Max Sawicky wrote:
>If DN made inferences about black/white marginal productivity from a
>specification like this, I'm not sure I want him on my side.
Yeah, but who cares about that? He's saying what the people who write
grant checks want to hear.
Doug
Don't worry, I don't think he is...
Max Sawicky wrote:
> If DN made inferences about black/white marginal productivity from a
> specification like this, I'm not sure I want him on my side.
>
> mbs
>
> > Q = f([white male labor input], [black male labor input], [white female
> labor
> > input], [
If DN made inferences about black/white marginal productivity from a
specification like this, I'm not sure I want him on my side.
mbs
> Q = f([white male labor input], [black male labor input], [white female
labor
> input], [black female labor input], [other labor input, I assume], capital
input
At 03:38 PM 8/31/00 -0700, you wrote:
> > Honestly, if David Neumark has changed his views on the minimum wage, it
> > really would be no big deal. He is ready to embrace any result produced by
> > the right theory, the right data set, and the right methods, given what
> > "right" means in this c
Q = f([white male labor input], [black male labor input], [white female labor
input], [black female labor input], [other labor input, I assume], capital input)
Assume Q = [input 1] ^B1 x [input 2] ^B2 x ... x [input n] ^Bn is the form for n
inputs, and use translog methods to estimate the B's. E
Peter Dorman wrote:
> I should add a word about the real David Neumark, since I knew him slightly
> at Michigan State. He is the #1 labor economist in the econ department
> there, which means he is crucial to personnel decisions, research
> applications, etc. in that field (at that school). H
Peter Dorman wrote:
>When I left he was just completing work on discrimination and productivity.
>His "contribution" was to use "white male labor", "black female labor", etc.
>as separate inputs into aggregate production function analysis, determine
>the productivity ratios between the groups, an
I should add a word about the real David Neumark, since I knew him slightly
at Michigan State. He is the #1 labor economist in the econ department
there, which means he is crucial to personnel decisions, research
applications, etc. in that field (at that school). He is fairly typical of
"star" r
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:04 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:1021] Re: Re: David Neumark
>
>
> >So it happens once every 150 years. I am disregarding the overly common
> >experience of lefists who become conservative, mostly in line wit
I would note that Joan Robinson became more
leftist over time.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:04 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:1021] Re: Re: David Neumark
&g
Butthe author on On Liberty hated the "bourgeois" mentality and culture of his day,
which he found to be exceedingly oppressive. Mill was not a revolutionary socialist,
quite unambiguously not. But he did think that if the progressof humankind continued,
workers would cease to be willing to lab
I think that Mill was not much of a lefty at all. I know Justin will
disagree with me. You can find similar "leftish" sentiments on Marshall.
Most of the British political economists, from Smith on, expressed a wish
that the working class would become bourgeois -- with the appropriate mix
of cu
Fusfeld was always a leftie, long before the war. When he retired, he
recommended me as his replacement. Michigan gave me a perfunctory
interview in which they expressed extreme disinterest long before I
entered the room.
Gurley is a Quaker. His revulsion with the war was crucial.
Paul Z. mig
At 07:45 AM 8/31/00 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>So it happens once every 150 years. I am disregarding the overly common
>experience of lefists who become conservative, mostly in line with their
>self-interest.
Daniel Fusfeld, Leonard Rapping, Paul Zarembka, and John Gurley seem to be
cases
At 10:25 AM 8/31/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Mill also changed his mind about capitalism, and endede life as what we
>would call a market socialist. --jks
I'd say instead that John Stuart Mill became more of a New Deal liberal
(reform capitalism to save it) type, long before such attitudes were
poss
So it happens once every 150 years. I am disregarding the overly common
experience of lefists who become conservative, mostly in line with their
self-interest.
>
> Michael Perelman
>
> > Is this really a case of an economist learning and changing his mind?
> > If so, it would be a remarkable e
Mill also changed his mind about capitalism, and endede life as what we would call a
market socialist. --jks
In a message dated Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:20:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Timework Web
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<< Michael Perelman
> Is this really a case of an economist learning and
Michael Perelman
> Is this really a case of an economist learning and changing his mind?
> If so, it would be a remarkable event.
Remarkable but not the first time it's happened. J.S. Mill changed his
mind about the wages-fund doctrine.
Temps Walker
Sandwichman and Deconsultant
18 matches
Mail list logo
