But how you go about understanding structural unemployment is also important. For eg. I think at least for various shades of the left, SU is explained more from the demand side, which suggests that if you have poverty and grotesque forms of inequality there is bound to be structural unemployment. Here class analysis is very important, which by the logic of capitalist imperatives is a given. On the other hand SU explained in Brad de Long terms is not incorrect but has different implications, though not always. Why is there a skills mismatch? Not enough flexibility in educational institutions? narrow business oriented skill demand? inequality? and s on? But you can minimize SU even under capitalism if you have 1. regulations, 2. more information, 3. take the sharp edges out of capitalism through high taxes, incentive structure, etc.
When I hear of SU I think of the demand side. Cheers, Anthony xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Anthony P. D'Costa Professor of Indian Studies and Research Director Asia Research Centre Copenhagen Business School Dalgas Have 15 DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark Ph: +45 3815 2572 *A NEW INDIA?* http://www.anthempress.com/pdf/9780857286642.pdf http://uk.cbs.dk/arc www.cbs.dk/india http://www.thisismodernindia.com/this_is_modern_india_about_us.html xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:03 PM, c b <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Eugene Coyle > > > Thanks to those who sent me the DeLong post. > > Is DeLong's definition of "structural unemployment" the standard > and/or the only way to define or describe it? I would call a > situation where the number looking for work is chronically larger than > jobs on offer a structural problem. > > ^^^^^ > CB: Capitalism _always_ has mass unemployment, or Marx's relative > surplus population. In the past, economists defined "full" employment > as 4 % unemployment. There are always not enough jobs for millions. > Mass unemployment is structural and endemic. > > ^^^^^^^ > > > Of course a neo-classical would assert that "if only the workers would > lower their wage demands ... " but that seems untenable as an > argument. But I don't know what the neo-classicals have defined as > "structural." > > Gene Coyle > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > --
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
