Anthony D'Costa wrote: > 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.
the "hysteresis hypothesis" (which I think I remember de Long referring to, though not by that name) says that persistent demand-side stagnation _becomes_ a supply-side problem (structural unemployment), as work and job-seeking skills become obsolete, as the unemployed become demoralized, etc. The Classical types (like Whatizname at the Minneapolis Fed) point to structural unemployment as the big problem _now_, explaining most of the 9+ percent unemployment so that demand stimulus won't work. That doesn't make sense, because (even though the recession and its bloody aftermath have been continuing much too long) demand stagnation hasn't been persistent enough to create a real structural problem. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
