[PEN-L:6602] Competitiveness
Tom Batsis wrote: Doug, do you think thatincreased "competitiveness" is responsible for declining standards of living? From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes. Of course, when profits start to fall, business takes it out on the workers. That is the underlying mechanism. I have discussed this matter in The Pathology of the U.S. Economy and in The End of Economics. ... I am really curious about the arguments in your books, Michael! (hope we have them in our library...) The main idea is quite convincing and also 'intuitive' (most of my 'intuition' was educated with Marx' readings... :-) ) Indeed, it looks like in the Manifest: increasing capitalist competition = declining rates of profits = squeezing workers' income .. = leading to revolution. That all looked quite 'exciting', and we seem to be still sympathetic with the idea... However, I am still puzzled: Increasing competition among capitalists has taken 'a different track': the internasionalisation of capital, the creation of multinational monopolies, the rising of financial markets and speculation, leading also to 'concentration over concentration', in the form of the huge financial-entrepreneurial conglomerates and cartels that we know now, etc... That is, in one phrase: increasing competition has led to increasing concentration ... On the other hand, the same process has apparently being accompanied by a deterioration of real income of (at least) the lower quintiles of population at a world scale (including the North). That is, increasing competition has *indeed* led to a deterioration of standards of living, but *through a still sharper concentration*. I would rahter prefer to find some hole in my argument above, than to give up to the idea of a 'revolution'. Could you give us a 'hint', Michael, at least until we get hold of your books?? Thanks, Alex Alex Izurieta E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Institute of Social Studies P.O. Box 29776 2502 LT The Hague Tel. 31-70-4260480 Fax. 31-70-4260755
[PEN-L:6605] Re: Competitiveness
At 11:33 PM 10/10/96, Alex Izurieta wrote: That is, increasing competition has *indeed* led to a deterioration of standards of living, but *through a still sharper concentration*. How do we know there's been a sharper concentration? Thirty years ago, there were three major players in the U.S. auto market; now there are what, 5 or 10? I sat at a conference a few weeks ago and listened to someone denouncing the increased monopolization of world trade by 40,000 multinational corporations. 40,000? Even allowing for 100 industrial sectors, we're talking 400 per. Do a Herfindahl on that one! Another question - did the textbook world of perfect competition ever really exist? Or has something like oligpolistic competition been the only real historically existing kind? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:6606] Re: Competitiveness
Doug Henwood wrote: How do we know there's been a sharper concentration? Thirty years ago, there were three major players in the U.S. auto market; now there are what, 5 or 10? Firstly: remember that the large auto corporations are TNCs which produce and sell autos in many different national markets. Secondly: yes, the statistics on concentration in the world auto industry will show that it is increasingly concentrated. Another question - did the textbook world of perfect competition ever really exist? Or has something like oligpolistic competition been the only real historically existing kind? Perfect competition is a historical fiction -- although, it is certainly true that markets in general used to be more competitive in the classical sense at earlier periods of capitalist history. Jerry
[PEN-L:6607] Re: Is labour getting serious?
Elaine, The news report - All this sounds like SA in the 70's and 80's.Though it doesn't mean that we are not losing jobs, as you will learn for your self when you come. Additional requests: - Enoch Godongwana , Numsa General Secretary , asked if you could get him a copy of David Weals book on Trade union management, the one that he developed on the HTUP course. Also if it is possible to get Sam Bowles text on Economics ( Sam knows him personally and may be able to send a copy down to you). - Mary Tiseo ( of Freesa 617 - 2768333) has comix books for our kids. If possible to get this from her please bring them along. Some information. I will be leaving Numsa at the end of this month to take on a job with the new labour education and training institute that COSATU and other federations have set up. Two of us from the affiliate unions have been appointed to set up the institute ( called DITSELA) and define its programme. So there is much that I will want to consult you on. Talk to you later. Bobby.
[PEN-L:6608] FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1996 RELEASED TODAY: Employer costs for employee compensation in the United States (private industry and state and local governments) averaged $18.82 per hour worked in March 1996. Straight-time wages and salaries (71.6 percent of the costs) averaged $13.48 an hour, and benefit costs (the remaining 28.4 percent averaged $5.34 Wage data compiled by BNA in the first 40 weeks of 1996 show that the median first-year wage increase in newly negotiated collective bargaining agreements is 3 percent an hour (Daily Labor Report, pages 2,D-1). DUE OUT TOMORROW: Producer Price Indexes -- September 1996
[PEN-L:6609] Re: why raise the minimum wage (fwd)
Doug, you are repeating the same mistake you made last December. If Bill Gates spends millions of dollars hiring workers to undertake unproductive labor at his super mansion in Washington, you fail to recognize that the wages which go to those workers are from revenue of surplus value. In your incorrect approach, if all surplus value were used to hire enormous luxuries for the capitalist class by hiring the appropriate workers there would be no room for higher wages, whether minimum or not. In other words, you are looking only at the surface of the national income accounts, accounts which are constructed to allow dismissal, as impractical, simple worker class demands like decent wages for all. The gimmick demoralizes opposition to capitalism and must be opposed as strongly and as clearly as possible. And I think most workers would not see a $20,000 annual income for 40 hours of weekly work as so impossible, even within capitalism, as you do. Paul Z.
[PEN-L:6610] McDonalds and Meat
Treacy: McDonalds had the smallest size meat patty in the industry but due to chains such as Rallys putting out a .99 cent burger, others such as Wendys cut prices by introducing "value" menu items. This past summer McD increased the size of their burger increasing their costs. Arby has larded up their fries to taste like the ones Doug finds so tastey from McD. You can look at franchised fast food as solving an information problem. How do you get predicticable mediocare food in strange places? Under the Golden Arches. [EMAIL PROTECTED] copyrighted On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Doug Henwood wrote: At 8:45 AM 10/10/96, Gerald Levy wrote: In an oligopolistic market, a large amount of money capital per firm is "invested" in product differentiation, especially advertising and marketing. The recent decline in sales at McDonalds can be explained in this context -- not in the context of continuous technical change or increasing labor plus capital (fixed and circulating) costs. Dropped into my local BK the other day for lunch and was shocked to see Whoppers selling for $0.99. (Remember this is Manhattan, where fast food prices are about 40% higher than in the Real America.) Is price competition coming to fast food? And if so, what does that say about theories of oligpolistic competition? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:6611] Toll Of Palestinian Dead And Wounded
Another Palestinian succumbed on Monday to his gunshot wounds, bringing to 68 the toll of Palestinians who were killed by the Israeli Armed Forces during the recent clashes. The fighting broke out on September 25, when Israeli soldiers opened fire on stonethrowing Palestinian protestors. The demonstrators were enraged by the latest Israeli provocation in Jerusalem and marched on Israeli army checkpoints throughout the West Bank and Gaza. The unarmed Palestinians were shot by the Israelis, prompting an armed defence of the protestors by police members of the Palestinian Authority. Fifteen Israeli soldiers were subsequently killed. The Palestinian Health Ministry reports that 1,665 people were injured during the clashes, of whom 1,000 had been shot either in the head or chest. Many are still in danger of losing the battle with their injuries. Of the 68 dead Palestinians, all but one were killed by a bullet to the head or chest, over half by headshots. The conclusion that can been drawn from this report is that the Israeli occupation army was under orders to shoot to kill the Palestinian demonstrators. This fact will have to be taken into consideration as the Palestinian people prepare to defend themselves and engage in further struggles for their rights. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6612] trickle down?
I recently posted the following:increased competition among capitalists also hurts profits, no? and profits are up, yup? So maybe the problem is increased competition amongst workers. Ken Hanly COMMENTed that But increased profits means more to invest and more jobs and thus more to trickle down to the workers; and so it follows, ceteris paribus, that they must be better off too ;-) Actually, Ken's jesting story makes a certain amount of sense, but not in the current historical context. Back in the 1960s in the US, high profits encouraged a boom which did seem to have led to a trickle-down effect. It occurred due to (1) the relative scarcity of labor-power (and organizational strength of labor) within the US and the relative immobility of US capital at the time; (2) the US industrial and financial hegemony at the time; and (3) the Viet Nam war government-spending boom, which prevented the late-1960s profit squeeze from immediately spurring a recession and the end of trickle-down. (Instead of a recession, we eventually got inflation.) But the current situation seems more like the 1920s, when the abundance and weakness of labor meant very limited trickle-down. Investment was mostly boosted by expectations of continued high profits (and to some extent encouraged further investment, in a short-lived bootstrap growth process). Faced with stagnant working-class consumption, this meant that the US economy became increasingly prone to collapse. Given international instability, this encouraged the great Collapse of 1929-33. I don't think history repeats itself, but the current labor abundance and organizational weakness, capital mobility, and intensified international competitive austerity indicate that any trickle down (such as this year's fall in the poverty rate, that Billy-Bob Clone-Dilton crows about) will be temporary and severely limited. Even if there is a collapse, I don't expect any automatic revolutionary upsurge. Societal alienation -- specifically, scape-goating of minorities women -- is a much more common working-class response to crisis in the absence of a well organized and democratic oppositional culture. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 74267,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:6613] Competitiveness
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood) How do we know there's been a sharper concentration? How can we *really* know?? Especially if behind almost every big firm there seems to be an intrincate conglomerate of well diversified networks of investors, financial enterprises, conglomerates, and even governments... Yet, I do make my inferences, anyway, based on, say, things I've used here and there:: * 'The Times 1000' (1989/90): "The 500 leading European Companies" (pp.88 ff.) * '1990 Britannica Book of the Year', Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, pp.816 ff. * ECLAC had (and possibly still has) a Data Bank on Direct Foreign Investment in Latin America, will allowed for calculating Gini's. I remember to have used it to make the point that not only MNCs showed a tendency -over the 1980s- to concentrate *at the origin* by building financial-entrepreneurial conglomerates, but also *in destination* by narrowing down into selected countries and industries. There are of course elaborated studies on the same, which I used over the late 1980s and early 1990s. These may focus on financial, industry, or country perspectives; they develop their own argument, but add sufficient statistics: * Devlin(1989): Debt and Crises in Latin America; *Kirpatrick, Lee and Nixson (1985) Industrial Structure and Policy in LDCs.; * also Forbes has quite some stuff on this as well; * Magdoff (1992): 'Globalization - To What End', in Miliband and Panitch (eds): Socialist Register 1992. As you may see, I haven't followed closely the issue over the last four or five years, but still, I happen to find, practically everyday, news about merge and agreements between big firms (banks, telecomunication cias, airlines, computer cias, mining, food industries, etc etc...) all over the world. I "looks like" sharper concentration, to me... Put that together with things as the UN Development reports, Human indicator indexes, or other stuff which tells about concentration of *personal* wealth... If capitalists are getting more and more 'concentrated', it can be related with that *at the origin* the capital is concentrating... But still, I will be happy to change my mind if there is some evidence of the contrary, really. My guess is that, given the current complexity of financial interrelations in the world of today, any *proof*of one point or the other should be taken with care... Salud, Alex Alex Izurieta E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Institute of Social Studies P.O. Box 29776 2502 LT The Hague Tel. 31-70-4260480 Fax. 31-70-4260755
[PEN-L:6614] Re: competitiveness
If the rate of profit falls, then there are Marx's counter-tendencies in operation. Namely, workers' pay on the line as well as outsourcing by MNCs among other things. When profits are falling, capitalists don't lay dead. In their closets there are many options. +Fikret Ceyhun voice: (701)777-3348 work + +Dept. of Economics (701)772-5135 home + +Univ. of North Dakota fax:(701)777-5099 + +University Station, Box 8369e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] + +Grand Forks, ND 58202/USA +
[PEN-L:6615] Re: why raise the minimum wage (fwd)
At 7:03 AM 10/11/96, Paul Zarembka wrote: Doug, you are repeating the same mistake you made last December. If Bill Gates spends millions of dollars hiring workers to undertake unproductive labor at his super mansion in Washington, you fail to recognize that the wages which go to those workers are from revenue of surplus value. In your incorrect approach, if all surplus value were used to hire enormous luxuries for the capitalist class by hiring the appropriate workers there would be no room for higher wages, whether minimum or not. In other words, you are looking only at the surface of the national income accounts, accounts which are constructed to allow dismissal, as impractical, simple worker class demands like decent wages for all. The gimmick demoralizes opposition to capitalism and must be opposed as strongly and as clearly as possible. And I think most workers would not see a $20,000 annual income for 40 hours of weekly work as so impossible, even within capitalism, as you do. We're not talking about Bill Gates hiring a few workers out of revenue to perform unproductive labor. We're talking about giving half the U.S. workforce a big fat raise - that is, bringing the minimum wage to within hailing distance of the present mean. All the faux Marxoid sophistry you want to summon can't hide the fact that that would involve massive transfers of resources and a massive shift in class political power. Those are desirable goals, but impossible under existing arrangements. Am I alone in thinking this? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:6616] Re: why raise the minimum wage (fwd)
On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Doug Henwood wrote: We're not talking about Bill Gates hiring a few workers out of revenue to perform unproductive labor. We're talking about giving half the U.S. workforce a big fat raise - that is, bringing the minimum wage to within hailing distance of the present mean. All the faux Marxoid sophistry you want to summon can't hide the fact that that would involve massive transfers of resources and a massive shift in class political power. Those are desirable goals, but impossible under existing arrangements. Am I alone in thinking this? No, you are not alone. All (or, all but one) of my neoclassical colleagues would agree with you. In any case, previously on this list you described Adolph Reed as a very fine fellow and he was one of the prime movers to have the Labor Party convention adopt a $10 minimum wage as part of its platform. So, maybe you may want take the issue up with him. Reed and I may disagree on some things, but not on this one. The convention, by the way, found a $10 minimum wage non-controversial and there were 1400 delegates there. Paul Z. P.S. Please define "faux Marxoid sophistry". That's a new form of attack.
[PEN-L:6617] Re: Competitiveness
We are taught that competition is good. Yet, we can think of a depression as a symptom of heightened competition. Within this framework, what happens during a depression is what happens with greater competition. Business gets busy laying off workers, installing new technology [yes, the depression was a period of rapid technical change], and finding ways to rebuild their profits. In terms of income shares, profits fall more than wages -- as we would expect with more competition. But the fall in workers' standard of living is a greater threat to their being [notwithstanding our imagery of flying bankers following the stock market crash]. The government tries to avoid excess competiition [depressions] via government spending (i.e. military expenditures) and a lenient policy toward anti-competitive measures. Business will tend to organize and consolidate until they can enjoy a new period of lax competition. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6618] IMPORTANT COURT RULING (fwd)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 96 00:36:06 -0600 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UNITED [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: IMPORTANT COURT RULING The following court case may mean justice for many thousands of workers. My employer isn't gonna like this and yours probably won't either. -- LW BENEFIT RULING COULD HAVE WIDE IMPACT An appeals court ruling in Seattle against Microsoft for treating employees as independent contractors is sending shivers through the high-tech industry and beyond. If it stands, last week's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision will let hundreds, maybe thousands, of Microsoft workers collect back 401(k) retirement benefits and stock worth $133 a share that employees bought for $5 a share in 1987. The ramifications are enormous. By opening the door to back benefits, contractors found to be employees in the future could sue companies for medical bills for which they would have had insurance. They could sue for discrimination, sexual harassment and other protections available only to employees, says Washington lawyer Jay Krupin. It could undermine the growing corporate strategy of using temporary and contract workers to grow or shrink workforces depending on demand. More recently, contract workers have been hired by companies to buffer against legislation such as the Family and Medical Leave and the Americans with Disabilities acts, which apply to employees but not contractors. In the high-tech industry, temporary and contract workers can typically make up 10% to 12% of a company's workforce. Contract workers, to be legal, must be their own bosses by bidding on jobs and working for multiple companies. "Increasingly, you have a smaller and smaller core of true employees," says Amy Dean, chief executive officer of the South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council in California. There are plenty of jobs, says high-tech worker Richelle Noroyan of Santa Cruz, Calif., but to get one, "You have to go through an agency" and get no benefits. Microsoft, which likely will appeal, says the ruling applies to fewer than 1,000 workers, but still would cost the company millions of dollars. Plaintiff lawyer David Stobaugh says the class-action lawsuit applies to thousands of more workers through the present. By Del Jones and Julie Schmit
Re: [PEN-L:6617] Re: Competitiveness
The Japanese have an expression "kato kyoso" meaning excessive competition which they vehemently oppose. Various state-capital arrangements and cartel-like behavior reduce competition. Prices are high no doubt but mass lay offs rare as well. Anthony P. D'Costa Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of Washington 1103 A Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA Ph: (206) 552-4462 FAX: (206) 552-4414 On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Michael Perelman wrote: We are taught that competition is good. Yet, we can think of a depression as a symptom of heightened competition. Within this framework, what happens during a depression is what happens with greater competition. Business gets busy laying off workers, installing new technology [yes, the depression was a period of rapid technical change], and finding ways to rebuild their profits. In terms of income shares, profits fall more than wages -- as we would expect with more competition. But the fall in workers' standard of living is a greater threat to their being [notwithstanding our imagery of flying bankers following the stock market crash]. The government tries to avoid excess competiition [depressions] via government spending (i.e. military expenditures) and a lenient policy toward anti-competitive measures. Business will tend to organize and consolidate until they can enjoy a new period of lax competition. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6619] a nobel puzzle
Suppose you won the Nobel prize and wanted to put it to use to make the society you live in improve as much as possible. Where would you spend the $? Supporting labor? Radical education? Organize a vanguard movement? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6620] Competitiveness
Doug said: How do we know there's been a sharper concentration? Thirty years ago, there were three major players in the U.S. auto market; now there are what, 5 or 10? I sat at a conference a few weeks ago and listened to someone denouncing the increased monopolization of world trade by 40,000 multinational corporations. 40,000? Even allowing for 100 industrial sectors, we're talking 400 per. Do a Herfindahl on that one! Another question - did the textbook world of perfect competition ever really exist? Or has something like oligpolistic competition been the only real historically existing kind? Doug In an article, "The Limits of the Earth," by David Korten in "The Nation" (July 15/22, 1996) domestic as well as international concentration is heavy and increasing.He says, "five companies now control more than 50 percent of the global market in the following industries: consumer durables, automotive, airlines, aerospace, electronic components,electricity and electronics, and steel. Five corporations control more than 40 percent of the global market in oil, personal computers and--especially alarming in its consequences for public debate on these very issues--media." There are other interesting statistics cited by the article, which questions the achievement of the Bretton Woods system that launched "globalization" with dire consequences. The article says: "The Fortune 500 firms shed 4.4 million jobs between 1980 and 1993, but during this same period, their sales increased 1.4 times, assets increased 2.3 times and CEO compensation increased 6.1 times. . . . Those same corporations employ 1/20th of 1 percent of the world's population, but control 25 percent of the world's output and 70 percent of world trade." It seems to me we should not just look at how many (like 40,000) MNCs there are, but control of the few. I have seen statistics somewhere else where 1,000 MNCs control the bulk of the world,'s output, trade and investment.So the remaining 39,000 contribute very little to total sales. Fikret. +Fikret Ceyhun voice: (701)777-3348 work + +Dept. of Economics (701)772-5135 home + +Univ. of North Dakota fax:(701)777-5099 + +University Station, Box 8369e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] + +Grand Forks, ND 58202/USA +
Re: [PEN-L:6620] Competitiveness
I don't about the other industries, but sorry not in steel. The top five companies in the world (by crude steel output) control 13.5% of the total world output. In fact this is one industry where there has been deconcentration, here and abroad, and globally. Anthony P. D'Costa Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of Washington 1103 A Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA Ph: (206) 552-4462 FAX: (206) 552-4414 On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Fikret Ceyhun wrote: Doug said: How do we know there's been a sharper concentration? Thirty years ago, there were three major players in the U.S. auto market; now there are what, 5 or 10? I sat at a conference a few weeks ago and listened to someone denouncing the increased monopolization of world trade by 40,000 multinational corporations. 40,000? Even allowing for 100 industrial sectors, we're talking 400 per. Do a Herfindahl on that one! Another question - did the textbook world of perfect competition ever really exist? Or has something like oligpolistic competition been the only real historically existing kind? Doug In an article, "The Limits of the Earth," by David Korten in "The Nation" (July 15/22, 1996) domestic as well as international concentration is heavy and increasing.He says, "five companies now control more than 50 percent of the global market in the following industries: consumer durables, automotive, airlines, aerospace, electronic components,electricity and electronics, and steel. Five corporations control more than 40 percent of the global market in oil, personal computers and--especially alarming in its consequences for public debate on these very issues--media." There are other interesting statistics cited by the article, which questions the achievement of the Bretton Woods system that launched "globalization" with dire consequences. The article says: "The Fortune 500 firms shed 4.4 million jobs between 1980 and 1993, but during this same period, their sales increased 1.4 times, assets increased 2.3 times and CEO compensation increased 6.1 times. . . . Those same corporations employ 1/20th of 1 percent of the world's population, but control 25 percent of the world's output and 70 percent of world trade." It seems to me we should not just look at how many (like 40,000) MNCs there are, but control of the few. I have seen statistics somewhere else where 1,000 MNCs control the bulk of the world,'s output, trade and investment.So the remaining 39,000 contribute very little to total sales. Fikret. +Fikret Ceyhun voice: (701)777-3348 work + +Dept. of Economics (701)772-5135 home + +Univ. of North Dakota fax:(701)777-5099 + +University Station, Box 8369e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] + +Grand Forks, ND 58202/USA +
[PEN-L:6621] Recent court ruling
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 From: Philip Kraft [EMAIL PROTECTED] BENEFIT RULING COULD HAVE WIDE IMPACT By Del Jones and Julie Schmit An appeals court ruling in Seattle against Microsoft for treating employees as independent contractors is sending shivers through the high-tech industry and beyond. If it stands, last week's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision will let hundreds, maybe thousands, of Microsoft workers collect back 401(k) retirement benefits and stock worth $133 a share that employees bought for $5 a share in 1987. The ramifications are enormous. By opening the door to back benefits, contractors found to be employees in the future could sue companies for medical bills for which they would have had insurance. They could sue for discrimination, sexual harassment and other protections available only to employees, says Washington lawyer Jay Krupin. It could undermine the growing corporate strategy of using temporary and contract workers to grow or shrink workforces depending on demand. More recently, contract workers have been hired by companies to buffer against legislation such as the Family and Medical Leave and the Americans with Disabilities acts, which apply to employees but not contractors. In the high-tech industry, temporary and contract workers can typically make up 10% to 12% of a company's workforce. Contract workers, to be legal, must be their own bosses by bidding on jobs and working for multiple companies. "Increasingly, you have a smaller and smaller core of true employees," says Amy Dean, chief executive officer of the South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council in California. There are plenty of jobs, says high-tech worker Richelle Noroyan of Santa Cruz, Calif., but to get one, "You have to go through an agency" and get no benefits. Microsoft, which likely will appeal, says the ruling applies to fewer than 1,000 workers, but still would cost the company millions of dollars. Plaintiff lawyer David Stobaugh says the class-action lawsuit applies to thousands of more workers through the present.
[PEN-L:6622] not all competition is equal
why don't we distinguish between types of competition? when ncds'ers talk about how capitalist firms are engaging in cutthroat competition, they want us to have the idea that firms are competing *for consumers*, especially by lowering prices. but it turns out, not surprisingly, that capitalists find price competition really annoying, and so they move to eliminate it, often successfully, through buying up competitors, vertical integration, dominating market niches, etc. a very different kind of competition is capital competition. and this i do think capitalists face, especially in the us these days, with few capital controls, and high capital minimum wages. (Fed interest rates.) ___ Robert Naiman 1821 W. Cullerton Chicago Il 60608-2716 (h) 312-421-1776 Urban Planning and Policy (M/C 348) 1007 W. Harrison Room 1180 Chicago, Il 60607-7137 (o) 312-996-2126 (voice mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://icarus.uic.edu/~rnaima1/
[PEN-L:6624] Re: Competitiveness
At 10:14 AM 10/11/96, Michael Perelman wrote: The government tries to avoid excess competiition [depressions] via government spending (i.e. military expenditures) and a lenient policy toward anti-competitive measures. Business will tend to organize and consolidate until they can enjoy a new period of lax competition. Do you agree, Michael, that we're in a period now of greater competition than the 1950s and 1960s? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:6625] Re: why raise the minimum wage (fwd)
Doug in reply to Paul Z
We're not talking about Bill Gates hiring a few workers out of revenue to
perform unproductive labor. We're talking about giving half the U.S.
workforce a big fat raise - that is, bringing the minimum wage to within
hailing distance of the present mean. All the faux Marxoid sophistry you
want to summon can't hide the fact that that would involve massive
transfers of resources and a massive shift in class political power. Those
are desirable goals, but impossible under existing arrangements.
Am I alone in thinking this?
make us a duo at least doug. there is a tendency on the left to deny that wage
share shifts of large proportions don't cause unemployment and chaos. they seem
to have been brought up with MPT and don't want to believe that and so they
enter this position of self-denial.
rowthorn said (paraphrasing) that the "working class cannot afford to be too
successful" - meaning that the system is engineered by those seeking a desired
rate of profit to ensure they get it. the workers suffer if they organise too
well and grap some surplus back.
it is not a MPT story at all but works largely through macro variables.
the experience of the mid 70s really hammered the point home after the long
golden period of growth after the war. the unions got too successful.
it also exemplifies my position on unions for which i have been severely
critized on this list (by doug as well as others). by spending efforts on
trifling about wages and conditions they are falling prey to the capitalists.
instead if they had have organised to challenge control and ownership things
might have been very different.
kind regards
bill
--
## William F. Mitchell
### Head of Economics Department
#University of Newcastle
New South Wales, Australia
###* E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
###Phone: +61 49 215065
# ## ###+61 49 215027
Fax: +61 49 216919
## http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html
"only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned
and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money."
(Cree Indian saying...circa 1909)
[PEN-L:6627] Re: why raise the minimum wage (fwd)
At 2:18 PM 10/11/96, Gerald Levy wrote: Since you are now using this term, a) define surplus value. b) explain how surplus value is measured. No, I don't have to Jerry. You're just being a pest. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:6628] Re: Competitiveness
absolutely! Doug Henwood wrote: At 10:14 AM 10/11/96, Michael Perelman wrote: The government tries to avoid excess competiition [depressions] via government spending (i.e. military expenditures) and a lenient policy toward anti-competitive measures. Business will tend to organize and consolidate until they can enjoy a new period of lax competition. Do you agree, Michael, that we're in a period now of greater competition than the 1950s and 1960s? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6630] Cracks In The U.S. Empire
U.S. imperialism is having difficulty holding its European empire together. It gives the appearance of being cocksure of itself and its power, but below the surface contradictions are churning. U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry's recent extended tour throughout his European domain was designed to create an aura that the U.S. dictates everything, and if a country wants to survive in this imperialist world it had better join the U.S. retinue. He swept from country to country in the style of royalty, meeting only with those who fawned in his presence, giving the impression that all and sundry were scrambling to join his NATO. An expanded NATO, sneering at a subdued Russia, would be in a position to challenge Asia in a way that has not been dreamed since the heyday of European colonialism. Yet, right under his nose schemes are afoot to challenge that authority. NATO member Turkey, their most faithful servile tool during the Cold War has shown brazen disregard for its master in recent weeks. Turkey's President Necmettin Erbakan is visiting and developing trade relations with states that in one way or another have incurred the wrath of the U.S. and are on its "rogue" list: Iran, Libya, Sudan and Nigeria. President Erbakan braving open threats at home and abroad has persisted in Turkey's tentative steps towards an independent foreign policy. The U.S. is not amused. U.S. State Department spokesperson Nicholas Burns denounced remarks attributed to Erbakan describing Libya as a "victim of terrorism." Burns said, "It's up to allies to be good allies and to understand you can't pick and choose places where you are going to support us or not support us." Erbakan would be well advised to throw out those legions of CIA agents that have freely operated in Turkey for decades. The Achilles heel of U.S. imperialism at this time is that it simply does not have the money necessary to bribe and subvert in the manner required to hold its satellites in check. It is incapable of organizing even a shadow of its monstrous Marshall Plan that flooded Europe with U.S. capital after the Second World War. It possesses an enormous military and the ugly reputation that it will use it ruthlessly; however, for major operations like the Gulf War, it is other imperialists who must foot much of the bill. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6631] jobs for environmental economists
Can the environmental economists out there help me by giving me some ideas of the jobs are available for someone with an undergraduate degree in environmental economics? Thanks. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6632] 50% Marginal Tax Rate for Working Families
Speaking of minimum wage workers, do folks realize that if working families get any increase in wages above the minimum wage, they face the highest marginal tax rate of any income group? In fact, they are taxed at a rate equal to roughly 50% of any additional income. Here's what they pay just in FICA (SS Medicare) and Income Taxes: 7.65% Employer side of FICA 7.65% Employee side of FICA 15.00% Income tax Total: 30.3% tax rate -- already ridiculously high But what kicks in for working families with two kids making above $11,300 per year is that the Earned Income Tax Credit begins being phased out. From $11,300 to $26,000, the EITC is phased out at a rate of $202 of credit lost for every $1000 earned. This adds an additional de facto 20.2% tax rate on top of the already existing 30.3% paid for income taxes and FICA. That's a 50.5% tax rate on any raises above the minimum wage or families with two kids. (Since the credit is less with one kid, the lost credit is only $159 for evey $1000 earned, or a 46.1% marginal tax rate.) It is worth noting that marginal tax rate is higher than the 43% tax rate faced by most middle income taxpayers (FICA and income tax for those making roughly $30-60,000 per year), much more than the marginal tax rate for professional income above $60,000 per year (only 34% to 39% up to $250,000 per year since no social security taxes are paid on those amounts). What this means is that even if we raised the minimum wage from $5.15 to $10 per hour, a working mother with kids would have almost half of the increase taken up by taxes and lost EITC. Without showing all the math and ignoring the employer side of the FICA tax, such a minimum wage hike for a mother with two kids working full-time would increase her nominal income from $10,712 to $20,800 per year. However, of that nominal additional $10,088 in income, the takehome pay of that working mom would increase only $5926. 41% of that additional income goes to the federal government (plus an additional 7.65% for the employer side of the FICA tax--or a total federal share of that increase of $4919). The rate would be even higher if we were measuring from slightly above the minimum wage to the raised wage because of how EITC works. You don't have to be a rightwinger to think there is a problem when the federal government gets almost half of any raise given to the poorest workers. We know why the rightwing doesn't care about this tax burden (although I think Jack Kemp has talked about it in passing at points) but where are leftwingers in denouncing this kind of tax burden on the working poor? One solution we should advocate is ending the phaseout of the EITC (except maybe with a long phaseout for very high incomes). Essentially we would trump the Republicans and Clinton and advocate a $2000 tax credit for a first child and an additional $1000 tax credit for a second child (essentially what the EITC adds up to at its peak). This would have to be paid for with higher rates on the wealthy (say by having them pay the marginal 50% tax rate now faced by the working poor) but that would be a much more progressive situation than the present system. This proposal if passed would have the additional advantage of institutionalizing the EITC not as a program just for the poor but a tax credit used by all income groups. It also simplifies the tax code for a lot of people since they wouldn't have to do the calculations on phasing out the EITC. ---Nathan Newman Progressive Communications [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6634] Fwd: nobel prize and iaffe newsletter
wow. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Forwarded message: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William S. Brown (907) 465-6423/789-2448) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 96-10-11 14:59:59 EDT William Vickery was killed in a car wreck last night. He was driving. - NOTICE FOR JOURNALISTS AND RESEARCHERS: Please ask for written permission from all direct participants before quoting any material posted on FEMECON-L.
[PEN-L:6635] Fwd: Vickrey's death
- Forwarded message: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William S. Brown (907) 465-6423/789-2448) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 96-10-11 15:17:50 EDT One of my students who works for a radio station called to tell me the details of Vickrey's death. Here is the AP flash: Nobel Death URGENT, take 3: 10-11 7:27 a "Columbia says Vickrey was found unconscious and slumped over the wheel of his car last night. He'd been traveling to an academic conference when he was found, on a highway about 30 miles north of New Yrk City. He was 82." - NOTICE FOR JOURNALISTS AND RESEARCHERS: Please ask for written permission from all direct participants before quoting any material posted on FEMECON-L.
[PEN-L:6636] Re: a nobel puzzle
Date sent: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 10:41:40 -0700 (PDT) Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:6619] a nobel puzzle Suppose you won the Nobel prize and wanted to put it to use to make the society you live in improve as much as possible. Where would you spend the $? Supporting labor? Radical education? Organize a vanguard movement? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you had won the Nobel Prize, what would be the chances that you would give a damn about society? What would be the chances that you would be other than an ultra-individualistic, materialistic, acquisitive, coldly "rational and calculating", egoistic, ultra- competitive, selfish, atomistic anti-social petit bourgeois neoclassical apologist utilizing not-so-elegantly quantified theoretical mystifications of a fantasy of capitalism built on contrived assumptions and syllogisms, meaningless tautologies, linear unidirectional chains of causality and simultaneous equations portraying perfectly--or somewhat perfectly--mobile, informed, rational and calculating economic actors whose mutually cancelling interactions lead to movement toward a singular general equilibrium solution and Pareto Optimality in an non-historical or anti- historical and anti-institutional vacuum. Jim Craven *--* * James Craven * "The envelope is only defined--and * * Dept of Economics* expanded--by the test pilot who dares* * Clark College* to push it." * * 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. * (H.H. Craven Jr.(a gifted pilot) * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * * * (360) 992-2283 * "For those who have fought for it, * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * freedom has a taste the protected* * * will never know." (Otto Von Bismark) * * * * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:6637] comments on URPE history welcome
October 11, 1996 Dear friends and URPE members, This is a very first draft of a submission for the Encyclopedia for Political Economy being coordinated by Phil O'Hara. I have written 1174 rough words and have a 1200 word maximum. I am stuck and need collective help. I have no access to files at the URPE office or the URPE archives at Cornell and need to depend on the memory of 'old-timers' for the entry. Please correct, verify, or add any information that will make this a whole piece. I'd like feedback soon. You may send it to the list or to me. Please help out if you have something to contribute, stories to share, important events to chronicle, etc.. The entry will only be as good as the sum of its parts. In solidarity, Susan Fleck [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. If you have been a member of URPE in the past and are not now, remember that it's easy to join! Just send $15 to the URPE national office for yearly membership (newsletter without journal). URPE National Office 1 Summer St. Somerville, MA 02143 If you'd like to receive a subscription the Review for Radical Political Economics, I'll need to get the info on where to send it, since we are in the midst of changing publishers. Write me. VERY ROUGH DRAFT OF HISTORY OF URPE FOR THE ENCYCLOPEDIA FOR POLITICAL ECONOMY. The Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) was founded in 1968 in the United States to support an alternative left perspective to mainstream neoclassical economic theory. The name of the organization is intended to invite all people who consider themselves practitioners of radical political economics to join, even though they are not economists. Graduate students and faculty from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Harvard University and Radcliffe College held a working meeting in Ann Arbor in the summer of 1968 to found the organization, just a few weeks before the Democratic Party convention in Chicago. The first act of protest from this core of 25 economics students and faculty was to write to the Executive Committee of the American Economic Association (AEA) to request a boycott of Chicago as a result of the police crackdown on protesters. They wanted to move the December 1968 meetings of the Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) to another city. The proposal was considered by the AEA Executive Committee but lost by one vote. As a result, a number of graduate students decided to boycott the ASSA meetings. A group of anti-war and left-leaning faculty decided to join the boycott of the ASSA and the AEA and to organize alternative meetings in order to interview graduate students for the economics job market. This alternative job market and first national URPE conference was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, December 19-21, 1968. Approximately 600-700 graduate students and faculty attended to listen to sessions and to participate in the alternative academic job market. The prospectus for the Union for Radical Political Economics was also presented at that time. The purpose of the organization ws defined as five tasks which economists could tackle. These included: 1. A new approach to social problems should be formulated - one which attempts to break out of the bonds of narrow specialization and utilizes political science,sociology, and social psychology... 2. In the classroom new courses should be tauhgt, and those courses presently taught should be chnaged to reflect the urgencies of the day... 3. The priorities in economic research should also be made more relevant to the world around us. A sampling of new issues whcih should be treated by economsits include: the economics of the ghetto; poverty in the American economy; international imperialism; interest group analysis; and the military- university-industrial-labor complex... Along with the change in research priorities must come a change in the vlaue premises upon which economic research is based. 4. Joint research must be formulated so that the quest for scholarship does not indue us to tackle tiny fragments of large interrelated problems. 5. The social movements of our day need an economic analysis offered in a sensitive manner." (URPE 1968). The first summer conference of URPE was held in a camp in northern Michigan, in the summer of 1969, where approximately 70 attended. It was at this time that URPE developed its three pronged strategy of a parallel professional organization in economics, which was to present alternative perspectives through publications, through the U.S. yearly economics meetings coordinated by the ASSA, and to organize a yearly conference distant from the stifling atmosphere of academic institutions. Although URPE has historically had been a more activist organization than it is at present, (for example, members of URPE threatened to take over the hotel lobby of 1969 AEA/ASSA meetings if they were not given room for URPE sessions) it has always maintained as its' core
[PEN-L:6638] vickery and radical economics
I have been told by a member of URPE that Vickery (en paz descanse) was a member of URPE, if not now, at least at some time in the past. Does anyone on PENl know him or his work? Does Michael Perelman ask his question of Nobel prize money because he was named in Vickery's will? Oops, don't mean to spread rumors. goodnight, susan fleck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6639] Re: comments on URPE history welcome
I was struck by the fact that the "history" doesn't include the _names_ of *any* URPE founders or leaders!!! Don't you think that David Gordon and others deserve a mention? Without any names, URPE's history sounds rather faceless and impersonal. Jerry
[PEN-L:6640] will the bosses pay $10?
doug (paul) since when is it our job to determine what the bosses can accomodate? e.g. you could make a case, and many have, that racism is so entwined with the u.s. economic system that it will never be completely eradicated without the overthrow of capitalism. if i were convinced of this, would that imply that in order to be honest, instead of advocating "the total elimination of racism" i have to advocate "the total elimination of racism, but please be advised that this is not possible without overthrowing the economic system"? let's push the minimum wage to $10/hr. if paul is right, workers will get the $10/hr. if doug's right, the system will collapse. either outcome suits me fine. it's a win/win. like the pre '89 polish joke i heard from a german friend. a guy walks into a bank in poland to open an account with a few hundred zlotys. but he's a little nervous about banks. so he asks the teller, "how can i be sure the bank's not going to collapse?" "it's not going to collapse," answers the teller. "but what if it does?" "if it does," answers the teller, "it's backed up by the Central Bank in Warsaw." "but what if the central bank collapses?" "it's not going to collapse." "but what if it does?" "if it does," answers the teller, "it's backed up by the Soviet Union." "but what if the soviet union collapses?" "it's not going to collapse." "but what if it does?" "if the soviet union collapses," answers the teller, "isn't that worth a couple hundred zlotys?" --- as for bill's antipathy towards unions, i'm with gompers: "MORE!" (gompers was, after all, a socialist... ; ) i don't think unions can ever go wrong by demanding more, as long as they do it for the whole working class (including those not working) rather than some sector, (like the unionized or the skilled). the swedish and norwegian unions did it right -- they moderated the wage demands of those at the top in return for full employment, bringing up the bottom, and levelling the wage structure. ___ Robert Naiman 1821 W. Cullerton Chicago Il 60608-2716 (h) 312-421-1776 Urban Planning and Policy (M/C 348) 1007 W. Harrison Room 1180 Chicago, Il 60607-7137 (o) 312-996-2126 (voice mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://icarus.uic.edu/~rnaima1/
