On 30 Jan 97 at 7:23, Robert Cherry wrote: > In a previous posting I wrote: > > > 3. If Sweeney is worth anything, why wouldn't he want to have a mass > > mobilization around Real Full Employment? Is it foolish to think that > having > > a real Labor Day next September when in every city the unions have a > > mobilization with other groups around real full employment is impossible? > > Max Sawicky responded: > > >I wouldn't be surprized if something like this > >did come off at some point. Now isn't the best > >time. We are reduced to saying let's mobilize > >because unemployment could be a percent > >(or two) less. Not very blood-curdling. > > The time to ring that bell is when UE is over seven > >and the govt is visibly reluctant to do anything. > >Then the exposure available makes it possible > >to press for a policy of 'probing' to push UE > >down below five percent and beyond. > > 1. If bringing the UE down by a percent (or two) isn't very blood-curdling > when is it so much so when we are talking about bringing it down from 7 > percent to 5-5.5 percent? 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. > 2. It is particularly important to bring it down to 4-4.5 percent if we are > concerned with race and gender issues. Firms will be prodded by low > unemployment rates to hire from groups which they have been reluctant to > because of negative stereotypes or their own preferences. If we really > want to see more race and gender integration THROUGHOUT the occupational > distribution then this is what we should be focused on. I couldn't agree more. In fact, the welfare "reform" makes this point more salient, as you point out next. > 3. Given the attack on welfare and affirmative action it is particularly > crucial to have a move toward REAL full employment. Indeed, we could argue > that for those who favor these programmatic reversals, there should be a > particular focus on keeping labor markets tight so that former welfare > mothers can find employment and firms do not backpedal on diversity hirings. > 4. The idea that when UE is over seven is the appropriate time is quite > problematic. As you see with fighting a rearguard action concerning > balancing the budget, to be effective it will be argued that there must be a > focus on expansionary policies with no room for a "controversial" proposal to > drive the UE below 5 percent. Moreover, in the best of circumstances, it > takes two years for the rate to be driven down to 5-5.5 percent so that any > discussion of proposals for how far to drive down the rate would also be > considered "premature." That's well-taken. > While points #2 and #3 are not "blood-curdling" they do give reasons that > make the issue much more than simply lowering the unemployment rate a notch. I think the idea for a report which surveys the issue of unemployment at "full" employment is a good one and will forward it to our labor market contingent here. How the politics of this is pursued is another matter, though I have a few lines of communication to the AFL-CIO which I can tap on that score. MBS =================================================== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===================================================
