>At 9:26 AM 1/30/97, Max B. Sawicky wrote: > >>In my perception of the political/media/public treatment of UE, >>when UE breaches 7.0 it's a signal that there's a problem. Short >>of that, we're in the de factor NAIRU zone, under the conventional >>wisdom. If it is possible to make an effective stink when we're >>at 5.5 I would be delighted to have a hand in doing so. > >Isn't this just the point? Shouldn't we try, however pathetically meager >our resources are, to change the terms of the debate, rather than >perpetually reacting to everything the big boys do? Wouldn't this be an >opportunity (and I apologize for the Rotarian optimism of what follows) to >make some attempt at developing a positive agenda (the relatively low >unemployment rate of the last couple of years is a good thing, and let's >make things better by pushing U even lower)? Why wait until 2 million >people lose their jobs to make a stink about unemployment? > >Doug Why aren't "we" willing to challenge the conventional wisdom? I'd like to speculate that the reason "we" can't do anything about unemployment now is because "we" really do believe NAIRU: anybody unemployed in today's "tight" labor market is a layabout, a shirker, a deviant or delinquent, drug-addict, black, hispanic, or mentally defective. But if unemployment increases and 2 million people lose their jobs, by the very fact that they *were* once employed, it shows that they're decent, law-abiding, hard-working, god-fearing folk, and they *deserve* to have a job. Blair By the way, just in case anyone reading the paragraph above believes that I think currently unemployed persons are "layabouts," "shirkers," or the like, I suggest you go back to school and learn to read. :) ************************ Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
