[PEN-L:2552] Re: Reich questions (fwd)

[Ellen Dannin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Breen, Nancy wrote:

* * *
> 
> I heard Sec. Reich on the Diane Rehm's (DC radio talk) show the other day. 
>  He was discussing some suggestions to provide economic incentives for 
> corportations to be more socially responsible -- mostly through tax reforms. 
>  This is an area I hope he'll think more about -- not to mention the 
> American public.

As a follow on to this, why should incentives have to be offered to 
corporations to be socially responsible?  Corporations exist only by the 
grace of law.  Their charters originally and their chartering law demand 
that they exist in the public interest.  WEll, demand is a bit strong and 
certainly is a bit of verbiage now, but if they want to continue to exist 
using law and society as their life support, they'd better behave 
responsibly or let's pull the plug.

> Also, in his books Sec. Reich sometimes seemed to push education as a 
> panacea for job loss and low wages.  He's also been a pretty staunch free 
> trader.  As secretary of labor, has job loss among "educated" (middle 
> management) workers, led to any evolution in his views.  Does he see 
> strategies (the above may be some) to offset this problem?

Alan Krueger and Larry Mishel (from the Economic Policy Institute) presented
papers at the San Francisco IRRA conference a few weeks ago that cast 
strong doubts on a lot of the underpinnings of these policies.  It might 
not be a bad idea to get hold of those papers. (I didn't get copies).

ellen dannin

p.s.
thanks to all the economists who have tried to enlighten the 
noneconomists on productivity and, as a result, lessened their own, no 
doubt.

ejd