Jim wrote: > >This is part of Thurow's story (as I interpret it). There's a queue of >job-seekers trying to get at the limited number of "good jobs" offered by >the primary sector. If an individual gets more training, he or she can move >closer to the front of the queue, but (given the supply of jobs) that >simply bumps others further to the rear. > Part of Phil Harvey's paper cited in one of my previous posts addresses the queue issue as well. It is actually worth quoting a paragraph from the article: "Labor markets tend to reward success with more success and punish failure with more failure. Under conditions of full employment, this tends to sort workers among jobs, but under conditions of less than full employment, it creates special disadvantages for jobless individuals who are seeking work, even in the absence of structural impediments to their employment. Unemployed job seekers are sometimes seen as "queuing" for jobs, but hiring queues function differently from most waiting lines. The distinguishing characteristic of most queues is that people move from the back to the front of the line as they wait. Hiring queues tend to move in the opposite direction. The longer job seekers remain jobless, the less attractive they are likely to become to potential employers. The most attractive candidates are likely to be those who have not even joined the hiring queue--currently employed persons who are looking for a new or second job. And available data suggest there may be as many of them as there are unemployed job seekers [BLS, 1997]. This does not mean that structurally disadvantaged job seekers cannot find work, but it makes it harder for them. This also does not mean that efforts to help jobless individuals overcome structural barriers to equal employment opportunity will fail, but that such efforts must overcome the natural tendency for labor markets to favor the already advantaged with more success. The larger the economy's aggregate job shortage, the longer hiring queues will be, and the farther back in line unemployed job seekers, especially disadvantaged job seekers, are likely to find themselves." (Harvey, 1999, pp. 500-501) (The paper is part of a symposium in memory of Robert Eisner edited by myself, with papers by Harvey, Randy Wray, Sandy Darity, and myself. Darity's paper, "Who Loses from Unemployment," is based on Marx's analysis of the reserve army of unemployed. After expressing support for policies promoting full employment, Darity asks: "Are these policies compatible or incompatible with the preservation of capitalism? I will close by responding with two rhetorical questions: Does it matter? Should we care, given the devastating costs of unemployment?") Mat
