Speaking of volatility
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/13/01 09:32AM Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of friends of the working class are getting all excited about the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon lurk over PEN-L? ( CB: It's not weird, and you know exactly what the complex paradox is. The friends of the working class on PEN-L consider, as you well know, that the capitalist system is the main source of problems for the working class; that the failures of capitalism as a system are in sharpest relief during recessions and depressions , as in the 1930's; and that somehow people will be more inclined to fundamental systemic change during recessions and depressions. It is for these reasons that anti-capitalists, including PEN-Lers, are glad that the rah-rah procapitalist rhetoric of boom periods is punctured by recession. But PEN-Lers are also well aware that this is very contradictory in that it is the working masses who suffer by economic recession. I'm not sure why everytime this comes up you refuse to acknowledge the first part of the contradiction that I describe , i.e. refuse to acknowledge that the PEN-Lers' enthusiasm for recession IS enthusiasm for the interests of the working class in the sense that PEN-L'ers believe that fundamental systemic change is in the profound interest of the working class; and that PEN-Lers are not at all expressing enthusiasm for the immediate suffering that comes to the working class in recession. I'm not sure why , but I think it is because, for some reason you don't want to say explictly or at least frequently on left lists that you are not sure that capitalism or some form of it is not the best economic system for the working class and humanity.
Re: Speaking of volatility (Jones)
I appreciate very much what Doyle had to say about the listserv not functioning as a place for collaborative work. That gets closer to my point than what I actually said. In the past, I've made connections through Pen-l that have led to two major pieces of collaborative work and several other strands that fed into those two big ones. That makes it even more puzzling to me that the drift seems to be ever more toward tit-for-tat set pieces and arcane gossip. I would wonder why pen-l couldn't mature and possibly take stock of its own legacy and try to build on that. I think what Yoshie said, it goes without saying is apt. If you'll pardon the expression, it is also easier said than done. It is a discipline to train ourselves to say that which goes without saying. Only then will we discover why it has gone without saying. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Re: Speaking of volatility (Hanly)
Ken Hanly asked: Do you have the figures? Why is this the case do u think? I guess my remark about the new Russian labor law is true though. The figures are in Labour Force Update, Hours of Work, Summer 1997 (StatsCan) and Report of the Advisory Group on Working Time and the Distribution of Work December 1994 (HRDC). See also the chapter by Lars Osberg in the Report of the Advisory Committee on the Changing Workplace, HRDC, 1997. The interpretation of the figures is mine although it borrows from analysis by a lot of other people. I would attribute much of the destandardization of working time to policy loopholes in the social security and employer-paid benefit tax structures and in labour standards legislation. Some of the usual suspect market factors that contribute to the destandardization of working time would include, on the labour demand side, lean production and just-in-time workforce management. On the labour supply side the contributing factors includes increased labour force participation of mothers of young children and students (more part-timers), and consumer culture and job loss fears (more overtime). There is some debate about to what extent the changes are driven by market supply factors, demand factors or by the policy regime. You can find most of the arguments -- including my own -- in Working Time: International trends, theory and policy perspectives, edited by Lonnie Golden and Deborah Figart, Routledge, 2000. My own view is that the supply, demand and policy factors are all mutually re-inforcing so it would be very difficult to separate them out. That is to say, the structure of payroll taxes gives employers perverse incentives to use the labour force in a polarized way (more part-time, more temp, more overtime) and polarization in turn creates economic barriers to ameliorating the perverse policy. The economic barriers, I should point out, are short term. A comprehensive clean up of the toxic policy loopholes would have a salutory effect on labour productivity in the medium and long run. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Re: Speaking of volatility (Jones)
I regret that Mark has piggy-backed blue-baiting of on top of my chiding. I share a number of Doug's cultural criticisms of the left. I don't think that makes me a Republican. My issue with Doug is that he makes his dour observations and then leaves it at that. The implication of the resulting void *could be* reactionary, but doesn't have to be so. Assuming that it *is* reactionary rather than merely incomplete is another way to limit the possibilities. What strikes me is that Doug, Michael, Yoshie and Mark offered no response to my _programmatic_ reply to Doug. I could be utterly wrong, in which case I would welcome the criticism. But I don't think I'm vague or obtuse. Doug wrote (in a subsequent message) that the left has no analytical vocabulary for talking about 'good' times. My position is that the left has the vocabulary but doesn't use it -- stubbornly refuses to use it, refuses to even see that it is refusing to use it. I talked about how one might talk about good times and Doug, Michael, Yoshie and Mark didn't respond. I talked about the capitalism fun stuff -- leftism hair shirt dialectic and why that is so. No reply. I hinted that maybe secretly leftists prefer the drama of struggling against insurmountable odds, which basically is where I share Doug's view. No answer. Mark Jones wrote, Good stuff, however I fear a return right back to the womb may be necessary in the case of some lapsed and possibly born-again Republicans. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Re: Speaking of volatility (Jones)
I regret that Mark has piggy-backed blue-baiting of on top of my chiding. I share a number of Doug's cultural criticisms of the left. I don't think that makes me a Republican. My issue with Doug is that he makes his dour observations and then leaves it at that. The implication of the resulting void *could be* reactionary, but doesn't have to be so. Assuming that it *is* reactionary rather than merely incomplete is another way to limit the possibilities. What strikes me is that Doug, Michael, Yoshie and Mark offered no response to my _programmatic_ reply to Doug. I could be utterly wrong, in which case I would welcome the criticism. But I don't think I'm vague or obtuse. Doug wrote (in a subsequent message) that the left has no analytical vocabulary for talking about 'good' times. My position is that the left has the vocabulary but doesn't use it -- stubbornly refuses to use it, refuses to even see that it is refusing to use it. I talked about how one might talk about good times and Doug, Michael, Yoshie and Mark didn't respond. I talked about the capitalism fun stuff -- leftism hair shirt dialectic and why that is so. No reply. I hinted that maybe secretly leftists prefer the drama of struggling against insurmountable odds, which basically is where I share Doug's view. No answer. Mark Jones wrote, Good stuff, however I fear a return right back to the womb may be necessary in the case of some lapsed and possibly born-again Republicans. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213 For what it's worth, Tom, you your program have my wholehearted support. I thought that it would go without saying! Yoshie
Re: Re: Speaking of volatility (Jones)
Greetings Economists, Tom Walker writes, Tom What strikes me is that Doug, Michael, Yoshie and Mark offered no response to my _programmatic_ reply to Doug. I could be utterly wrong, in which case I would welcome the criticism. But I don't think I'm vague or obtuse. Doug wrote (in a subsequent message) that the left has no analytical vocabulary for talking about 'good' times. My position is that the left has the vocabulary but doesn't use it -- stubbornly refuses to use it, refuses to even see that it is refusing to use it. I talked about how one might talk about good times and Doug, Michael, Yoshie and Mark didn't respond. I talked about the capitalism fun stuff -- leftism hair shirt dialectic and why that is so. No reply. I hinted that maybe secretly leftists prefer the drama of struggling against insurmountable odds, which basically is where I share Doug's view. No answer. Doyle While what Tom wrote above is true to the point that people did not offer answers, I think Tom is not really pointing at a failure by any of the people above, but instead is indicating a vast area where a listserv is not functioning. Really Tom is indicating to what extent one can expect people to collaborate on work toward a common project. So if somebody doesn't reply to one's points then that is just the way lists work, but as Tom says one could reasonably ask why not take seriously what he has to say and in some kind of framework come up with a programmatic reply. Afterwards Yoshie replied she agreed with Tom and she felt it went without saying, which I think is acknowledging how listservs function. So I would reply to Tom from a different perspective that the real issue Tom raises is not so much that in this case people are not responding properly, as much as this brings out how listservs don't function within the parameters of what social constructing a left requires. I don't mean to mystify this. To me at my job the common issue of working together jointly on projects through the web is about looking at groupware functions. Where instant messaging, polling, knowing when people are on line, chat pages, white boards, audio lines, video lines, shared aps like excel spreadsheets are all a part of the process that Tom is calling for. To my mind if something is really neglected in left thought in these discussions it is how to think about working together in a productive fashion. Thinking about how collaboration could be done. Thinking about how to combine intelligent individual voices into a whole. What that requires in actual physical practice. In that sense the left does not stubbornly refuse to do anything, because we don't know what the left could do with these tools. But Tom's point is really about working together and thinking about that seriously. I think when people realize that a great deal can be done beyond what is accomplished so far on list servs they might get pretty excited about the possibilities. For example, since things are archival how does one get to people who need the information any time any place that information? There are many ways in which once collaboration into groups processes through IT (information technology) is the main theme it is going to be possible to address anew many vexing problems the left faces. So what Tom raises here is a great deal more than his points adressed to the individuals he lists. It is about how groups of people function in a collective fashion. The engineering issues of how electronic communications can effect our common interests. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Speaking of volatility (Jones)
Doyle writes: Greetings Economists, Tom Walker writes, What strikes me is that Doug, Michael, Yoshie and Mark offered no response to my _programmatic_ reply to Doug. I could be utterly wrong, in which case I would welcome the criticism. But I don't think I'm vague or obtuse. Doug wrote (in a subsequent message) that the left has no analytical vocabulary for talking about 'good' times. My position is that the left has the vocabulary but doesn't use it -- stubbornly refuses to use it, refuses to even see that it is refusing to use it. I talked about how one might talk about good times and Doug, Michael, Yoshie and Mark didn't respond. I talked about the capitalism fun stuff -- leftism hair shirt dialectic and why that is so. No reply. I hinted that maybe secretly leftists prefer the drama of struggling against insurmountable odds, which basically is where I share Doug's view. No answer. While what Tom wrote above is true to the point that people did not offer answers, I think Tom is not really pointing at a failure by any of the people above, but instead is indicating a vast area where a listserv is not functioning. Really Tom is indicating to what extent one can expect people to collaborate on work toward a common project. So if somebody doesn't reply to one's points then that is just the way lists work, but as Tom says one could reasonably ask why not take seriously what he has to say and in some kind of framework come up with a programmatic reply. Afterwards Yoshie replied she agreed with Tom and she felt it went without saying, which I think is acknowledging how listservs function. So I would reply to Tom from a different perspective that the real issue Tom raises is not so much that in this case people are not responding properly, as much as this brings out how listservs don't function within the parameters of what social constructing a left requires. Doyle raised an excellent question. I think that listserves can function better to help build up a Left if we post more often to elaborate on the points we agree on than to expand on those we disagree on (not that we should never disagree with one another have impassioned debates -- it's a matter of proportion). Tom's post received few replies, probably because his idea of putting the question of working time on the front burner (since we may make lasting gains on this front rather than on others) is one that few leftists would oppose in theory but at the same time few of us have any practical suggestion as to how to go about it. At 8:48 AM -0700 7/13/01, Tom Walker wrote: The catch is that the form in which gains have been secured during an upswing will have an important bearing on how defensible they will be during a downtown. Capital would prefer to give something to workers during the good times that it can readily take back during the bad times. That is, to provide the gains as much as possible in the form of purely economic individualistic 'utilities' -- stock options, say, rather than collective agreements. snip There happens to be a reason why I write and study so much about working time. The reason is not that I am a one-trick pony. The reason is that historically, reductions in working time -- which, by the way, almost invariably include wage gains as a component -- have proven to be more defensible than strictly monetary wage gains. Earlier we had a short thread on nurses' struggle against under-staffing mandatory overtime, but the thread got aborted, so to speak, without getting anywhere. I think it's worth bringing it up again in light of Tom's idea. Yoshie P.S. I'm cc'ing this to Doug, because he said he would unsub from PEN-l until August but might be interested in this thread.
Re: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
http://members.aol.com/ISWoR/english/ International Solidarity with Workers in Russia, neo-Trot. www.left.ru (I think, that is the URL, neo-Stalinist.) There used to be a great publication, Labour Focus on Eastern Europe. Peter Gowan, from NLR wrote for them. Michael Pugliese - Original Message - From: Ken Hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 11:07 PM Subject: [PEN-L:15132] Re: Re: Speaking of volatility Do you have the figures? Why is this the case do u think? I guess my remark about the new Russian labor law is true though. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 10:55 PM Subject: [PEN-L:15129] Re: Speaking of volatility Ken Hanly wrote: In the US and Canada it would seem that temporary workers are used to keep full time workers from working overtime at a higher wage. Au contraire. Temp workers and part-timers are part of the mix with overtime. More temp and part-time = more overtime. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Re: Re: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Why don't they write the URL in Russian too! What do you do if you cant read Russian? Some of this makes its way to Johnson's Russia list I guess. http://www.left.ru/ Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 2:26 AM Subject: [PEN-L:15145] Re: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility http://members.aol.com/ISWoR/english/ International Solidarity with Workers in Russia, neo-Trot. www.left.ru (I think, that is the URL, neo-Stalinist.) There used to be a great publication, Labour Focus on Eastern Europe. Peter Gowan, from NLR wrote for them. Michael Pugliese
Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of friends of the working class are getting all excited about the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon lurk over PEN-L? Doug
Political Voyeurism (was Re: Speaking of volatility)
Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of friends of the working class are getting all excited about the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon lurk over PEN-L? Doug I think it wouldn't be weird to get excited about the prospects of recession *if* the leftists in question had (A) a *clear political strategy* to exploit it and (B) the *organizational wherewithal* to make the strategy real, not utopian. The same should be said about getting all worked up about the prospects of declining oil reserves, progress of globalization (aka free-trade Empire), oil deals for East Timor, anything. Minus A B, getting turned on by any prospect, major or minor, is just an act of political voyeurism. Yoshie
Re: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
G'day Doug, Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of friends of the working class are getting all excited about the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon lurk over PEN-L? My superannuation, over the disposition of which I have no control, is somewhere in that mess, too, you know. As are all our futures. I just think it quite rational to react to something about which one can do nothing, no matter how ghastly, by looking for the silver lining. And the silver lining is that lots of smug suits get burned, lots of smug experts get loudly contradicted by the facts, (the sensuous schadenfreude component) and people might start thinking twice about surrendering their material, social and political agency to unaccountable Big Finance and 'shareholder value' (the virtuous political component) - geez, some might even think deeper than that. And, as you're a pal, I'm happy that the reservations you expressed in *Wall Street* might be vindicated at the expense of the credibility of rude critics like that chap on the book's jacket. Gotta go now - the Beeb is talking about how Japan's zero interest rates are not stopping unemployment and bankruptcies rising at unprecedented rates. Oh, and Beijing has the Samarympics, apparently. Cheers, Rob.
Re: RE: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Mark Jones wrote: Doug Henwood: Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of friends of the working class are getting all excited about the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon lurk over PEN-L? I hope we can raise the level of debate above this. Actually I think it's quite relevant to the intellectual and political marginalization of left political economy - it has no analytical vocabulary for talking about good times, and overtly or covertly roots for crisis to do the hard political work of discrediting capitalism. It's temperamentally doomy and gloomy, and therefore has little emotional appeal to an audience broader than a hardy band of miserablists. Doug
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Nobody is salivating over the prospect of the working class suffer, but it did not do that well during the Clinton boom. But I do relish the downfall of many highly leveraged businesses. I recall your glee at the demise of some of the dot.coms -- a pleasure,which I shared with you. Although workers suffered during the Depression, the working-class probably benefitted in the long run -- of course, that long-term perspective smacks of Andrew Mellon. More important, the continuation of the boom has fueled the triumphalism of neo-liberalism, which has brought untold damage to the rest of the world. A crisis might free other countries to pursue their own course. On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 10:28:06AM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Mark Jones wrote: Doug Henwood: Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of friends of the working class are getting all excited about the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon lurk over PEN-L? I hope we can raise the level of debate above this. Actually I think it's quite relevant to the intellectual and political marginalization of left political economy - it has no analytical vocabulary for talking about good times, and overtly or covertly roots for crisis to do the hard political work of discrediting capitalism. It's temperamentally doomy and gloomy, and therefore has little emotional appeal to an audience broader than a hardy band of miserablists. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Hi again Doug, Actually I think it's quite relevant to the intellectual and political marginalization of left political economy - it has no analytical vocabulary for talking about good times, If the times are usually good for most people, and sustainably so, well, I wouldn't be a lefty. That's not to say you don't have a big point. 'The end is nigh' is empty and lousy politics in the long term. Unless it is, of course ... and overtly or covertly roots for crisis to do the hard political work of discrediting capitalism. Not only wouldn't that be a political strategy, I reckon it'd be wrong. More xenophobia, demagoguery, fragmentation, belligerence, and maybe even crassly dangerous protectionism is what I expect. But then, I'm an industrial strength miserablist in my very atoms - optimism being more an American thang. It's temperamentally doomy and gloomy, and therefore has little emotional appeal to an audience broader than a hardy band of miserablists. You'd have to be hardy indeed to be anything else, I reckon. The world is actually in recession, I reckon - and good cheer is hard to find as I trail my questing finger around my little globe ... Cheers, Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Rob... And, as you're a pal, I'm happy that the reservations you expressed in *Wall Street* might be vindicated at the expense of the credibility of rude critics like that chap on the book's jacket. Alan Abelson, early in his journalistic career, dissed (deliberately misunderstood? or is he just dense?) a speech by Martin Jay at a late 60's session of the original Socialist Scholars Conferences in NYC (see, The Revival of American Socialism, ed. by Fischer, Oxford Univ. Press, 1970. Texts by Genovese, Birnbaum, Lasch, Jay...), entitled, Dear Herbert. As in Marcuse. Jay, was criticizing the New Leftish alienation from Amerikkkan Kultur. Abelson thought he was endorsing it. Michael Pugliese P.S. A grad student from UCB, an ex-girlfriend of an old chum, told me yrs. ago, after a study group on Deleuze Guattari, told me sourly, that Martin Jay drives a Porsche! An enemy of the people! Heh, S.M. Lipset, drives a beat up socdem Volvo, as I saw with my eyes once at UCSC after he talked on the hardy perennial, Why No Socialism In America? pen-l http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/ - Original Message - From: Rob Schaap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 5:12 PM Subject: [PEN-L:15090] Re: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility G'day Doug, Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of friends of the working class are getting all excited about the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon lurk over PEN-L? My superannuation, over the disposition of which I have no control, is somewhere in that mess, too, you know. As are all our futures. I just think it quite rational to react to something about which one can do nothing, no matter how ghastly, by looking for the silver lining. And the silver lining is that lots of smug suits get burned, lots of smug experts get loudly contradicted by the facts, (the sensuous schadenfreude component) and people might start thinking twice about surrendering their material, social and political agency to unaccountable Big Finance and 'shareholder value' (the virtuous political component) - geez, some might even think deeper than that. And, as you're a pal, I'm happy that the reservations you expressed in *Wall Street* might be vindicated at the expense of the credibility of rude critics like that chap on the book's jacket. Gotta go now - the Beeb is talking about how Japan's zero interest rates are not stopping unemployment and bankruptcies rising at unprecedented rates. Oh, and Beijing has the Samarympics, apparently. Cheers, Rob. Hi again Doug, Actually I think it's quite relevant to the intellectual and political marginalization of left political economy - it has no analytical vocabulary for talking about good times, If the times are usually good for most people, and sustainably so, well, I wouldn't be a lefty. That's not to say you don't have a big point. 'The end is nigh' is empty and lousy politics in the long term. Unless it is, of course ... and overtly or covertly roots for crisis to do the hard political work of discrediting capitalism. Not only wouldn't that be a political strategy, I reckon it'd be wrong. More xenophobia, demagoguery, fragmentation, belligerence, and maybe even crassly dangerous protectionism is what I expect. But then, I'm an industrial strength miserablist in my very atoms - optimism being more an American thang. It's temperamentally doomy and gloomy, and therefore has little emotional appeal to an audience broader than a hardy band of miserablists. You'd have to be hardy indeed to be anything else, I reckon. The world is actually in recession, I reckon - and good cheer is hard to find as I trail my questing finger around my little globe ... Cheers, Rob. - Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 7:28 AM Subject: [PEN-L:15091] Re: RE: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility Mark Jones wrote: Doug Henwood: Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of friends of the working class are getting all excited about the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon lurk over PEN-L? I hope we can raise the level of debate above this. Actually I think it's quite relevant to the intellectual and political marginalization of left political economy - it has no analytical vocabulary for talking about good times, and overtly or covertly roots for crisis to do the hard political work of discrediting capitalism. It's temperamentally doomy and gloomy, and therefore has little emotional appeal to an audience broader than a hardy band of miserablists. Doug
Re: Speaking of volatility
Doug Henwood wrote, Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of friends of the working class are getting all excited about the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon lurk over PEN-L? What is weird is your construal of the so-called excitement. Anti-socialist propaganda stands on two legs -- there is no alternative and the best of all possible worlds. The best time to advance the economic interests of workers is during an economic expansion. It so happens that during the good times such gains are likely to be attributed to the expansion itself, rather than to class struggle. On the other hand, the struggle to defend previous gains during a recession is more clearly recognized by everyone as a struggle. This creates the illusion that struggle is always a negative, defensive activity. Thus all the fun stuff comes from capitalism and the hair shirts are worn by the left. The catch is that the form in which gains have been secured during an upswing will have an important bearing on how defensible they will be during a downtown. Capital would prefer to give something to workers during the good times that it can readily take back during the bad times. That is, to provide the gains as much as possible in the form of purely economic individualistic 'utilities' -- stock options, say, rather than collective agreements. It is incumbant on friends of the working class to point out repeatedly during the good times that they won't last forever (and why) and to remind workers that the forms in which gains are taken now -- and the political and economic content of those forms -- will largely determine whether those gains will be transitory or enduring. Of course, when we do so we will be mocked incessently because there is no pressing, overt need for, say, protection against unemployment when the unemployment rate is at a 20 year low. Why would anyone want to build their foundations out of anything but sand when there is so damn much sand around and at such reasonable prices, eh? There happens to be a reason why I write and study so much about working time. The reason is not that I am a one-trick pony. The reason is that historically, reductions in working time -- which, by the way, almost invariably include wage gains as a component -- have proven to be more defensible than strictly monetary wage gains. Karl Marx noticed this. The founders of the American Federation of Labor noticed it. The 1902 report of the Industrial Commission appointed by the U.S. Congress noticed it. The early 20th century National Association of Manufacturers USA noticed and abhorred it. Organized labour in the U.S. seems to have forgotten it and has been in decline for several decades. Employers' organizations, right-wing think tanks, the financial press and mainstream economists seem to have remembered it all too well and are quick to respond with ridicule and hostility to comprehensive proposals to restrict and/or redistribute working time. Coincidentally (or not), neo-liberalism has been in ascendency for several decades. Leftists seem to take the issue for granted, as if it is all too obvious a good thing to be worth investing much effort in. Maybe leftists secretly prefer the drama of struggling against insurmountable odds to defend indefensible gains. Allow me the indulgence of quoting from the 1902 Industrial Commission report (perhaps this passage was authored by John R. Commons?). In my opinion it is the most succinct summary ever of the dialectic of hours, wages and business cycles: A reduction of hours is the most substantial and permanent gain which labor can secure. In times of depression employers are often forced to reduce wages, but very seldom do they, under such circumstances, increase the hours of labor. The temptation to increase the hours of labor comes in times of prosperity and business activity, when the employer sees opportunity for increasing his output and profits by means of overtime. This distribution is of great importance. The demand for increased hours comes at a time when labor is strongest to resist, and the demand for lower wages comes at a time when labor is weakest. Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a cosmopolitan left observer of business gets alternatively blasé about the irrelevance of raising the issue of unemployment during the upswing when unemployment is low and indignant about the supposed glee of friends of the working class at the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. There is hope, Doug. There IS a cure for blasé indignation. It is called beginner's mind. In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Michael Perelman wrote: Nobody is salivating over the prospect of the working class suffer, but it did not do that well during the Clinton boom. But I do relish the downfall of many highly leveraged businesses. I recall your glee at the demise of some of the dot.coms -- a pleasure,which I shared with you. I'd like to see some Wall Street oinkers and their apologists take a hit, and have to do something useful, like cleaning bedpans. But I don't relish the fact that 410,000 U.S. workers are filing first claims for unemployment insurance every week, and that slacker labor markets will be bad news for wages. The working class didn't do that well during the Clinton years, but it did better than it did during the Carter, Reagan, and Bush years. And the U.S. slowdown hasn't been great news for Latin America; Argentina, which already had plenty of problems, is going through the wringer now in part because of what's going on here. It's not so great for Southeast Asia either. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Doug, I don't entirely disagree with you, but part of the problem w/ the Asian crisis was that it was localized -- leaving the neoliberal juggernaut relatively unaffected. It was the worst of both worlds -- a crisis with a neoliberal solution. On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 12:34:44PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: Nobody is salivating over the prospect of the working class suffer, but it did not do that well during the Clinton boom. But I do relish the downfall of many highly leveraged businesses. I recall your glee at the demise of some of the dot.coms -- a pleasure,which I shared with you. I'd like to see some Wall Street oinkers and their apologists take a hit, and have to do something useful, like cleaning bedpans. But I don't relish the fact that 410,000 U.S. workers are filing first claims for unemployment insurance every week, and that slacker labor markets will be bad news for wages. The working class didn't do that well during the Clinton years, but it did better than it did during the Carter, Reagan, and Bush years. And the U.S. slowdown hasn't been great news for Latin America; Argentina, which already had plenty of problems, is going through the wringer now in part because of what's going on here. It's not so great for Southeast Asia either. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Speaking of volatility
Michael Perelman says: Doug, I don't entirely disagree with you, but part of the problem w/ the Asian crisis was that it was localized -- leaving the neoliberal juggernaut relatively unaffected. It was the worst of both worlds -- a crisis with a neoliberal solution. The 70s was a period of general crisis, so to speak, general enough to affect both the West the USSR, in response to which neoliberalism arose. So, a general crisis isn't necessarily in the interest of the Left. The next general crisis, which should come out of the contradictions of neoliberal capitalism (including contradiction between accumulation and social conditions for accumulation [like infrastructure investment]), may put an end to neoliberalism without ending capitalism, especially if the only proposal on which a large number of leftists can agree is global Keynesianism of sorts. Yoshie
Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
The 70s were interpreted as a failure of the left, opening the way for a move to the right as a solution. The failure of this decade will be seen as the responsibility of the right. On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 01:53:01PM -0400, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Michael Perelman says: Doug, I don't entirely disagree with you, but part of the problem w/ the Asian crisis was that it was localized -- leaving the neoliberal juggernaut relatively unaffected. It was the worst of both worlds -- a crisis with a neoliberal solution. The 70s was a period of general crisis, so to speak, general enough to affect both the West the USSR, in response to which neoliberalism arose. So, a general crisis isn't necessarily in the interest of the Left. The next general crisis, which should come out of the contradictions of neoliberal capitalism (including contradiction between accumulation and social conditions for accumulation [like infrastructure investment]), may put an end to neoliberalism without ending capitalism, especially if the only proposal on which a large number of leftists can agree is global Keynesianism of sorts. Yoshie -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: Speaking of volatility
Mark Jones wrote: Tom Walker wrote: There IS a cure for blasé indignation. It is called beginner's mind. In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few. Good stuff, however I fear a return right back to the womb may be necessary in the case of some lapsed and possibly born-again Republicans. A fine excuse to pull Ferenczi's Thalassa off the shelf again. It'll make fine reading on my plane flight to Australia on Monday. I was going to sign off PEN-L just before I left, but I think I'll do it now, so I don't say anything intemperate that annoys Michael. See you all at the beginning of August, comrades. Doug
Re: Speaking of volatility
Michael Perelman says: On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 01:53:01PM -0400, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Michael Perelman says: Doug, I don't entirely disagree with you, but part of the problem w/ the Asian crisis was that it was localized -- leaving the neoliberal juggernaut relatively unaffected. It was the worst of both worlds -- a crisis with a neoliberal solution. The 70s was a period of general crisis, so to speak, general enough to affect both the West the USSR, in response to which neoliberalism arose. So, a general crisis isn't necessarily in the interest of the Left. The next general crisis, which should come out of the contradictions of neoliberal capitalism (including contradiction between accumulation and social conditions for accumulation [like infrastructure investment]), may put an end to neoliberalism without ending capitalism, especially if the only proposal on which a large number of leftists can agree is global Keynesianism of sorts. Yoshie The 70s were interpreted as a failure of the left, opening the way for a move to the right as a solution. The failure of this decade will be seen as the responsibility of the right. You think so? I believe it is not just coincidence that the second wave of neoliberalism has been generally implemented by the electoral Left -- the Third Way in the core post-dictatorship/post-apartheid democrats in the periphery. Left Right after all are just relative terms in the dominant political discourse, so it won't surprise me if the failure of neoliberalism too gets interpreted as the failure of the Left. In the USA, recession may become blamed on Bush, but that doesn't necessarily help us here, if folks just look to the Dems. If we are to exploit any crisis, what we need is a political program that goes beyond capitalism the organizational wherewithal to bring about it in reality, independent of the electoral Left. Yoshie
Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Of course, you are correct. No problem with what you are saying. All too often, liberals are left to implement the final stages of austerity. On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 02:20:15PM -0400, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: If we are to exploit any crisis, what we need is a political program that goes beyond capitalism the organizational wherewithal to bring about it in reality, independent of the electoral Left. Yoshie -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Doesnt the new labor legislation in Russia turn back the clock! In the US and Canada it would seem that temporary workers are used to keep full time workers from working overtime at a higher wage. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] There happens to be a reason why I write and study so much about working time. The reason is not that I am a one-trick pony. The reason is that historically, reductions in working time -- which, by the way, almost invariably include wage gains as a component -- have proven to be more defensible than strictly monetary wage gains. Karl Marx noticed this. The founders of the American Federation of Labor noticed it. The 1902 report of the Industrial Commission appointed by the U.S. Congress noticed it. The early 20th century National Association of Manufacturers USA noticed and abhorred it. Organized labour in the U.S. seems to have forgotten it and has been in decline for several decades. Employers' organizations, right-wing think tanks, the financial press and mainstream economists seem to have remembered it all too well and are quick to respond with ridicule and hostility to comprehensive proposals to restrict and/or redistribute working time. Coincidentally (or not), neo-liberalism has been in ascendency for several decades. Leftists seem to take the issue for granted, as if it is all too obvious a good thing to be worth investing much effort in. Maybe leftists secretly prefer the drama of struggling against insurmountable odds to defend indefensible gains.
Re: Speaking of volatility
Ken Hanly wrote: In the US and Canada it would seem that temporary workers are used to keep full time workers from working overtime at a higher wage. Au contraire. Temp workers and part-timers are part of the mix with overtime. More temp and part-time = more overtime. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
I temped for about 6 years. Occasionally, I was told by the secretaries or lower level mgrs. esp. cynics in banking and financial services, how much Wells Fargo or whoever was paying the agency . For a $10 an hr. assignment, they were paying $15. For $12, they were paying $18-20 on up. Permanents at $15 an hour plus, say 33% for benefit costs = $20. Add time an a half for O.T. The Big Boss Man still comes out ahead. BTW, is this 33% that I've always heard, right? An exaggeration how much health insurence, dental, etc. cost? Good, easy to digest data from the Dept. of Labor on benefit costs, in various sectors, Fortune 500 vs. medium sized firms~ $100 Million or less in sales say. Michael Pugliese - Original Message - From: Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 8:55 PM Subject: [PEN-L:15129] Re: Speaking of volatility Ken Hanly wrote: In the US and Canada it would seem that temporary workers are used to keep full time workers from working overtime at a higher wage. Au contraire. Temp workers and part-timers are part of the mix with overtime. More temp and part-time = more overtime. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Do you have the figures? Why is this the case do u think? I guess my remark about the new Russian labor law is true though. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 10:55 PM Subject: [PEN-L:15129] Re: Speaking of volatility Ken Hanly wrote: In the US and Canada it would seem that temporary workers are used to keep full time workers from working overtime at a higher wage. Au contraire. Temp workers and part-timers are part of the mix with overtime. More temp and part-time = more overtime. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Speaking of volatility . . .
Paging Dr. Schaap, paging Dr. Schaap . . . What's your take on the MerValous paroxysm at NASDAQ? The scent of death sure gets the vultures aflutter, eh? Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Re: Speaking of volatility . . .
G'day Tom, Paging Dr. Schaap, paging Dr. Schaap . . . I'm sure Doug has me down as the anesthetist ... What's your take on the MerValous paroxysm at NASDAQ? The scent of death sure gets the vultures aflutter, eh? The Lesser Speckled Argentinian Vulture is remarkable for its habit of fleeing from corpses. 8.3% of said vultures flew north today alone, and the ever-opportunistic Greater Greenbacked Vulture has joined in for a short feeding frenzy. Anyway, it has to go somewhere, and where else would it go right now?. I mean, the hacks explained yesterday's swoon in the finance sector with reference to Argentina's bad debt plight - well, that plight is so much the worse today, and today it explains a whopping recovery! And Microsoft is trading at a PE of 40, and cops billions in early trading on very ordinary projections in a demonstrably mature sector! If M$ is really so bloody cocky, why is it dumping 3% of its workforce as we speak? My medical training tells me that any recovery based on IT stocks right now is the equivalent of a hungover drunk having a few shots in the morning. It'll wear off by lunchtime, and it'll hurt all the more then. And then there's GM: up five per cent because their revenues are down ... S'pose we'll see in the morning if there are any more Latin fowl to pluck - me, I'm having my man get me back into cash overnight. It's Friday here, so I might buy a beer with it. Cheers, Rob.
Re: Speaking of volatility
Rob Schaap wrote, It'll wear off by lunchtime, and it'll hurt all the more then. Was that lunch Tokyo time? Tokyo stocks open mixed after Nasdaq surge Tokyo stocks falter by midday, buck U.S. surge Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
