Yes, Katz is bad but you have to think the journalist Leonhardt has bad judgement. He keeps going back to Katz and Autor (of MIT) for quotes and Autor by himself is just as bad or worse than Katz. In the"White Paper" that Tom cites they appeal to authority (Krugman and Samuelson) -- which should be frowned on in the higher levels of Pen-l scholarship -- and then use anecdotal evidence (also a no-no) to "prove" that technology creates jobs. But Leonhardt and other NYT journalists have rolodexes that cover the spectrum of opinion from the right wing to the far right wing. I've seen Autor referred to as a Democrat -- why did URPE put him on the program in the past?
Gene On May 5, 2013, at 5:16 PM, Tom Walker wrote: > Katz in 1998: > > Many individuals believe that cuts in the work week (that is, reductions in > working hours per worker) can reduce unemployment. In what has been labeled > the lump of output fallacy, most advocates of work-sharing implicitly assume > that output is held constant in response to a policy effort to reduce hours > per worker, so that total hours of work to be done each week are unchanged. > Thus a reduction in hours per worker requires an increase in the number of > workers to reach the fixed level of output, and hence work-sharing allocates > the available work more equitably and reduces unemployment. > > Katz then goes on to pedantically show that work-sharing is not a "panacea" > and thus (presumably) it is not a viable policy option at all! > > In a 2011 "White Paper" Katz and Autor wrote: > >> Leading economists from Paul Samuelson to Paul Krugman have labored to allay >> the fear that technological advances may reduce overall employment, causing >> mass unemployment as workers are displaced by machines. This ‘lump of labor >> fallacy’—positing that there is a fixed amount of work to be done so that >> increased labor productivity reduces employment —is intuitively appealing >> and demonstrably false. Technological improvements create new products and >> services, shifting workers from older to newer activities. Higher >> productivity raises incomes, increasing demand for labor throughout the >> economy. Hence, in the long run technological progress affects the >> composition of jobs not the number of jobs. > > See what happens here? In the "long run" technological progress inevitably > creates new products and services and increases demand for labor. Therefore > technological progress is a panacea! When Katz's panacea doesn't deliver the > goods is a "very big puzzle." What did Maynard Keynes say about economists > who set themselves too easy a task? > > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > “This still is a very big puzzle,” said Lawrence F. Katz, a Harvard > professor who was chief economist at the Labor Department during the > Clinton administration. He called the severe downturn in jobs “the > million-dollar question” for the economy. > > Katz is an imbecile. This is no "puzzle." It is the inevitable outcome of > non-employment policies that Katz has himself has championed. Perhaps it is a > puzzle to Katz why his policies have the results they do. In that case, he > should stop being a "Harvard professor". > > According to "Professor" Katz most advocates of cutting the work week to > reduce unemployment believe in something he calls the "lump of output > fallacy," which "implicitly" assumes a fixed level of output and thus an > unchanged total number of hours of work. The "million dollar question" is how > such an unqualified hack could get a job at all, let alone a Havard > professorship and a position of chief economist to the U.S. Labor Department. > > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > NY Times May 3, 2013 > The Idled Young Americans > By DAVID LEONHARDT > > WASHINGTON > > THE idle young European, stranded without work by the Continent’s > dysfunction, is one of the global economy’s stock characters. Yet it > might be time to add another, even more common protagonist: the idle > young American. > > For all of Europe’s troubles — a left-right combination of sclerotic > labor markets and austerity — the United States has quietly surpassed > much of Europe in the percentage of young adults without jobs. It’s not > just Europe, either. Over the last 12 years, the United States has gone > from having the highest share of employed 25- to 34-year-olds among > large, wealthy economies to having among the lowest. > > The grim shift — “a historic turnaround,” says Robert A. Moffitt, a > Johns Hopkins University economist — stems from two underappreciated > aspects of our long economic slump. First, it has exacted the harshest > toll on the young — even harsher than on people in their 50s and 60s, > who have also suffered. And while the American economy has come back > more robustly than some of its global rivals in terms of overall > production, the recovery has been strangely light on new jobs, even > after Friday’s better-than-expected unemployment report. American > companies are doing more with less. > > “This still is a very big puzzle,” said Lawrence F. Katz, a Harvard > professor who was chief economist at the Labor Department during the > Clinton administration. He called the severe downturn in jobs “the > million-dollar question” for the economy. > > Employers are particularly reluctant to add new workers — and have been > for much of the last 12 years. Layoffs have been subdued, with the > exception of the worst months of the financial crisis, but so has the > creation of jobs, and no one depends on new jobs as much as younger > workers do. For them, the Great Recession grinds on. > > For many people with jobs and nest eggs, the economy is finally moving > in the right direction, albeit a long way from booming. Average wages > are no longer trailing inflation. Stocks have soared since their 2009 > nadir, and home prices are increasing again. But little of that helps > younger adults trying to get a foothold in the economy. Many of them are > on the outside of the recovery looking in. > > The net worth of households headed by people 44 and younger has dropped > more over the past decade than the net worth of middle-aged and elderly > households, according to the Federal Reserve. According to the Labor > Department, workers 25 to 34 years old are the only age group with lower > average wages in early 2013 than in 2000. > > The problems start with a lack of jobs. In 2011, the most recent year > for which international comparisons exist, 26.2 percent of Americans > between ages 25 and 34 were not working. That includes those for whom > unemployment is a choice (those in graduate school, for example, or > taking care of children) and those for whom it is not (the officially > unemployed or those who are out of work and no longer looking). The > share was 20.2 percent in Canada, 20.5 percent in Germany, 21 percent in > Japan, 21.6 percent in Britain and 22 percent in France. > > The European economy has deteriorated over the last two years, and the > American economy has strengthened modestly. But the job growth here has > been fast enough merely to keep pace with population growth, which > suggests that this country still lags in the employment of young adults. > In 2000, by contrast, the United States led Germany, Britain, France, > Canada and Japan — as well as Australia, Russia and Sweden — in such > employment rates. The nation now trails them all. Older American workers > have also lost relative ground, but not as much. > > As Mr. Katz, Mr. Moffitt and others note, an explanation of the root > causes remains elusive. But there are obvious suspects, and each > probably plays a role. > > The United States, for example, has lost its once-large lead in > producing college graduates, and education remains the most successful > jobs strategy in a globalized, technology-heavy economy. It is no > accident that the most educated places in the country, like Boston, > Minneapolis, Washington and Austin, Tex., have high employment rates > while the least educated, including many in the South and inland > California, have low ones. The official unemployment rate for 25- to > 34-year-old college graduates remains just 3.3 percent. > > Beyond education, the nation has also been less aggressive than some > others in using counseling and retraining to help the jobless find work. > To take one small example, a recent study in France by the renowned > M.I.T. economist Esther Duflo and four colleagues found that placement > programs for unemployed workers helped not only the workers but the > economy too. The counseled workers were more likely to find work, and > they did not simply take jobs from other candidates. Overall employment > rose more quickly in the regions with job counseling. > > Other research notes that the United States has expanded parental leave > and part-time work less than other countries — and, perhaps relatedly, > employment rates among women here have slipped. > > Whatever role these trends are playing, they do not appear to fully > explain the employment decline. It is too big and too widespread. > Existing companies are not adding jobs at the same rate they once did, > and new companies are not forming as quickly. > > What might help? Easing the parts of the regulatory thicket without > societal benefits. Providing public financing for the sorts of > early-stage scientific research and physical infrastructure that the > private sector often finds unprofitable. Long term, nothing is likely to > matter more than improving educational attainment, from preschool > through college (which may have started already). > > Many business executives and economists also point to immigration > policy. Done right, an overhaul could make a difference, many say, by > allowing more highly skilled immigrants to enter the country and by > making life easier for those immigrants already here. Historically, > immigrants have started more than their share of new companies. > > Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the jobs slump is that the > Americans in their 20s and 30s who have been most affected by it remain > decidedly upbeat. They are much more hopeful than older generations, > polls show, that the country’s future will be better than its past. > > Based on what younger adults have been through, that resilience is > impressive. It’s probably necessary, too. The jobs slump will not end > without a large dose of optimism. > > David Leonhardt is the Washington bureau chief of The New York Times. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Tom Walker (Sandwichman) > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Tom Walker (Sandwichman) > _______________________________________________ > 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
