excellent points! maggie coleman
Joel Blau wrote:
> Well, I don't know anyone who has the conversation on tape, but historically, I
> think it is pretty clear that social welfare policy has been used to channel
> women's labor into the home or into the labor market depending upon labor market's
>
I (maggie) wrote, then Carroll wrote:> It is this same reasoning which answers my
question of > why welfare reform now -- We were running out of women to put into
low wage> work, and we needed to 'free' them from the bonds of welfare
cheers,> (end maggie) (start Carroll) >>>
True, my
Well, I don't know anyone who has the conversation on tape, but historically, I
think it is pretty clear that social welfare policy has been used to channel
women's labor into the home or into the labor market depending upon labor market's
needs. For 60 years, the primary significance of AFDC was
Carrol Cox wrote:
>This makes sense, but it raises a question -- which perhaps the
>old base/superstructure metaphor may help phrase. On the one
>hand we have a capitalist need -- roughly, a need felt in
>the relations of production crudely conceived. On the other
>hand we have Clinton (with Gore
Margaret Coleman wrote:
> It is this same reasoning which answers my question of
> why welfare reform now -- We were running out of women to put into low wage
> work, and we needed to 'free' them from the bonds of welfare cheers,
This makes sense, but it raises a question -- which perha
Maggie wrote:
>Jim -- I agree with you completely that demand has driven the last expansion,
>and has helped increase wages (as small as that increase might
>be). However, I
>still think the productivity due to computerization has also had an effect --
>not that Say's law is suddenly working (no
Jim Devine wrote: At 01:13 PM 01/13/2001 -0600,
< productivity don't cause rises in wages. Rather, it's either due to
> increases in the organizational strength of the working class, which allows
> them to be more effective in their struggle (in which case, rising
> productivity growth allows real
At 01:13 PM 01/13/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>I would like to just add two dimensions to this thread.
>1. During the last 5-6 years, wages in the bottom 3/5 of US workers
>finally rose at slightly ahead of the rate of inflation for the first time
>in decades. (During the 80s expansion, virtually a
I would like to just add two dimensions to this thread.
1. During the last 5-6 years, wages in the bottom 3/5 of US workers finally rose
at slightly ahead of the rate of inflation for the first time in decades. (During
the 80s expansion, virtually all income gains went to the top fifth of earner
Jim Devine wrote:
>Darity & Galbraith point to Keynes' more fundamental argument, that
>nominal wage cuts won't lead to real wage cuts, because money wage
>cuts lead to price cuts. (Kalecki showed this in a model with no
>diminishing returns because capacity is less than fully utilized and
>c
Later, around chs. 17, 19, Keynes emphasizes that wage flexibility would be
create tremendous instability. Keynes believed wages were wages were relatively
inflexible for institutional reasons, but this was not the cause of
unemployment--that's what confused alot of people who thought his argument
11 matches
Mail list logo
