Michael Perelman wrote: >I have not read Schmidt's report, but it does not surprise me. During >the 60's, when unemployment was low, workers often took a cavalier >attitude toward their work. As unemployment became a more serious >threat, workers became more "grateful" for their job. What is the >relationship between muted hostility and insecurity? Well I have read Schmidt's paper. It's labeled "very preliminary," with the usual warnings not to quote or cite, so I'll hold back on quoting the analysis and conclusions. But the public opinion data - from the General Social Survey and Gallup - does indeed show no rise in reported worker anxiety about job loss. The shares of employed workers who said their jobs were at risk in 1996 and 1997 were pretty much the same as in other late-expansion years, like 1979 and 1989. There are some changes within demographic groups and relative to the unemployment rate, but nothing like what you read in the press (or in Alan Greenspan's public testimony). What's going on? I've written, at no doubt excessive length, that the cliches about spreading contingency and disappearing employment have no basis in fact; and now with Schmidt's work, we learn that even reports of perceptions look to be wrong. Is it that U.S. labor markets have always been turbulent, and perception has just caught up to that fact? That that turbulence has spread to previously insulated segments of the labor force (white male managers/professionals), who are too small a group to affect the macro numbers much, but who are nonetheless extremely important to framing public discourse? Inquiring minds want to know! 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: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>
