In a recent message June Zaccone claims that "A primary reason that many on the left
consider full employment so important is that it permits workers to leave those junk
jobs for others that are more agreeable."
Recent evidence on the distribution of wages for full-time employees would suggest
I agree that it is politically important to challenge the going definition of
"full employment". A logical approach, I think, would be to use the 45 degree
line on a Beveridge Curve. (Japan targets a ratio of applicants to opening of
less than one.) But does anyone calculate this curve for the
I thank June Zaccone for reminding me that unemployment still is a
problem in this country, but it was really quite unnecessary. My
intention was not to deny the existence of joblessness but to question
whether it made sense for the Left to continue making full employment the
centerpiece of
Forwarded message:
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 29 14:26:11 1994
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 17:25 EDT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Green)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Informacion del Centro Felix Varela
/* Written 11:45 pm Jul 15, 1994 by [EMAIL PROTECTED] in web
/* Written 6:49 AM Aug 3, 1994 by kmander in igc:trade.news */
/* -- "GATT Alet! 8-3-94" -- */
GATT Alert!
Wednesday, August 3, 1994
Headlines:
Growing List of GATT Opponents
New York Times Ad Accuses Kantor of Deceiving Publi
"I think the Clinton Administration should adopt the Canadian health
plan -- no guns."
-- Bob Goldthwaite, comedian and social policy analyst
Sid Shniad
