[PEN-L:1970] Re: minimum wage
According to Lawrence Mishel, et al., The State of Working America, 1996-97, page 206, 11.7% of the labor force in 1993 earned between the minimum wage ($4.25) and the 1997 minimum wage ($5.15). Another 8.5% of the labor force earned between $5.15 and $6.14. Gerald Friedman Associate Professor of Economics University of Massachusetts at Amherst Amherst, MA. 01003 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel.: (413) 545-6357 On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, Ellen Dannin wrote: Greetings Pen-lers. Does anyone know what percentage of workers are paid at minimum wage and has this percentage been increasing / decreasing/ remaining stable? Ellen Ellen J. Dannin Professor of Law California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (619) 525-1449 fax: (619) 696-
[PEN-L:1971] A lump sum: frequency
Contributions toward a sociology of economics pseudo-knowledge -- The terms "lump of labor", "lump of labour" or "lump of work" occur in the text of 37 articles since 1891 indexed by JSTOR, an academic journal database. Included in the search database were the following economics journals (along with an extensive list of non-economics journals): American Economic Review, Econometrica, Economic Journal, Journal of Industrial Economics, Journal of Economic History, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Journal of Political Economy, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Review of Economics and Statistics, Journal of Applied Econometrics, Journal of Economic Perspectives Two of the occurences were found in non-economics journals: Contemporary Sociology and Annual Review of Anthropology. Two were found in the Quarterly Journal of Economics and one in the Journal of Economic History. The rest were found in the American Economic Review, Economic Journal and Journal of Political Economy. Below is a list of the publication years of articles in which one of the terms occurs: 1891 1896 1901 1901 1902 1904 1905 1906 1907 1910 1912 1912 1913 1916 1919 1922 1928 1930 1930 1933 1934 1935 1937 1937 1941 1944 1947 1948 1950 1952 1955 1958 1959 1980 1982 1984 1984 Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:1974] Re: Re: Re: minimum wage
The Economic Policy Institute has tons of data on this. See for example the executive summary of a 1998 report at http://epinet.org/test/studies/stmwp.html. Doug
[PEN-L:1973] BLS Daily Report
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --_=_NextPart_000_01BE38C2.7734C760 BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 1999 Consumers' quick draw with credit cards and checkbooks will slow in 1999, constrained by tepid job growth, rising debt, insecurity about the future, and a stock market that no longer seems able to guarantee spectacular returns, economists predict. All but one of the 25 economists surveyed by the Bureau of National Affairs in mid-to-late December predict U.S. growth will become lackluster in 1999, restrained by a drop off in consumer spending. ... Because consumer spending has driven the spectacular U.S. expansion in the last few years, most analysts participating in BNA's annual survey say an economic slowdown is inevitable. Although economists have expected the economy to cool for some time, growth continued robust and unabated. But, they say, 1999 will be different. Forces have aligned to almost surely brake expansion to a level of 1.4 percent to 2.8 percent, all but one survey participant predicts. ... Job market growth will cool its heels this year, in response to thriftier consumers, corporate profit squeezes, and increasing layoffs. Nonetheless, most economists surveyed predict that the unemployment rate, while creeping higher, will stay below 5 percent. ... Looking to defend and sustain domestic growth, the Fed will stay on an easing track in 1999, with one eye focused on real economic events at home and the other on developments abroad. ... Most economists expect only a modest uptick in inflation this year, as consumer prices are kept at bay by low oil prices, rising unemployment, excess industrial capacity, and global competition. ... At the start of 1999, indications are that the global economy is headed for another year of slow growth, but the world's financial crisis should not result in a recession, analysts say. ... (Daily Labor Report, 1999 Economic Outlook section). The U.S. economy is expected to grow at a slower pace in 1999 than last year, according to most economists participating in a semiannual survey. Global uncertainties are making forecasting trickier, economists say. ... (Wall Street Journal, page A2). New claims filed with state agencies for unemployment insurance benefits rose dramatically, up 79,000 to a seasonally adjusted 368,000 in the week ended Dec. 26, the Employment and Training Administration announces. Winter storms in several areas of the country have been cited as reasons for the increase. ... (Daily Labor Report, page D-1; Wall Street Journal, page A4)_New claims soared at the fastest pace in more than 6 years, but the figure may have been skewed by bad weather and the Christmas holiday. ... Economists in the private sector had expected new claims to rise to only 312,000. ... (Washington Post, Jan. 1, page D1)_The increase in claims could be a sign that hard times abroad are hitting American companies harder. ... (New York Times, Jan. 1, page C2). The Conference Board's help-wanted index jumped 4 percentage points in November, signaling continued job growth, the board announces. The index increased to 91 percent of its 1987 base, still below the 93 percent recorded one year ago. "The great American job machine is not broken," one economist with the Conference Board says. "It isn't even slowing." ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-8). Manufacturing in the Midwest picked up unexpectedly in December, helped by rising production and an increase in inventories, according to the National Association of Purchasing Management-Chicago. ... (New York Times, Jan. 1, page C4). The Wall Street Journal's consensus forecast is that, in December, nonfarm payrolls rose 193,000, and the unemployment rate rose by 0.1 percentage point to 4.5 percent. One of the enduring goals of the labor movement is to achieve uniform contract terms throughout each industry. Unions typically were able to meet this objective when the workforce was highly unionized. But as organized labor's strength declined in recent decades, so too has its ability to reach pattern agreements, according to labor officials and labor-management specialists interviewed by BNA. ... Pattern bargaining is still widely used in some industries, including steel and petroleum, according to the research director for the Midwest Center for Labor Research. However, "pattern bargaining, as defined in the 1950s and 1960s, is different and we're not going back to that." ... (Daily Labor Report, page C-1). --_=_NextPart_000_01BE38C2.7734C760 b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOzwcBAAUACgAtADYAAgBLAQEggAMADgAAAM8HAQAF gAEAEQAAAEJMUyBEYWlseSBSZXBvcnQAkAUBDYAEAAICAAIAAQOQBgCcDQAAHEAAOQDA W1l6wji+AR4AcAABEQAAAEJMUyBEYWlseSBSZXBvcnQAAgFxAAEWAb44wnjH G4t3cKSLEdKIjgDAT4x4MQAAHgAxQAENUklDSEFSRFNPTl9EAAMAGkAAHgAw
[PEN-L:1972] Re: Re: minimum wage
20% is a very high figure. With $6.14/hr- 40 hour week , does that add up to income above the poverty line? Do minimum wage employee get benefits? Is there any breakdown of the data to what portion is under-employed and to what extend, for example compared to the worker's highest paying job in the past? Thanks. Henry C.K. Liu Gerald C Friedman wrote: According to Lawrence Mishel, et al., The State of Working America, 1996-97, page 206, 11.7% of the labor force in 1993 earned between the minimum wage ($4.25) and the 1997 minimum wage ($5.15). Another 8.5% of the labor force earned between $5.15 and $6.14. Gerald Friedman Associate Professor of Economics University of Massachusetts at Amherst Amherst, MA. 01003 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel.: (413) 545-6357 On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, Ellen Dannin wrote: Greetings Pen-lers. Does anyone know what percentage of workers are paid at minimum wage and has this percentage been increasing / decreasing/ remaining stable? Ellen Ellen J. Dannin Professor of Law California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (619) 525-1449 fax: (619) 696-
[PEN-L:1977] INTERNATIONALIZE THE CORPORATIONS !
The rapid development toward the political / environmental catastrophes has reached the stage where only those aiming directly at terminating the transnational corporations are entitled to call themselves progressive. The march of events seems accelerating. Here is another example seen on Leftlink. Ole, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home4.inet.tele.dk/peoples LL:Shell Head Office Occupied UKOOA (UK Oil Overthrow Association) News release 9am Monday, January 4, 1999 Shell: Head Office Occupied Activists give taste of protests to come At 9am environmental and human rights protesters began occupying management offices in Shell-Mex House, The Strand, London. The activists are barricaded into the offices and are refusing to leave. This is in solidarity with indigenous resistance to oil giant Royal Dutch/Shell in Nigeria and to give a foretaste of direct action to come. Today is the first day of work in the last year before the new Millenium. The activists have chosen this day to send a message to Shell and other transnational corporations that 1999 will be a year of increased globalisation of protest, and the turning point that they say will see the end of corporate dominance. January 4 is also Ogoni Day, celebrated since 1993 when Shell was forced from Ogoni in the oil-rich Niger Delta by non-violent mass mobilisation. Throughout 1997-98, occupations of oil facilities by the Ijaw ethnic group of southern Nigeria have grown in number and degree, cutting Nigeriaôs oil output by up to one third. Now the Ijaws have told Shell and other oil companies to quit their land by January 11, 1999 - or face eviction by the people. Killings by Shell-backed troops have already claimed the lives of at least 20 Ijaws since the first deadline expired on 30 December. The protesters in London are demanding compliance with the Ijawôs demands to leave their traditional lands and for an end to corporate- backed military repression. Live footage of the protest will be relayed directly from Shellôs own offices to an internet website at http://www.kemptown.org/shellwww.kemptown.org/shell using a lap-top computer and mobile phone. A spokesperson said, õThe violent militarisation of the oil producing areas in Nigeria are indicative of the global militarisation of commerce. Moreover, oil industry-derived climate change is causing more global disruption, and restructuring and oil mergers are causing massive job losses. Shell and the other oil transnationals are bad news for everyone ultimately even for shareholders. We call for no more oil.æ Further information is available from (+44) (0171) 561 9146 Video footage of the protest, shot inside the building, may be available from (+44) (0) 966 137925. You can also check out the website at http://www.kemptown.org/shellwww.kemptown.org/shell end == Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html The Year 2000 Bug - An Urgent Sustainability Issue http://www.peg.apc.org/~psutton/grin-y2k.htm
[PEN-L:1979] Of the Scurf Trade among the Rubbish Carters
. . . and plagiarism among the economics textbook authors I think I've located the locus classicus for the "Lump of Labour fallacy" and the so-called fallacy ain't what the textbook authors said it was. There's an 1891 article in the Economic Review by David F. Schloss, "Why Working Men dislike Piece-Work", in which he presented what he called the Lump of Labour theory and argued that it was a fallacy. The argument was recylcled in Schloss's book, _Methods of Industrial Remuneration_, on pages 44-47. Oddly enough, Schloss disavowed his argument having anything to do with the length of the working day! He was discussing the objections to piece-work. Here's what Schloss said in _Methods of Industrial Remuneration_ about the length of the working day: "With the question of the length of the working-day we have nothing to do. Still, I shall not conceal my opinion that the claim of the working-classes to possess an amount of leisure adequate for the purposes of rest, of education, and of recreation is one in an eminent degree deserving of recognition. But, while a reduction of the hours of labour -- say, to eight in the day -- may readily be admitted to be, on grounds both economic and social, highly desirable, yet it is no less desirable that during those eight hours every working-man in the country shall, using the best available tools and machinery, and performing as much labour as he can perform without exerting himself to an extent prejudicial to his health or inconsistent with his reasonable comfort, produce as large an output as possible. . ." Schloss's account has much more in common with Frederick Taylor's discussion of "systematic soldiering" than it does with any of the contemporary retorts to the argument that shortening the hours of work can alleviate unemployment. In fact, both Schloss and Taylor make offhand references to the idea that getting workers to work as efficiently as possible serves the cause of shorter work time. Perhaps there is indeed a Say's Law for apologist textbook authors: the supply of misinformation and plagiarism creates its own demand. Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:1976] Communications on Jim Craven
Dear Dr. Hasart: I am writing on the matter of Prof. Jim Craven's internet correspondence relating to the Tribunal on Indian Residential Schools held here in Vancouver, British Columbia, in June 98. Since the Tribunal, where I first met Prof. Craven, I have followed this matter with interest and have received much of the related E-mail material. With others, I have been assisting Prof. Craven to deal with the fraud and further victimization which has been taking place, both during and after the Tribunal. I very much respect Prof. Craven's integrity, courage, dedication, and his considerable skills in handling extremely important and sensitive issues. As I live in Vancouver, B.C. and have connections here, both Indian and non-Indian, involved in the Indian rights struggle, I was able to make some connections for Prof. Craven. He has visited Vancouver B.C. several times since June to further investigate the matters he has been writing about and we have been in frequent communication. I myself am a trained human rights worker and trained social worker (MSW, McGill University) with over 30 years experience of cross-cultural family and social justice issues. I have worked in Asia for 10 years with International Social Service, a Geneva-based NGO, and worked for 10 years in British Columbia with NGO's in the field of minority rights. Although Kevin Annett has gained media attention, being articulate and with dramatic stories, there is no doubt in my mind that he has been using survivors of the residential school system for his own purposes, and using their recorded testimonies to publish articles about them without their permission. I have seen enough untruths in Kevin Annett's own E-Mail writings to indicate outright deception, or someone who is seriously out of reality. I have also seen evidence and heard reports of his controlling and domineering behavior towards Indians which is really another unacceptable form of abuse. I can also say, to the best of my knowledge of the Indian community in Vancouver, that he does not speak for any group nor does he have support from any organization or individuals since he has betrayed the trust which people had given him. In other words, he does not have credibility where it counts. Therefore, I believe Prof. Craven is doing a service to the Indian Residential School survivors in B.C. by his exposure of Annett's doings. These people do not have access to E-Mail, many are not highly educated, and they lack the means to defend themselves when the matter enters the "high-tech" arena. It is to Prof. Craven's credit that he has taken on this issue, following through on his responsibility as a Tribunal Judge. I believe his sense of outrage at what has been happening is entirely justified. We have seen examples before in British Columbia and in Canada of what is called "expropriation of voice" by white academics and consultants who get involved in Indian justice issues and end up taking over, usually for some personal gain either material or psychological. In any human rights or victim advocacy work it is a basic rule that the primary subjects, their perceptions and their privacy must be given utmost respect and one cannot take seriously anyone working in these matters who fails to do so. I therefore commend Prof. Craven for this important work, which very few people would be able or willing to take on. He is certainly an exceptional person. Through his efforts, the Residential School survivors habe been greatly encouraged to stand up for themselves and I understand they are now taking legal counsel to deal with Annett. Prof. Craven's intervention has certainly been valuable and I know of people who are impressed. If you wish to have any further information please contact me at phone (604) 432-9017 or at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Diane Kage, MSW (Retired) On the same matter as above I am also transmitting statements dictated to me by Kitty Bell Sparrow and by Harriet Nahane, both are unable to access fax or internet. - I have spent over 50 years in activism on behalf of Indian people in British Columbia, USA and internationally. I am the third generation in a family of pioneer activists which goes back to the last century, a time when Indians here had no rights. My father was Thomas Hurley, the first lawyer in B.C. to defend Indians in court, at a time when they were considered savages. From my father, mother and grandmother I have learned and been strictly taught that any non-Indian working with Indian people must not be in the forefront and must in all circumstances take direction from Indians themselves. Non-Indian people must listen and not formulate their own perspectives on behalf of Indians. I have always sought to adhere to these basic principles in all my work. I am the founder and was editor of Indian voice, an internationally known paper from 1967 to 1980, and I trained many Native journalists and writers. This paper covered the Leonard Peltier
[PEN-L:1978] An Academic Sociology Parable
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 13:26:44 -0600 From: Arthur Wilke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: An Academic Sociology Parable Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PSN-CAFE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-To: PSN-CAFE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not only are there few, if any, heroic stories from academic life, humor is often limited compared with, for example, lawyer jokes. Here is a rare story of unknown authorship featuring a sociologist. Arthur Wilke Auburn University PARABLE OF ACADEMIC LIFE One day while walking downtown, a well known sociologist was hit by a bus and was tragically killed. Her soul arrived up in heaven where she was met at the Pearly Gates by St. Peter [a social construction] himself. "Welcome to Heaven," said St. Peter. "Before you get settled in though, it seems we have a problem. You see, strangely enough, we've never once had a sociologist make it this far and we're not really sure what to do with you." "No problem, just let me in" said the woman. "Well, I'd like to, but I have higher orders. What we're going to do is let you have a day in Hell and a day in Heaven and then you can choose where you want to spend eternity" the Saint replied. "Actually, I think I've made up my mind.I prefer to stay in Heaven", even the Hell should be more exciting for research. "Sorry, we have rules." And with that St. Peter put the scholar in an elevator and it went down-down-down to Hell. The doors opened and the sociologist found herself stepping out into a beautiful seminar room. Down the hall was a lavishly appointed lounge, complete with a small but useful reference library. Standing in front of her were all her former colleagues, a veritable Who's Who of the sociological world, all cheering for her. They ran up and kissed her on both cheeks and they talked about old functionalist times. They had an exciting theoretical discussions trashing post-modernism and anthropology, and then retired to the faculty club for an excellent steak and lobster dinner. She met the Devil, who was actually a really nice guy, resembling Max Weber. And although he was a political economist, he showed a real interest in her work. They talked and joked into the wee hours of the morning. The sociologist was having such a good time that before she knew it, it was time to leave. Everybody shook her hand and waved good-bye as she got on the elevator. The elevator went up-up-up and opened back up at the Pearly Gates where St. Peter was waiting for her. "Now it's time to spend a day in Heaven" he said. So the sociologist spent the next 24 hours lounging around on the clouds and playing the harp and singing. She had a great time and before she knew it, her 24 hours were up and St. Peter came and got her. "So, you've spent a day in Hell and you've spent a day in Heaven. Now you must choose your eternity" he said. The sociologist paused for a second and then replied, "well, I never thought I'd say this. I mean, Heaven has been really great and all, but I think professionally I had a better time in Hell." So, St. Peter escorted her to the elevator and again the scholar went down-down-down back to Hell. When the doors of the elevator opened she found herself standing in a desolate wasteland covered in garbage and filth. She saw that her colleagues were dressed in rags and were picking up garbage and putting it in sacks for the evening meal. They barely paused in their work long enough to grumble and tell her that they thought her research was second rate. Max himself came up to her and put his arm around her and laughed at her. "I don't understand," stammered the great sociologist, "yesterday I was here and there was a library and a faculty club and we ate lobster and we talked about my research and had a great time. Now all there is a wasteland of garbage and all my colleagues look miserable." Max looked at her and grinned, "that's because yesterday we were interviewing you, but today you're faculty."
[PEN-L:1980] Re: Pen-l [newcomer] II
Rob ruminates, in part:
..
It occurs that not a lot of Indonesians are currently enjoying their sudden
involuntary simplicity.
No, not when it means a return to one real meal per day.
That said, and without sinking into the quasi-malthusian asceticism
possibly evident in our new chum's musings, I would like to know why it is
I can't stop buying books I KNOW I'll never have the time to read. What is
it about BUYING, eh?
You're propitiating the stern god Publishorperish on behalf of others;
very noble.
I reckon we (the likes of those assembled here in the faculty lounge, I
mean) do need less, and would find out quite quickly we wouldn't want this
stuff if we had to do without it for a while ('cept for ciggies, of
course).
Books, cigarettes... will the list grow if I just remain silent awhile?
And I also have a few traces of Hayek left in me. And I do reckon
socialists would have to admit the possibility of constraints on production
in a socialised economy. ..
That's the stool's weakest leg: never leaned on, yet never replaced.
Though oodles of Americans are privately ready to barf over the wretched
excess of consumerist wonderland, there's nothing to take its place
for thrills chills and the sheer aesthetic pleasure of a big mall
tarted up to kill. I'll tell you a secret, too: for a majority of
the American majority (i.e. whites, right-handed, with two eyes)
socialism ultimately means Livin' With Niggers and nothing else:
the bottom-line nightmare of being unable to Make It in a racist culture.
There, I said it, now everyone else can demonstrate just how few beers
they've had with actually existing workers in the past x years!
The ruling class needs no troops where there's contrast of pigment.
Begging all kinds of questions we rarely seem to address ...
Like what is it about Hawaiian rosewood seeds that makes them good for
having sex upon?
Personally I'm not sure; tried them only once and forgot about _her_
entirely. Others swore by them, however (and could afford them, too).
So don't waste your time (and risk your neck) pissing off people who
rightly feel impoverished and are dead sure that a new set of wheels
or the latest doodad will make all the difference, because their
subjective reality is no less real than yours.
So what would you say to these people, Valis? Heaps of doodads (including,
I suspect, a great number of private cars) would disappear in a socialised
economy, wouldn't they?
What can work a mammoth change in social values this side of some
truly apocalyptic crises is beyond me. I only know what's necessary,
not how to get there. As cynical New York writer Will Weston graciously
shares his internal dialogue with us in the '70s fiction classic Ecotopia,
however, it does seem like armed secession by the prematurely hip is the
ticket, including the strategic nuclear mining of New York and DC
just to even up the odds. Any takers?
...
"The more I see of humanity, the better I love my dog."
(Must have been Dostoyevski)
valis
[PEN-L:1981] Re: INTERNATIONALIZE THE CORPORATIONS !
This is rather millenerian? "The rapid development towards the political/environmental catastrophe"? That's what they said in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Greece (since these societies have left us written words). We are still here today, aren't we. It is simply called change! It's not good change; it is change we have little control over, and perhaps that's why, just like in the past, it seems rapid and suggests tomorrow's catastrphe. But it equally stands to reason that no change historically has been without an injury to 'good,' in the sense that good is scarcely to be found in the past few thousand years, at least. Some would say (myself including) we have been living in 'catastrophe' conditions since the development of speech, because that was the first time a human could share with other humans and realise that he/she was not alone in feeling the fact that today has replaced yesterday. "You never step into the same river twice." This has nothing to do with 'change' as a temporal phenomena; only with its quality. We will always feel that changes are "rapid" and may be even "towards a catastrophe," because they seem so rapid. So, the monopoly stage of capitalism might have seemed to some to represent the few final seconds of jouissance before the armaggedon. Well, Einstein's theory is again proven correct; one hundred years later we are still labouring through those last few seconds. Also, if I am chosing to fight homelessness in my neighbourhood, or the opression of women, or for adequate day-care facilities for children, or capitalism as a socio-cultural system generally, am I reactionary, because I am not fighting the transnational corporation, per se? Does not the transnational corporation exist by virtue that all those issues I have just mentioned worth fighting for have been supressed by the very logic the corporation operate (i.e. capital over labour)? To put _all_ your efforts into fighting the transnational corporation, and only the transnational corporation, is tantamount to waving your fists at the enemy while having the consequence of pushing him up to the higher ground and allowing him to gain more leverage over you as the basis on which he stands (i.e. the suppressed social costs) give him more room and firmer ground for manouvre. I would rather see the ground sink under him as I and my comrades shovel it out, for the beast we are attacking is no fist-fighter. In solidarity, Greg. U.P.secr. wrote: The rapid development toward the political / environmental catastrophes has reached the stage where only those aiming directly at terminating the transnational corporations are entitled to call themselves progressive. The march of events seems accelerating. Here is another example seen on Leftlink. Ole, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home4.inet.tele.dk/peoples -- Gregory Schwartz Department of Political Science York University 4700 Keele St. Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3 Canada tel: (416) 736-5265 fax: (416) 736-5686
