BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, JANUARY 21, 2000 RELEASED TODAY: Regional and state unemployment rates remained stable in December. All four regions posted little or no change over the month, and 45 states and the District of Columbia recorded shifts of 0.3 percentage points or less. The national jobless rate was unchanged at 4.1 percent. Nonfarm employment rose in 41 states and the District of Columbia. ... The median weekly earnings of the nation's 98.2 million full-time wage and salary employees rose 2.4 percent after adjustment for inflation during the 12 months ended in the fourth quarter of 1999, according to BLS. BLS said that, before adjustment for inflation, median weekly earnings increased 5 percent and stood at $568 in the fourth quarter of 1999. Inflation, as measured by the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), rose 2.6 percent over the same 12-month period. Looking at averages over the full year of 1999, Labor Secretary Alexis Herman pointed out that full-time workers realized a 2.9 percent gain in real or inflation-adjusted weekly earnings. That is a record annual gain, she said, noting that the BLS has been collecting these data on a regular basis since 1979. Herman also cited figures in the new BLS report pertaining to pay gaps between workers with different educational attainment levels. ... (Daily Labor Report, page D-8). New claims filed with state agencies for unemployment insurance benefits declined 39,000 to a total of 272,000 during the week ended Jan. 15, according to the Labor Department's Employment and Training Administration. The weekly total of new claims has remained close to the 300,000 mark for about a year, signaling the extent of labor market tightness across the U.S. economy. Most forecasters expect the job market to remain tight this year, even if the overall pace of the expansion moderates somewhat, as is generally predicted. New claimants have filed to receive benefits through state agencies, but are not yet receiving payments. The four-week average of total UI claimants--those actually receiving benefits--reached its lowest level in 11 years, declining to about 2.0 million during the period ended Jan. 8, which was a drop of 129,000 from the prior period. ... (Daily Labor Report, page D-16). The U.S. trade gap expanded in November to a record, as imports jumped 1.4 percent while exports increased 0.7 percent, the Commerce Department reported. Data from the Census Bureau showed that imports increased at a stronger pace than some analysts had expected. ... (Daily Labor Report, page D-1: Washington Post, page E3)_The U.S. trade deficit hit another record in November on a surge of imports of foreign cars and consumer goods. ... Higher oil prices helped fuel the rise, and economists also blamed some of the import surge on year-2000 stockpiling, in which many U.S. car dealers built up their inventories in the latter part of 1999. But, as the trade imbalance continued to swell, there was a tiny ray of sunshine in the November numbers: U.S. export performance, dismal for much of 1999, was slightly improved, rising on increased demand for telecommunications equipment, semiconductors, and other products. Imports, as usual, outperformed exports. It was the US's worst trade performance since the Commerce Department started compiling the monthly numbers in 1992. ... (Wall Street Journal, page A2)_The insatiable American appetite for German cars, French perfume, and Japanese televisions has helped the world's wealthiest countries grow faster than at any time since the mid-1990s, but the United States is warning that its allies need to join in the gluttony. ... America's stellar growth means that it is consuming more than its share of world output. Europe and Japan have the potential to grow faster if they loosen up the reins on their economies and worry less about inflation, Treasury Secretary Summers said. Ideally, both major trading partners would then buy more American goods and help to even out global trade. ... (New York Times, page C1). The International Energy Agency warned that crude-oil supply cuts by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have severely diminished world oil inventories. ... The IEA was formed by industrialized nations in the 1970s to coordinate an emergency response to oil shortages and to monitor markets. The editor of the IEA's Monthly Oil Market Report in Paris said in an interview that shortages are possible this summer unless OPEC raises its production levels. ... Crude prices on the New York Mercantile Exchange surged in the past week after OPEC members said they wouldn't boost output as expected in March, when the current supply-cutback agreement expires. In a series of reductions beginning in April 1998, OPEC together with non-OPEC members Mexico and Norway took 4.3 million barrels a day off world markets, reducing production about 6% against world demand of about 75 million
recent publications
To those of you who are URPE members - the URPE winter newsletter would like to announce any recent publications of members that have come out in 1999-2000 or are expected out soon. If you have more than one, then give me the two most recent or interesting ones. Please include the complete reference. Include a short one sentence blurb and I may be able to include it. Also, if you know of any interesting websites, please share the URL and name of organization/group. The newsletter publishes these URLs. I'll take references until Tuesday noon, then if I get others after the deadline, they will be included in the Spring newsletter. Susan Fleck w:(202) 691-5019 h:(301) 270-1486 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** My personal opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer and my postings can not be attributed to my employer.
Re: Why Decry the Wealth Gap?
On Monday, January 24, 2000 at 13:26:56 (-1000) Stephen E Philion writes: And what of the poorest Americans' loss of ground compared to the richest, as reported by the Fed? The apostles of equality consider the rising inequality kindling for social unrest. But while that would be true if most workers on the bottom rungs were trapped there for generations, America isn't a caste society, and studies that track individuals' incomes over time show that Americans have a remarkable ability to propel themselves upward. A 17-year study of lifetime earnings by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that only 5 percent of people in the economy's lowest 20 percent failed to move to a higher income group. In a similar study by the Treasury Department covering 1979 to 1988, 86 percent of Americans in the bottom fifth of income earners improved their status. Inequality is not inequity. Artificial efforts to try to curb wealth gaps invariably do more harm than good. Heavier taxation might narrow the division between rich and poor, but it would be a hollow triumph if it stifled the economy. What Americans ought to care most about is maintaining our growth, not the red herring of gaps in income and wealth. W. Michael Cox, chief economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Richard Alm are co-authors of "Myths of Rich and Poor." Hmm, the 1960s were an era of unmatched growth and relative equality, if I'm not mistaken. And, what exactly are "artificial efforts to try to curb wealth gaps", and how do they differ from the artificial efforts to impose the cost of operating our system for the benefit of the few on the weakest in our society? I think they need to take a look at Horwitz's *Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860*, among other things. Didn't someone on the sane side of the fence recently put out a report that debunked this sort of nonsense? I'd like to see a point-by-point rebuttal to this, sent certified mail, to the authors. Let's draft it here and let Max send it off on his finest letterhead. Bill
RE: Re: Why Decry the Wealth Gap?
. . . I'd like to see a point-by-point rebuttal to this, sent certified mail, to the authors. Let's draft it here and let Max send it off on his finest letterhead. Bill Send to who? And why on my letterhead? As I mentioned before (might have been on LBO), my boss Larry Mishel and I debated Cox (Alm is a journalist and doesn't know anything) on a PBS show in Dallas. Mishel did most of the talking since this is his bailiwick more than mine. I was only there because I did a separate show on the public sector debating Cato dude Steve Moore. My favorite line from Cox was that one sign we are richer now is that we have bottled water rather than tap water. Something to bring tears to Perelman's eyes. Much material refuting Cox can be found in State of Working America. Up to now the labor market boyz at EPI don't think his stuff is worth refuting. Too stupid. mbs
Re: Re: Why Decry the Wealth Gap?
Hey, I didn't write that, it's from the NY Times article I sent to the list...Steve On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, William S. Lear wrote: On Monday, January 24, 2000 at 13:26:56 (-1000) Stephen E Philion writes: And what of the poorest Americans' loss of ground compared to the richest, as reported by the Fed? The apostles of equality consider the rising inequality kindling for social unrest. But while that would be true if most workers on the bottom rungs were trapped there for generations, America isn't a caste society, and studies that track individuals' incomes over time show that Americans have a remarkable ability to propel themselves upward. A 17-year study of lifetime earnings by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that only 5 percent of people in the economy's lowest 20 percent failed to move to a higher income group. In a similar study by the Treasury Department covering 1979 to 1988, 86 percent of Americans in the bottom fifth of income earners improved their status. Inequality is not inequity. Artificial efforts to try to curb wealth gaps invariably do more harm than good. Heavier taxation might narrow the division between rich and poor, but it would be a hollow triumph if it stifled the economy. What Americans ought to care most about is maintaining our growth, not the red herring of gaps in income and wealth. W. Michael Cox, chief economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Richard Alm are co-authors of "Myths of Rich and Poor." Hmm, the 1960s were an era of unmatched growth and relative equality, if I'm not mistaken. And, what exactly are "artificial efforts to try to curb wealth gaps", and how do they differ from the artificial efforts to impose the cost of operating our system for the benefit of the few on the weakest in our society? I think they need to take a look at Horwitz's *Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860*, among other things. Didn't someone on the sane side of the fence recently put out a report that debunked this sort of nonsense? I'd like to see a point-by-point rebuttal to this, sent certified mail, to the authors. Let's draft it here and let Max send it off on his finest letterhead. Bill
Re: RE: Re: Why Decry the Wealth Gap?
send me some Kleenex. "Max B. Sawicky" wrote: My favorite line from Cox was that one sign we are richer now is that we have bottled water rather than tap water. Something to bring tears to Perelman's eyes. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Keynes and Relativity
Here's a more readable version of J. Galbraith's message:
Original message
---
-( Forwarded letter follows )---
Subject: Re: Keynes and Relativity
Thanks to Steve Keen and Sam LanFranco for an interesting pair of comments.
To reply, it seems to me that there are two quite distinct questions. One is,
"is the theory of relativity an appropriate metaphor for Keynes's economics?"
The other is, "Did Keynes think so, and if so, why?" My essay is mainly
directedto the second question, because it voices a proposition that is much
easier to establish and defend. In my view, the literary evidence, extending
from the use of words in the title, to the use of the simile of classical
economists as euclidean geometers, to the title of Keynes's lectures in the
fall of 1933 ("Monetary production economics") at a time when he was working
out the core of the GT, would be suggestive even if one did not have the
directevidence of Keynes's short caption on David Low's drawing of Einstein,
published just one week before Low's famous sketch of Keynes (in the
armchair). As a matter of research method, I went looking for the references
inKeynes's work to Einstein after my attention was drawn (by Skidelsky and
HsiehYe) to the parallels in the title and the "euclidean geometer"
reference. Finding them in the form I did constituted for me very persuasive
evidence that I was not letting my own imagination get out of hand.
The next step in the article involved attempting to describe what the parallel
would have meant to Keynes. Here, I have to work with Keynes's own words,
whichdraw a parallel between the Riemann/Einstein attack on the axiom of
parallels and Keynes's own attack on the supply curve of labor, and hence on
the concept of the "labor market" as the separable locus wherein the volume of
employment isdetermined. Since the principle of effective demand flows
directly from this attack, it seems to me pretty straightforward to assert
that, for Keynes, the antireductionism of Einstein's approach was an essential
part of the parallel. Nor, given the centrality of monetary and liquidity
concepts to Keynes's thinking, is it much of a stretch to see the parallel
between Einstein's attack on the space-time dichotomy and Keynes's attack on
the classical view that "money is a veil."
Now, is all this the best way to view Keynes's contribution to economics? That
seems to be the question raised by both comments. In my view, it contributes
very usefully to an understanding of Keynes's intellectual framework, and
lends quite a bit of support to the interpretation of Keynesian unemployment
as an equilibrium phenomenon in a monetary world -- eg to the worldview
propounded extensively by Paul Davidson on pkt these last few days. It
constitutes a challenge to those who claim the label "Keynesian" for
disequilibrium theories rooted in market failure or coordination breakdowns.
But I think Keynes would agree,and I certainly do, that the use of physics
frameworks can only be pushed so far in economics. Keynes did not "model" his
GT on Einstein's in any slavish sense. Rather, he evidently hoped that the
parallel would lend an element of authority to his challenge to the scientific
pretensions of the classical economics (as he characterized his opponents) and
perhaps also a grace note to his exposition. I believe that we understand
Keynes better when we take note of this, and also that it is remarkable that
sofew references to the allusion exist in print.
On a minor note, I quite agree that any fair representation of Keynes's view
of investment must emphasize the interaction between the marginal efficiency
ofcapital (expected profitability of future investments -- a monetary concept)
and the money rate of interest. Keynes certainly stressed the subjectivity and
variability of the former. But since this is clearly a social construct, it
reinforces the "relativistic" cast of Keynes's thinking.
James Galbraith
forwarded by:
Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacad. INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
