," yet seek abortion if she or her daughter becomes pregnant -- and what even more important do not see any contradiction between these two position. She may pe4rceive herself as different from 'those women" she heard from her preacher. This is reflected by the following anecdote from the Russian Revolution. A peasant wanted to join the CP. To test his sincerity, the commissar asked him "Would you give your cow to the Party, if the Party asked you?" "Sure" answered the peasant. But that did not convinced the suspicious commissar so he continued "Would you also give your horse to the Party?" "Of course!" "And how about your pig, would you give it too?" "In an instant!" "And your sheep?" "My sheep!!?? -- No way, sir!" Nonplussed, the commissar said "You just told me that you would give your horse, your cow and your pig, yet you do not want give your sheep that is of much smaller value than the other animals. I do not understand that. Why???" "Because I have a sheep" --answered the peasant. The funniest part of this anecdote, though, is not the thinly veiled opportunism of the peasant, but the contradictions in the commissar's behaviour: on the one hand, he expected a "true consciousness" =lack of attachment to private property on the part of the peasant, yet despite his professed vanguard position, he displayed quite a bit of "false consciousness" =attachement to bourgeois methods of inquiry. A true revolutionary would have known the peasant's unwillingness to give up his meager private property, beacuse the possession of such property was the condition of his survival under the capitalist mode of production. In short, it does not matter what the Rs think at the moment, because what they think reflects their living conditions. Change their living conditions, and the content of their thinking will change. The bourgeois social scientists, OTOH, want to do it the other way around -- "testing" the content of people's thinking to find the (supposedly) best living conditions. I can only reiterate that Q methodology isn't in the slightest interested in what the "majority" of people support or even in what some given proportion of people think. Q methodology seeks to interpret coherent varieties of opinion on an issue. Well, from your description I gather that q uses factor analysis to find commonalities among different indicators. Factor invariably uses linear regression, and the core of regression is the prediction of the mean value of the dependent variable. The only difference is that unlike in ordinary regression, the values of "dependent" variable or presumed "common factor" are not known in factor, instead -- they are predicted from the values of indicator variables and "loadings" (that are simply standardized regression coeffcients of several regression equations in which the values of
[PEN-L:12104] EPI Issue Brief: Minimum Wage
New Issue Brief from EPI: "America's Well-Targeted Raise: Data Show Benefits of Minimum Wage Increase Going to Workers Who Need It Most" By Jared Bernstein This should be of particular interest to those involved in "Living Wage" campaigns. It's free for download from the EPI web site, EPINET.ORG. The principal subject of the brief is the nature of minimum wage workers, exploding the canard that they are mostly teenagers in middle-class families. There are numbers on affected workers by state, and on demographic characteristics of affected workers. Users of EPI material may recall our briefing paper on the lack of disemployment effects, a separate topic. If you don't have access to the web, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] and they will e-mail or fax it to you. === 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://tap.epn.org/sawicky ===
[PEN-L:12105] Re: work
At 01:21 PM 9/2/97 -0700, you wrote: Does anyone have more info on this (from the BLS Daily Report)? I don't have a USA Today anywhere nearby, and I'm drawing a blank on tracking down PSRA: Despite the best economic conditions in a generation, more than two-thirds of U.S. workers say their sense of job security is lower and job stress higher than it used to be, according to a new survey by Princeton Survey Research Associates (USA Today, pages 1A, 1B). Here is the full text of the USA Today story (USA Today online, August 28th). As far as PSRA goes, I know they do some health care related polling as well. They do have an email address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) but I do not know an address or a phone number. boldbiggerbiggerDownsizing leaves legacy of insecurity /bigger/bigger/boldBy Beth Belton, USA TODAY Seven years into an expansion that is being billed as an economic miracle, U.S. workers feel insecure and stressed out. "Everyone I know is in a defensive position, and I'm no different," says Alex Gergely, 29, a computer programmer in Lexington, Ky. "I work from paycheck to paycheck, but I'm really trying to jump up a notch and do something different." A new nationwide survey on the mood of workers reveals lingering insecurity and unhealed wounds from the downsizing and restructuring that battered Corporate America in the early years of this decade. Despite a 4.8% jobless rate and the tightest job market in 25 years, workers are feeling more anxious than ever, the poll shows. In the survey: 70% say they have less job security than they did 20 or 30 years ago. 73% say there's more on-the-job stress. 59% say they have to work harder to earn a decent living. The poll was conducted in mid-July by Princeton Survey Research Associates (PSRA) for State of the Union, a series produced by PBS with the participation of USA TODAY. That's Why They Call It Work, a one-hour documentary, the third of four produced this year, will air Friday and Monday evening (check local listings). Widespread worker insecurity, despite the best economic conditions in a generation, remains an unsettling paradox. The U.S. economy is the brightest light among the world's economies. Seven years of solid growth, low inflation and falling unemployment combined with stunning corporate profits, a spectacular bull market and a disappearing federal budget deficit have made the USA the envy of the global village. U.S. companies are in peak competitive shape. And there's no disputing how sweet the 1990s have been for investors and corporate executives. Across nearly every industry, the gains have been spectacular. The Dow Jones industrial average has gained 183% the past seven years. Pay for CEOs has soared 250% on average the same period. But the powerful economic turnaround has done little to erase insecurity among the nation's 130 million workers. Gergely works for a start-up online services company that designs sites on the World Wide Web for the secure transmission of confidential medical records. He wants to stay in Lexington because most of his family and friends are there. But he says he's frustrated that he can't use his expertise to earn more than $30,000 a year. Even moving, he says, isn't the answer. "You can make twice as much in San Jose, Calif., as you can in Lexington, but they don't tell you the rents are three times as high," Gergely says. boldbiggerA logical paradox /bigger/bold The apparent conflict of a strong economy and persistent worker insecurity makes a certain amount of sense to some experts, including Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. "It is one thing to believe that the economy, indeed the job market, will do well overall, but quite another to feel secure about one's individual situation, given the accelerated pace of corporate restructuring and the heightened fear of skill obsolescence that has apparently characterized this expansion," Greenspan told a congressional committee in late July. A big part of the insecurity is caused by the vast technological changes in the workplace, Greenspan says. Many workers agree. "It's a lot more competitive (in the workplace). There's no more just walking in the door and being a decent citizen (to get a job)," says Stella Crews, 47, a full-time secretary in Detroit. "Now it's walk in the door, be a decent citizen and know how to run several word-processing programs." Workers understand the importance of keeping pace with change. Of those surveyed, 49% say they could use a little more education and training to get ahead at work, and 20% say they could use a lot more. When asked what is important in determining success at work, 74% say education and training for a specific job is important, ahead of formal education in general, personal connections and good luck. And worker attitudes aren't totally at odds with a robust economy. Seventy percent say they are mostly
[PEN-L:12109] Re: Greenspan in South Africa
Most importantly, in relation to Fed-banking relations, the Fed is a really good example of the captive regulator. I did two years time in the Philadelphia Fed after college and was continually impressed by the backhanders regularly given to local speculators, some of whom represented Old Banking Money, some cowboy types. Nearly all were exporting mid-Atlantic deposits to various faraway scams. I found myself attributing this phenomenon partly to shared culture, partly to the industry's revolving door for employees, partly to a paternalism that says Fed banks must not fail, partly to competition in laxity with other bank regulators (the Fed was continually worried about losing its member banks to the Comptroller of the Currency and hence turned many a blind eye when the threat arose), partly to not having any contact with Greideresque populism, except as Maggie suggests, to ignore community protesters while redlining continued unabated. After relocating to Southern Africa, when I returned to the US for a visit during the early 1990s and heard Bush blaming tightfisted bank regulators for the long recession I had to laugh. Anyhow if you think Greenspan and his crew are bad, come to Pretoria where SA's Reserve Bank governor has won the Euromoney Banker of the Year award, bailed out an Afrikaans bank on ethnic home-boy grounds, liberalised currency so rich whites and TNCs can export their apartheid takings, encouraged hot money inflows, let the currency crash 25% in a six-week slide in early '96 when the inflows turned outward without a hint of restoring currency controls, raised interest rates to unprecedented levels (13% real prime on average last year, down a wee bit now thanks to higher inflation), and generally twisted ANC economic minds to mush. To top it off he's a leader Broederbonder, ruddy, stout and enjoys taking the punch bowl away well before the party begins, in order to share it with his Boer banking friends. Bank profits have increased handsomely during the eight years he's reigned, at a time SA has had its longest depression ever and has lost over 10% of formal sector employment. No hope for a replacement soon. IMF managing director Camdessus explicitly instructed the ANC to reappoint both the apartheid-era central banker and finance minister, at the time -- five months before the 1994 election -- the IMF granted a $850 million loan. Mandela did so in his inaugural speech, leaving many of us gagging. Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 06:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:12088] Re: Greenspan ... In a message dated 97-09-01 15:38:23 EDT, Jim Devine writes: t's not true that banks don't pay for the services of the Fed. They have to hold reserves, which don't pay interest, which the bankers (at least) think of as a tax; they also have to live up to the Fed's large number of rules. But it's unclear whether or not the bankers get benefits exceeding such costs (I've never seen research on this question). I would guess yes, since bankers hardly ever complain about the Fed. Yeah, but the piddly amount they hold on to (generally less than 2%) in relation to the huge amount they loan out at exhorbitant rates is but a mere drop in the bucket. Also, in general, the Fed's large number of rules benefit banks to the detriment of others--all these decreases in the barriers to interstate banking have increased the profitabilty of the megabanks like Chase/Chemical and Shitty, oops, Citibank at the expense of community economic interests like small business loans, home owner loans in 'marginal' neighborhoods. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12101] Re: Shape of Production Possibility Curve
Rudy asked: Am I right about this stuff or did I miss something? Rudy Rudy, you are right AND (not "or") you did miss something. You missed the lecture where it was revealed that it was all a parable. Gene
[PEN-L:12097] Steel workers leader on trial in Argentina (fwd)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 15:10:49 + Reply-To: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jordi Martorell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Steel workers leader on trial in Argentina To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear comrades: This is a solidarity appeal we have received from Taller de Estudios Laborales (Labour Studies Workshop-TEL)) in Argentina. A full report of the situation of the trial and background to this situation can be found at Labournet's web site (www.labournet.org.uk) or obtained from TEL ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). In solidarity, La Red Obrera/Labournet www.labournet.org.uk Dear Friends: We ask you to join and support the campaign for the acquittal of Oscar Martinez and dozens of working class leaders who are persecuted in Argentina. The trial of Oscar Martinez in Tierra del Fuego, Argentina, is scheduled to begin September 8. Martinez is the organization secretary of the Rio Grande, Tierra del Fuego steelworkers union and one of the most respected workers leaders in the province. That is why he is being persecuted by the government and its servile justice system. Martinez has been accused "aiding and abetting criminal acts" because he participated in an April 12, 1995 march against the brutal repression of workers who were occupying the Continental Fueguina plant. Police attacked the marchers, killing Victor Choque and injuring dozens of workers. We call on political parties, human rights advocacy groups, trade unions, student unions and all advocates of democratic liberties throughout the world to help get out the truth about Martinez and join the campaign for his acquittal. As part of the campaign, we propose to gather signatures for the following text to be sent to the court and the governor of Tierra del Fuego: Governor of Tierra del Fuego, Jose Estabillo Members of the Tierra del Fuego Criminal Court, Judges Novarino, Pagano and Zabalia Ramos We the undersigned demand the immediate acquittal of Oscar Martinez, organization secretary of the Rio Grande Steelworkers Union, on trial for the April 12, 1995 events outside the Tierra del Fuego government building and the police headquarters, where brutal police repression caused the death of Victor Choque. We hold that by trying Martinez, Luis Bazan of Cordoba or the pickets of Cutral-Co in Neuquen province the government seeks to smother workers struggles against economic plans that cause hunger and unemployment. Meanwhile, crimes committed by "trigger-happy" cops, such as the deaths of Victor Choque, Teresa Rodriguez and Jose Luis Cabezas go unpunished. We demand that those responsible for the violent repression that injured dozens of workers be tried and punished. Please send messages of support to Calle Chile 1362 - (1098) Buenos Aires - Argentina. Phone/Fax + (541) 381-2976. E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12096] Shape of Production Possibility Curve
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --8596EDC528FE2FDF4B76ED97 I a gearing up to teach our introductory course in economics (We are on a quarter system). All principles book always portray the PPC as being concave and use it to talk about the law of diminishing returns. Isn't this incorrect from a technical perspective because diminshing returns requires that one factor be held constant while varying another factor? In transfering resources from guns to butter (the classic example) isn't one transfering both labor and capital? If this is the case then how can the law of diminishing returns apply? Next most texts rationalize the concave shape and the law of diminishing returns by stating that as resources that are best suited for one type of production are transfered to another type of production they are not as efficient. This results in increasing costs i.e., a concave production funtion. How can this be squared with the assumption that labor and capital are homogenious? If labor and capital are homogenious then they should be equally adept at producing guns or butter. The only way I know of to get a concave PPC is to have two production functions where at least one has increasing returns to scale. This is of course inconsistent with perfect competition. Am I right about this stuff or did I miss something? Rudy -- Rudy Fichtenbaum Phone: 937-775-3085 Department of Economics FAX: 937-775-3545 Wright State University email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dayton, OH 45435 --8596EDC528FE2FDF4B76ED97 begin: vcard fn: Rudy Fichtenbaum n: Fichtenbaum;Rudy org:Wright State University adr:Department of Economics;;3640 Colonel Glenn Hwy;Dayton;OH;45435-0001;US email;internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] title: Professor of Economics tel;work: 937-775-3085 tel;fax:937-775-3545 tel;home: 937-233-5252 x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE end:vcard --8596EDC528FE2FDF4B76ED97--
[PEN-L:12095] Re: Muted hostility
Michael Perelman wrote: I have not read Schmidt's report, but it does not surprise me. During the 60's, when unemployment was low, workers often took a cavalier attitude toward their work. As unemployment became a more serious threat, workers became more "grateful" for their job. What is the relationship between muted hostility and insecurity? Well I have read Schmidt's paper. It's labeled "very preliminary," with the usual warnings not to quote or cite, so I'll hold back on quoting the analysis and conclusions. But the public opinion data - from the General Social Survey and Gallup - does indeed show no rise in reported worker anxiety about job loss. The shares of employed workers who said their jobs were at risk in 1996 and 1997 were pretty much the same as in other late-expansion years, like 1979 and 1989. There are some changes within demographic groups and relative to the unemployment rate, but nothing like what you read in the press (or in Alan Greenspan's public testimony). What's going on? I've written, at no doubt excessive length, that the cliches about spreading contingency and disappearing employment have no basis in fact; and now with Schmidt's work, we learn that even reports of perceptions look to be wrong. Is it that U.S. labor markets have always been turbulent, and perception has just caught up to that fact? That that turbulence has spread to previously insulated segments of the labor force (white male managers/professionals), who are too small a group to affect the macro numbers much, but who are nonetheless extremely important to framing public discourse? Inquiring minds want to know! 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
