[PEN-L:259] Cornell Scholar Gets Beverly Suit Dismissed; Poultry ExecsFace Arrest; Ct. Rules For Cabbies, But Decision is Stayed
Suit Against Researcher Thrown out Wednesday, May 27, 1998; 8:30 p.m. EDT ITHACA, N.Y. (AP) -- A federal judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit against a Cornell University labor researcher who described a company as ``one of the nation's most notorious labor law violators.'' Kate Bronfenbrenner was sued by Beverly Enterprises, Inc. over comments she made about the company during a town meeting in Pittsburgh in May 1997. A federal judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted a motion to dismiss the case Friday. Bronfenbrenner had been invited by several congressmen to speak at the town meeting on proposed legislation that would bar major labor law violators from obtaining federal grants. Bronfenbrenner zeroed in on tactics U.S. companies use to beat back unionization drives and counter-strategies that unions find work best. She described Beverly as ``one of the nation's most notorious labor law violators.'' Bronfenbrenner maintained that Beverly fired workers for union activity, harassed and spied on others and illegally altered wages in a systematic campaign of coercion to keep unions from gaining recognition at dozens of its nursing homes. Not only did Beverly challenge her comments as false and defamatory, the company also demanded that she open up her research to inspection as part of pretrial discovery. ``This is a relief not only to me but to the people I surveyed and to all other researchers in other fields who have been watching my case very carefully,'' Bronfenbrenner said. Officials with Beverly, of Fort Smith, Ark., did not return phone messages seeking comment. © Copyright 1998 The Associated Press Poultry Executives Ordered Arrested By Dennis Patterson Associated Press Writer RALEIGH (AP) -- A hearing on alleged political influence-peddling involving legislators and agribusiness began Wednesday with two poultry executives defying their subpoenas to testify, then relenting after they were ordered arrested. The state Board of Elections opened a three-day hearing Wednesday to determine whether House Republicans punished the hog industry last year with a two-year moratorium on new and expanded factory-style operations because of its failure to raise $200,000 for the party in 1996. The FBI and the State Bureau of Investigation are conducting their own inquiries into the allegations. Republicans deny the allegations. Among the first witnesses scheduled to appear were Marvin Johnson, one of North Carolina's largest poultry processors, and Doug Boykin, an associate at the House of Raeford Turkeys, one of Johnson's enterprises. An elections board secretary said Johnson responded with a defiant refusal to appear. Johnson later sent word that he could not attend because he was selling turkeys Wednesday and would be out of town Thursday. After the board ordered them jailed, the men later agreed to appear -- Boykin on Thursday and Johnson on Friday. Boykin was found by SBI agents and about to be hauled to jail ``when we decided to give him a break,'' elections board chairman Larry Leake said. Johnson was located in Maryland. Nick Weaver, an executive with Goldsboro Milling Co., testified that he believed Johnson served as a go-between for House Speaker Harold Brubaker and livestock operators because of his connections with the industry and GOP affiliation. Weaver said Johnson's refusal to testify was understandable ``because he's between a rock and a hard place.'' ``If he testifies for the speaker, he upsets the people who are in business with him, his friends in animal agriculture,'' Weaver said. ``If he testifies for the animal agriculture industry, then he upsets the speaker and his Republican friends.'' Republican Reps. John Nichols and Robert Grady testified Brubaker had indicated the hog industry had not done enough to support Republicans in the 1996 elections, but they said they didn't consider his remarks unethical. However, they said Brubaker indicated that pork producers might have a bad year in 1997 and told them: ``They didn't come up with enough. We don't owe them a thing. They'll have to take what they get.'' Nichols and Grady said the subject of money did not come up during the conversation. The influence-peddling allegations surfaced during an elections board hearing in April. That hearing was held to consider whether Farmers for Fairness, an association of the state's largest hog producers, violated campaign laws by running advertisements criticizing state Rep. Cindy Watson, a Republican who backed the moratorium last year. The Elections Board ruled then that the hog group had violated election laws by using corporate money to influence an election. That law was later ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. During those hearings, a consultant for Farmers for Fairness said the industry believed the moratorium was inte
[PEN-L:275] uk-policy Working Time 1 (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 16:07:19 +0100 (BST) From: David Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: uk-policy Working Time In our discussion of excessive working time, one explanation for it which was put forward was that employers currently have the incentive to employ fewer workers each working longer hours. Is it possible then to reverse this incentive, to induce employers to employ more workers each working fewer hours? I previously put forward a proposal for this to the uk-policy group in the paper "Tax and benefit reform to reduce unemployment", which is available on the web at: http://www.democdesignforum.demon.co.uk/unemp.nexus.html The proposal is simply to convert the income tax and social security tax currently paid by employees, into a "Work-Spreading Tax" paid by the employer. Since taxation is progressive, the employer will pay no tax or reduced tax on the first portion of a person's wage. In effect this will be a wage subsidy, worth about 35 pounds per week per worker. Employers will thus have an incentive to spread the available work, so as to receive more of these subsidies, employing more workers each working fewer hours, to do a given amount of work. For example, suppose that a firm, instead of employing 33 workers each working 38 hours per week, employs 38 workers each working 33 hours per week. The firm will thus reduce the tax it has to pay, and hence its labour cost, by 5 x 35 = 175 pounds per week. Thus if workers leave or retire, or if production needs to be expanded, the firm will seek to give jobs to unemployed workers, rather than to give its existing work force more hours of work per week. It will probably prefer to take them on as part-timers, since this will enable it to employ more new workers, and save more tax. If a pay rise is being negotiated, the firm will probably seek to include some reduction of hours per week as part of the bargain, that is, it will seek to persuade workers to take part or all of their rise as an increase in leisure, rather than as an increase in total pay. This will allow it to save tax, by taking on more workers from the unemployed. WST is likely to increase security of employment, for those workers who are already employed. Firms which at present respond to the opportunities of new technology by dismissing part of their workforce, will be more likely under WST to retain their workers, but reduce the hours of work offered to them. This incentive to the employers is not a new subsidy, which would be vastly expensive, but instead it is an essentially costless adjustment to the present method of collecting tax on employees' income. Progressive taxation is already being used, which levies no tax or low tax on the first portion of an employee's income. WST simply makes use of this existing feature of present taxation, to provide an incentive for the employer to spread work. Dr David Chapman Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Democracy Design Forum Coles House, Buxhall, Stowmarket, Suffolk IP14 3EB, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1449 736 223 Fax: +44 (0) 1449 612 274 Website: http://www.democdesignforum.demon.co.uk/index.html - Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/ Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:274] uk-policy Working Time 9 (fwd)
forwarded message --- From: Tom Walker I agree with Gavin Cameron's point that the nominal incidence of a tax is not the same as its economic incidence. That is the argument underlying my proposal to arbitrage free time. http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/arbitrag.htm However, Cameron's next comment that labour bears all the tax burden because capital is mobile and labour is not is a non-sequitur. Capital is not 100% mobile, labour is not 0% mobile. Furthermore, labour can withdraw from the market for many 'non-economic' reasons: death, illnesses, child bearing, spiritual quest, madness. That is to say, labour can disappear into thin air. The economic incidence of a tax has to be seen as an empirical question, not a theoretical presupposition. Secondly, again on the 'lump of labour fallacy' -- may we at last lay this lumpy red herring to rest? Economic analysis is built entirely on ceteris paribus exercises. The assumption that a given number of hours could be differently distributed among workers is nothing more or less than a ceteris paribus assumption. As with any economic analysis, the job isn't done until the abstractions are brought back to concrete earth. Why should the distribution of work hours be held to a different standard of concreteness than any other economic question? I dare say that the great neo-liberal/monetarist edifice is built entirely on counter-factuals that have been conveniently forgotten about in the rush to affirm the infallibility of markets. The 'lump of labour fallacy' charge is less a critque than it is a charm to ward off non-conforming ideas. There are, Gavin Cameron concludes, "very few free lunches in economic policy." The great American economist, John Maurice Clark, would have been more precise: unemployment is not a free lunch. "If all industry were integrated and owned by workers, what would be the relation of constant to variable expense?" Clark asked in his 1923 treatise on overhead costs. His answer was that, "it would be clear to worker-owners that the real cost of labor could not be materially reduced by unemployment." Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:273] uk-policy Working Time 8 (fwd)
Forwarded message From: Portes, Jonathan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 10:02:51 -0400 There seems to be some confusion here. The work spreading tax doesn't increase "employment", in the sense of hours worked; but it does potentially reduce unemployment. Switching from a flat rate tax on the purchase of any commodity - including labour - to a tax that only applies after a threshold amount of that commodity will clearly make it more attractive to purchase that commodity in smaller "lumps". In the labour context, that means more people working fewer hours each. Gavin Cameron writes > -Original Message- > > Secondly, the following quote from David Chapman's posting supports my > argument that the WSJ is an example of the 'lump of labour fallacy': > > >Employers will thus have an incentive to spread the available work, > so as > >to receive more of these subsidies, employing more workers each > working > >fewer hours, to do a given amount of work. > It is true that it is not necessarily the case that the "given amount of work" will in fact remain constant; it could increase or decrease, with resulting second order effects on unemployment. This is presumably what Gavin means by the lump of labour fallacy in this context. But David Chapman's basic point is clearly correct. If it is currently economic to employ three workers for 40 hours a week each, then a work-spreading tax - by, for example, exempting the first 10 hours wages per employee from labour taxation - would make it relatively more attractive for employers to hire 4 workers at 30 hours a week (ignoring transitional costs,etc). Unemployment would fall. This is not the lump-of-labour fallacy; indeed, it is the basic neoclassical analysis of tax incidence, and does not rely on any assumptions about labour market structures. There might, under certain circumstances, be efficiency losses, but this would depend on other factors. On a secondary point, while Gavin is correct that in theory switching from a payroll to other taxes won't reduce unemployment, this is only true if the payroll tax is a fixed percentage of income. If payroll (or other labour) taxes are "regressive" - that is, they are a greater proportion of income for the lower paid or for those who work fewer hours, as is generally the case - then switching from a payroll tax to a flat rate income or consumption tax will in general reduce unemployment, for the same reason given above. - Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/ Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:272] uk-policy Working Time 7 (fwd)
forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 12:21:54 +0100 (BST) From: Gavin Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: uk-policy work-spreading tax Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Following on from my previous posting, perhaps I should clarify why the Work-Spreading Tax would have little or no effect on unemployment. Firstly, my understanding of the WST is that it shifts the 'nominal incidence' of employees national insurance onto the employer. It should be clear that the nominal incidence of a tax is not the same as its 'economic incidence'. If capital is internationally mobile and labour is not, labour bears all the tax burden regardless of who notionally pays the tax. Secondly, the following quote from David Chapman's posting supports my argument that the WSJ is an example of the 'lump of labour fallacy': >Employers will thus have an incentive to spread the available work, so as >to receive more of these subsidies, employing more workers each working >fewer hours, to do a given amount of work. Of course, I may have misunderstood the WST scheme. It may have been making the slightly more sophisticated point that you could reduce payroll taxes and shift the burden onto consumption taxes (eg VAT) and so keep the overall tax burden constant (this is the point Geoff Beacon is making I think) . However, the key to understanding the impact of tax changes on employment is to recognize that it is the overall tax burden on labour (that is, payroll taxes plus personal income taxes plus consumption taxes) that is important, rather than just the payroll tax rate. Therefore, when I said that 'high overall labour taxes' could raise unemployment, I was not referring to payroll taxes in particular but to the total tax burden. A cut in payroll tax that is offset by a rise in VAT will have no effect on post tax real wages and so cannot raise labour supply. Therefore it will not reduce unemployment. There is a good discussion of this issue in a paper by Steve Nickell in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Summer 1997 (see pages 68-81 especially). In short, there is no evidence that lowering payroll taxes and raising consumption taxes will raise employment. This explains why Denmark, which has no payroll taxes, has unemployment of about the European average. It may be however, that reducing the overall tax burden (the sum of payroll, income and consumption taxes) may reduce unemployment. Nickell suggests that a 10 percentage point fall in the total tax burden might reduce unemployment by around 25 percent. Of course, a 10 percentage point fall in the tax burden is an enormous change. Sadly, there are very few free lunches in economic policy. Gavin Cameron ~~~ Dr Gavin Cameron Research Fellow Nuffield College, Oxford, OX1 1NF tel: +44 1865 278653 fax: +44 1865 278621 mobile: 0802 441340 http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/Users/Cameron/research.html ~~~ - Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/ Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:271] uk-policy Working Time 6 (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- From: David Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: uk-policy Working Time On 26/5/98, Gavin Cameron wrote. >..job sharing or a 'work-spreading tax' could not have very >much effect on total unemployment. Indeed, economists have a name for the >idea that cutting working hours would raise employment: the 'lump of labour >fallacy'. The 'work-spreading tax' I proposed (in my contribution of 24/5/98 and in my paper at: http://www.democdesignforum.demon.co.uk/unemp.nexus.html) is a change of the present income tax and social security tax paid by the employees, into a tax paid by the employer. WST is such that any individual employer pays less tax on a given total amount of wages, if he spreads the work between more workers. Thus it seems reasonable to expect that, when there are unemployed persons available who can do the work, the change to WST will result in more people being employed. No prediction is made about any change in the total number of hours worked, in the whole economy. In view of this, the lump of labour fallacy does not seem relevant. Dr David Chapman Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Democracy Design Forum Coles House, Buxhall, Stowmarket, Suffolk IP14 3EB, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1449 736 223 Fax: +44 (0) 1449 612 274 Website: http://www.democdesignforum.demon.co.uk/index.html - Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/ Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:270] uk-policy Working Time 5 (fwd)
-- forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 14:36:23 +0100 (BST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f From: Eero Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To Geoff, and all, I don't think that one has to be an academic economist to see how the arguments for WST indeed do run foul of the "lump of labour" fallacy, albeit not in the same way as arguments for an allegedly employment-increasing general cutback of working time. To quote David Chapman's mail on the WST from May 25th: >For example, suppose that a firm, instead of employing 33 workers each >working 38 hours per week, employs 38 workers each working 33 hours per >week. The firm will thus reduce the tax it has to pay, and hence its >labour cost, by 5 x 35 = 175 pounds per week. Theoretically, this is of course the case. But practically? The example still assumes at least short-term stability in the amount of available work--it's an assumption entirely necessary for the rather static argument that employers will choose between the two alternatives identified, and not some third alternative such as rationalizing production in order to maintain output but at lower levels of necessary labour time inputs (by just 15 full-time workers, let us say!). In this day and age, why would we have to assume that tax incentives of the kind advocated here would be more powerful in affecting employers' hiring decisions than the benefits of rationalizing away even more workers entirely? If the latter option can be combined even with increased production (by no means necessarily demanding more workers), the tax incentives can become even less attractive. As far as the continued logic of the argument is concerned, there are also good reasons for questioning why it is the pool of the currently unemployed, in particular, that employers will look to for purposes of filling the newly lucrative vacancies (even assuming that these are not simply abolished entirely). The extensive early retirement programs put into effect in Continental Europe were built on precisely this assumption. But the envisioned result of "redistribution of work" appears by and large simply not to have happened. If the "work" was redistributed someplace, it appears mostly NOT to have been redistributed to the unemployed (Kohli et al (eds,) Time for Retirement, CUP, 1991). I think that evidence of this kind is to be emphatically recommended even for busy people to read (which I take it that most of us are on this list), insofar as it can help to improve the quality of policy recommendations which the busywork aims to produce! with all due courtesy, EC - Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/ Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:269] uk-policy Working Time 4 (fwd)
- forwarded message - From: Tom Walker I'd like to raise three point with regard to Dr. David Chapman's proposal for a work-spreading tax and then elaborate on a proposal of my own. First, I agree with Dr. Chapman that the progressive income tax contains a potential incentive to employers to spread the work. However, I would argue that that potential could readily be realized by employers regardless of who nominally pays the tax. In other words, there is no _actual_ need for a change to public tax policy other than to bring something to the attention of employers that they seem not to have noticed, namely price signals. Second, my assertion that employers have systematically and chronically ignored price signals in the labour market is a bold one, so it is some comfort that I am not alone. Jeffrey Pfeffer of the Stanford Graduate School of Business makes the same claim in an article in the May/June 1998 Harvard Review of Business, "Six Dangerous Myths About Pay." In Pfeffer's view employers typically confuse labour costs with labour rates, overestimate the effect of labour costs on total costs and misjudge the relationship between pay and work performance. Managers are more likely to look at what everybody else is doing and then do the same rather than implement pay systems that actually work. Third, I was disappointed to read Gavin Cameron's knee-jerk hoisting of the 'lump of labour' canard. Dr. Chapman's work-spreading tax doesn't rely on any 'lump of labour fallacy' and Cameron's "economist's perspective" on the 'lump of labour', is not at all helpful. "Having a name for the idea that cutting working hours would raise employment" is quite a different thing than explaining what is wrong with a particular proposal to change the structure of tax incentives for hours of work. There's also "a name" for endless and exclusive tinkering on the labour market supply-side: 'blame the victim'. Shall we dispense with the thinly veiled name calling? My own proposal is for realizing the work-spreading potential of the progressive income tax without any public policy change -- other than perhaps a public effort to inform employers of the profitable opportunities. I will give only a short description here as I have posted a more detailed version of the proposal at: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/arbitrag.htm A PROPOSAL FOR ARBITRAGING FREE TIME When a commodity sells for unequal prices in different markets, an opportunity arises to profit from arbitrage -- buying and selling the commodity simultaneously in the different markets. The commodity in question is free time. This proposal would arbitrage the market for free time by rewarding years of service with more free time rather than with higher annual income. The typical collective agreement as well as the personnel policies of many non-unionized employers contains a schedule of wage rates that provides for service increments within a job classification and pay grades between classifications. The unquestioned assumption is that as an employee moves up the wage rate schedule, the annual paid hours remain constant and his or her annual income increases in proportion to the increasing wage rate. An equally logical (but unheard of!) alternative would be to keep annual incomes steady while reducing hours of work in direct proportion to the wage increments. That is to say, more free time -- rather than higher income -- would be the reward for skill and years of service. This is not to say that all people, or even most, would prefer having more free time to having more income. It is only to point out that nowhere in the standard collective agreement is it acknowledged that they even might. Nor does the standard collective agreement offer any comparison of the relative benefits of such a trade off between free time and income. For an employee facing a marginal tax rate of, say, 33 per cent for example, one extra day off would be worth one and a half days' income. Progressive income taxation means the higher the income, the greater the relative value of free time. For an employer, selling free time to experienced, high wage employees and buying it from new recruits would be a good way to save on labour costs. Over the longer term, the benefit to the employer would be a well balanced workforce with progressively experienced younger employees moving up to take over for the glut of aging baby boomers who will soon be dying, retiring and/or burning out (if they haven't already). Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:268] uk-policy Working Time 3 (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 07:35:08 +0100 (BST) From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: uk-policy unemployment and inequality I am sure Gavin Cameron is right. If only we were all economists and diligent enough to read the excellent work of Steve Nickell we would understand the nature of unemployment better. But just for the busy and less gifted perhaps he could explain why David Chapman's 'work-spreading tax' falls foul of the 'lump of labour fallacy'. I understood that the fallacy was to believe that the amount of work was fixed. I don't see why a tax that has the effect of restricting the supply of labour (as the WST does?) sould be fallacious in this way. And surely if it is a wage subsidy as David Chapman suggests, it is the other side of the coin to Gavin Cameron's point that one of the explanations for high unemployment is high labour taxes or high minimum wages. - Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/ Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:267] uk-policy Working Time 2 (fwd)
--forewarded message--- Gavin Cameron ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Tue, 26 May 1998 09:19:56 +0100 (BST) While the recent postings on unemployment and inequality have been interesting, I thought an economist's perspective might be helpful. To take unemployment first of all, a good starting point for reading is the work of Steve Nickell. In the latest issue (May 1998) of the Economic Journal, there is a very accessible series of papers on unemployment across the OECD. In general, high unemployment is quite well explained by the following labour market features: 1) generous unemployment benefits that are not time-limited. 2) high unionization with wages bargained collectively and little coordination between either unions or employers. 3) high overall labour taxes or high minimum wages for young people. 4) poor educational standards at the bottom end of the labour market. It is important to note that there is little evidence that trends in globalisation and skills-biased technical change (or weightlessness as it is called by some commentators) can explain trends in aggregate unemployment, although they may be important for particular industries. This suggests that job sharing or a 'work-spreading tax' could not have very much effect on total unemployment. Indeed, economists have a name for the idea that cutting working hours would raise employment: the 'lump of labour fallacy'. Instead, unemployment seems to be driven by other important institutional features of the labour market such as the bargaining system and incentives for people to seek work. An alternative strategy for reducing unemployment would be to focus on improving the search activities and the skills of both the long-term unemployed and the unskilled, as well as reforming the benefit system to increase incentives. Turning to increased inequality, it is both a cause and a consequence of other developments in the UK and world economy. For example, countries with a lot of inequality in educational outcomes tend to have more income inequality, but it is clear that causality could flow in both directions. Ie, poverty reduces the incentive to acquire skills, just as low skills trap people in poverty. Since inequality seems to have increased in most industries and professions since the 1970s, and to have even increased among those with similar qualifications (i.e lawyers, bond-traders, footballers), it does not seem to be significantly driven by the globalisation of production which has only affected certain sectors of the economy. Potential treatments for inequality need to reflect this complex causality. Better quality education at the bottom end of the labour market is an obvious approach. In this context, my own view is that setting a national inequality target would be unhelpful compared with setting a national educational target. I hope these thoughts are of some interest. To summarize, I think that government policies can play a big role in reducing inequality and unemployment, but that such policies need to reflect the substantial (and accessible) body of economic research in the area. Since it appears de rigeur to finish these postings with a reference to a web-site, readers may be interested in a paper I have recently written for the Journal of International Affairs which discusses the effect of globalisation and weightlessness. It can be found at http://hicks.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/cameron/jia.ps Gavin Cameron ~~~ Dr Gavin Cameron Research Fellow Nuffield College, Oxford, OX1 1NF tel: +44 1865 278653 fax: +44 1865 278621 mobile: 0802 441340 http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/Users/Cameron/research.html ~~~ - Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/ Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:266] Intro: Working Time debate on uk-policy list
I am forwarding to pen-l a series of nine messages that have been exchanged in the past few days on the uk-policy list. I have numbered the messages in roughly the order I have received them and given them the same subject heading. The original messages and subsequent discussion can be retrieved from the uk-policy archive at http://www.netnexus.org/ I am forwarding this series of posts because I think this is an important debate and I would like to see discussion of it on the pen-l list. Of course, pen-l subscribers may also be interested in joining in the discussion on the uk-policy list. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:246] Re: In Defense of History
At 07:59 25/05/98 +, Eric Nilsson wrote: >Ricardo Duchesne wrote, >> Neoclassical economics (and much of marxist economics, I would >> add) is still positivistic in that they both accept the >>empiricist-analytical presuppositions of the natural sciences >>without reflection. > >The largest part of marxist, and other heterodox, economists >are mired in one of two perspectives: >1-What they do is "obviously" true--based on casual empirical >observation--and what others do is obviously mere >"ideology" (with a small 'i'), defined crudely as lies, >because these others deny the self-evident facts. >2-Everything is a paradigm or research program and, > so, "empirical facts" cannot be understood apart from > the paradigm. Paradigms/research programs cannot > justify themselves, therefore, by external empirical > evidence as such things do not exist. Indeed, in this > second perspective all uses of empirical "evidence" to > confront the claims of a paradigm are rejected: those > who insist on doing such things "just don't get it" and > are to be looked upon with pity. > >I think both of the above represent silliness. There are much more >sophisticated ways to go about thinking about the relationship >between "facts" and "theory." _ Could you please elaborate? I do agree with most of what you say above. Cheers, ajit sinha > >Eric >. >Eric Nilsson >Economics Department >CSUSB >San Bernardino, CA 92407 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >909-880-5564 > >
[PEN-L:253] Re: principles
Paul Zarembka wrote: >First > they came for the gays, but I am not a gay; then they came for the > Trotskyists, but I am not a Trotskyite; then they came...; then they came > for me and no one was left". This would be the men in flapping white coats, presumably. Mark
[PEN-L:258] [Fwd: Why Unions Matter]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --10CF60B0406B32C9850F6D02 Sid Shniad wrote: > http://www.nea.org/society/unions.html > > Why Unions Matter > > This is an excellent piece written by Elaine Bernard, the director of the > Trade Union Program at Harvard University. Well worth printing and sharing > with others. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] --10CF60B0406B32C9850F6D02 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed, 27 May 1998 13:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 13:51:47 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sid Shniad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Why Unions Matter http://www.nea.org/society/unions.html Why Unions Matter This is an excellent piece written by Elaine Bernard, the director of the Trade Union Program at Harvard University. Well worth printing and sharing with others. --10CF60B0406B32C9850F6D02--
[PEN-L:257] RE: fwd: Communist Quiz
The Fifth Estate," Detroit, MI, whatever the hell > that is] [ Reputedly now defunct ] > --- End Forwarded Message --- It was an underground paper some time ago.
[PEN-L:256] fwd: Communist Quiz
--- Begin Forwarded Message --- Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 18:58:41 +0100 From: Jim Monaghan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Communist Quiz Sender: Marxism International <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Marxism International <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> David Walters dug this up, thought it might amuse the less santimonious Jim Monaghan David W. === Communist Quiz (Not "Who won the F.A. cup?") ME? A GREAT LEADER? "ME, START A VANGUARD PARTY TO LEAD THE WORKING CLASS TO REVOLUTION? YOU MUST BE KIDDING!" JUST IMAGINE BEING A RESPECTED AND BELOVED FATHERLY LEADER UNDER WHOSE WISE GUIDANCE THE REVOLUTIONARY MASSES WILL FORGE AHEAD DAILY WITH THE FIERY ZEAL OF A "SPEED-UP" CAMPAIGN Over the past few years, Party Builders Associates has aided countless individuals and groups to form vanguard parties intelligently tailored to their own needs. These people are now leading creative, happy lives fighting one another. What we've done for others, we can do for you. A few minutes filling out the following questionnaire may be the best investment you'll ever make. Your answers will enable Party Builders Associates, preserving strict confidentiality, to work out a party program that is JUST RIGHT for you and your friends. And now, here's the questionnaire. We advise using a pencil, since these are by no means easy questions, and your party will not be able to alter the positions taken here without seriously damaging your credibility among the workers. 1) The Russian Revolution turned away from socialism in: [] (a) 1917 [] (b) 1927 [] (c) 1953 [] (d) 1957 [] (e) It hasn't yet, but my group will be the first to denounce it when it does 2) Black people are: [] (a) A nation [] (b) A nation of a new type [] (c) A super-exploited sector of the working class [] (d) Petit-bourgeois [] (e) A colony [] (f) Please send me more information about this controversial group 3) The main danger facing the workers' vanguard in the present epoch is: [] (a) Right opportunism [] (b) "Left" sectarianism [] (c) Right opportunism masking as "left" sectarianism [] (d) My parents [] (e) Other (please specify) 4) Rather than focus on narrow economic issues, my party will offer a cultural critique of life in advanced capitalist countries. The following are signs of capitalist decadence: [] (a) Feminism [] (b) Trotskyism [] (c) Pornographic movies [] (d) Recent price increases in pornographic movies [] (e) Other (please give exact details) 5) I would like to include the following in the title of my party: [] (a) Labor [] (b) Workers [] (c) Revolutionary [] (d) Socialist [] (e) Communist [] (f) Vanguard [] (g) Progressive [] (h) October(November) [] (i) United [] (j) International [] (k) World [] (l) Movement [] (m) M [] (n) L [] (o) All of the above [reprinted from "The Fifth Estate," Detroit, MI, whatever the hell that is] [ Reputedly now defunct ] --- End Forwarded Message --- -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:252] Re: principles
> Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 03:32:20 -0400 (EDT) > From: Gerald Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:247] Re: principles > Previously, I wrote: > > > A few days ago someone on pen-l commented on the sad state of the Left. > Here we are in 1998 and a group of "progressives" can't agree that > homophobia, cop-baiting, anti-labor snitching, etc. should be condemned. > Woe be the revolution! > > If someone had *publicly* and *in writing* voiced outrageously racist > and/or sexist comments, would/should we also be silent then? > > In the name of "unity" and opposition to "flames", basic > socialist/radical/progressive principles are being abandoned. > > What price "unity"? "Unity" with whom?Perhaps it is time to > take the "P" out of PEN-L. > The issue here is not principles but the politics of praise: whoever praises your intellectual-academic standing is your political friend. I am human. I know praising matters. For this very reason praising should mean something; it should have some connection to the merits of an argument, even beyond ideological attachments. It is not as if we are the representatives of a mass ideological party. We are not debating the Gotha Programme. If we keep to the merits of an argument -yes, induding politically committed ones - we may avoid the personal attacks, and perhaps also the politics of praise. ricardo that > > > > > in case there are ***any*** doubts about Mark J, remember what he had to > > > say: > > > He wrote that: > > > ***THE _NEW LEFT REVIEW_ IS A "FAGGOT-VALHALLA" CONTROLLED BY M16!*** > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[PEN-L:251] Comment on Moby Dick
A friend of mine who teaches American studies wrote: "My only major disagreement with CLR [James]: we should be happy that the ship goes down, even if the workers mostly die and Ahab is the one that pulls it down; it was not only the first factory and the first multicultural one at that, but the first Auschwitz of the sea, and one of the most important of all. That was something that should have been seen in the 1940s and early 1950s, but the workerist perspective made the peception almost impossible. Ditto automobiles and their social role, naturally." Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:250] BLS Daily Report
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. -- =_NextPart_000_01BD8973.ECFB8390 BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1998 Unemployment rates fell in April in all four regions of the U.S., with the most sharpest drops in the Midwest and Northeast. Declines were recorded in 35 states and the District of Columbia. The national jobless rate dropped from 4.7 percent in March to 4.3 percent in April. Nonfarm payroll employment increased in 37 states (Daily Labor Report, May 26, page D-1). The number of families in which the husband and wife are employed continued to grow in 1997, as did the number of mothers in the workforce, BLS reports (Daily Labor Report, May 22, page D-3). Initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits filed with state agencies rose by 8,000 to a seasonally adjusted rate of 313,000 for the week ended May 16, the Employment and Training Administration announces (Daily Labor Report, May 22, page D-1)_The number of people filing for state unemployment benefits rose in line with expectations (New York Times, May 22, page C2)_Initial claims remain low despite 8,000 rise (Wall Street Journal, May 22, page A2). Led by the construction industry, the third quarter of 1998 will be the busiest worker recruiting period in the last 20 years, a Manpower Inc. survey projects. Of the 15,600 businesses surveyed by the temporary help agency, 32 percent said they intended to increase hiring in July, August, and September, 5 percent will cut staff, and 59 percent will maintain the current size of their workforce The demand for workers in the third quarter will be uniform throughout the nation (Daily Labor Report, May 26, page A-3)_U.S. businesses are expected to continue their high levels of hiring this summer, according to Manpower Among firms surveyed a year ago, 30 percent of firms anticipated summertime increases, and 5 percent planned for decreases. Those were also the figures for the spring months of 1998 With so few people out of work and looking for jobs, companies are having to employ increasingly creative techniques to attract and retain qualified workers. At the same time, the survey results provide little support for forecasters and policymakers who are predicting that economic growth will slow in coming months (Washington Post, May 26, page D11)_Think the labor market is tight now? Wait until next quarter. Nearly a third of U.S. businesses intend to increase staffing in the third quarter Manpower says the results are the strongest hiring intentions for any third quarter since 1978. The staffing giant adds that service industries are posting the largest hiring gains, as employees in hotels and restaurants hop to better-paying jobs, leaving those employers with positions to fill Employers in Midwestern states face the tightest labor markets, but those in Western states are hiring at the fastest rate (Wall Street Journal, "Work Week," May 26, page A1). -- =_NextPart_000_01BD8973.ECFB8390 b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOzgcFABsACQAfADEAAwBRAQEggAMADgAAAM4HBQAb AAkAIAAqAAMASwEBCYABACEzNDBGOUU1MzNFRjVEMTExODg4RTAwMjBBRjlDMDMwOAAKBwEE gAEAEQAAAEJMUyBEYWlseSBSZXBvcnQAkAUBDYAEAAICAAIAAQOQBgAsCgAAHQMALgAA AAABvYlzEEtTng8v9T4R0YiOACCvnAMIAAAFrDMAHgAxQAENUklDSEFSRFNPTl9E AAMAGkAAHgAwQAENUklDSEFSRFNPTl9EAAMAGUAAAgEJEAEAAABeBwAA WgcAAHwMAABMWkZ14XlAyf8ACgEPAhUCpAPkBesCgwBQEwNUAgBjaArAc2V0bjIGAAbDAoMyA8UC AHDccnESIAcTAoB9CoAIzx8J2QKACoENsQtgbmcxODAzMwr7EvIB0CBCgkwF8ERBSUxZB/AARVBP UlQsIFSoVUVTGMBZGYBNGfAIIDI2GYAxOTk4QwqFCoVVbmVtC1BvRwbACfAFQHJhdAeRZvxlbAMg C4AT0BOQAxEdUR8HQAMgAhAIcByQZWdpAwIgBCBvZiB0aGXxG8AuUy4ZgAPwH1AfQ9UEYHMFQHMR wXAHkAVAOmQDYHAEIB1RH1JNaexkdyEiAHBkB7AU0R9gsmEgoC4gGLAFkGwLgP8HkSJgFTAekQWh DbAi0B1RfDM1IMABkBzCIrIfUkT1BAB0BRBjBUAfIQhQCkDXBtAHMCOBVB9hbhywHtHxB0Agam8C YAeQBCAcog8hUyEQItADUiA0LjeyICEQcmMcYh1RTQrA6xGwH0BvKkEzKoodgyOBuSLwbmYKwCow CrB5A2D/HSEb+QuABQAjQST1KnAlhCYuMFEjkChEC3BseYwgTAGgBbFSZXAU0S8aES3QGmMKsGcm US0x/ikjgRr8J+MnYQSQHxItcM5tAxAIkCGjd2gmwCAk8Gh1c2IisiKyA/AdAP8eACRhG/Qk8QWg AjALgApQdyYRK7AJwG8H4B1RGrE3/xmAI1AhUCJAH0M0aARgH1HrEeAhtncFsGsCECqxGYBfGIIV MDGiME8xXjIyZzP7MwAa/EkDAChAKIEj0Atwtm0c4QWxdRvqC4BzCHDbAHAqwCA0kBvgZiAAHOH/ AxAk8R/zJYMeADKgLwA1Uo8DYBHwQ9A+QDgsMEawPSuSYSDAI0EoYj4xYWQ+ajZwHMAi0CkzHyEz Md4zRqNCMjvzCeBrLjAiwNsk8TICMRqBH1JFHAgisq5UHKALgAuAZxPQZDUg7wMAJpEoMyKhbghg Q6E9j/s+nzJpX1EyNCwhECGAKOD/RGJMskIyRSRCe0PnRhMdUfMj4h/kZXghECbQKDNOZj0Hwlk8 QRmQB3JQDUMyf1EkQU0VMADAVZI5MQ2wc35wIAAfcEaUBRAR8E51V90eElMmoAngBUBKCGEoce1Q DUFZcEBdTCTxRmEfUrs4QSaRdSbQTaILgGRIISxyeUsUH1BpCyAgcf51CsAcwDSzGrIf4R0hNJD9 H0NiNnA1UQVAPDI0oSSR/2FQQWFMwSqRHtAlAx9SC2C/IKEYUTgAEdE50SsxbjGgmyRBQTFjI4BD YXZlTyC5E5BvalaRTmAjkE8fNPAxNSw2RsFk0iQBEfD/BCBpRGBoHMAcAAWwCsBPINkfYGxwRXRi QTMSICqW/nMLcCYTTyALgBzASmMroZ8u9jZQYtBMsh1RSnVPEPEZgEF1Z0ghOdEiwQZgfwUwG/A0 kRmAJW
[PEN-L:249] BLS Daily Report
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. -- =_NextPart_000_01BD8973.7EC0B7B0 -- =_NextPart_000_01BD8973.7EC0B7B0 b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOzgcFABsACQAcACgAAwBFAQEggAMADgAAAM4HBQAb AAkAHQAlAAMAQwEBCYABACEyOTBGOUU1MzNFRjVEMTExODg4RTAwMjBBRjlDMDMwOAAOBwEE gAEAEQAAAEJMUyBEYWlseSBSZXBvcnQAkAUBDYAEAAICAAIAAQOQBgBQAgAAGwAAAEAAOQBA vMdcc4m9AR4AcAABEQAAAEJMUyBEYWlseSBSZXBvcnQAAgFxAAEWAb2JcxBL U54PL/U+EdGIjgAgr5wDCAAAHgAxQAENUklDSEFSRFNPTl9EAAMAGkAAHgAw QAENUklDSEFSRFNPTl9EAAMAGUAAAwDxPwkEAAADAP0/5AQAAAMAJgAA AwA2AAACAUcAAQAAADBjPVVTO2E9IDtwPUJMUztsPURDUENTTUFJTDEtOTgwNTI3MTMy ODQwWi0zOTc2MwAeADhAAQ0AAABSSUNIQVJEU09OX0QAHgA5QAENUklDSEFS RFNPTl9EAEAABzAQr8Rcc4m9AUAACDCwt8B+c4m9AR4APQABAQAeAB0OAQAA ABEAAABCTFMgRGFpbHkgUmVwb3J0AB4ANRABQDxFMTZFRUE0Q0U5QzdEMDExOUFF NDAwNjA5NzA1Q0Q4ODVBODJBOEBkY3Bjc21haWwxLnBzYi5ibHMuZ292PgALACkAAAsAIwAA AwAGEAADAAcQAAMAEBAAAwAREAAeAAgQAQEAAgF/AAEA AABAPEUxNkVFQTRDRTlDN0QwMTE5QUU0MDA2MDk3MDVDRDg4NUE4MkE4QGRjcGNzbWFpbDEu cHNiLmJscy5nb3Y+AHhp -- =_NextPart_000_01BD8973.7EC0B7B0--
[PEN-L:248] Re: principles
Michael Perelman responds to Jerry Levy that we should all keep silent in the face of homophobia, cop-baiting, etc. Well, Michael, that represents a sharp turn to the right which I won't be joining either on this list or elsewhere in my life. And if you think such silence wins friends and influences people for the REVOLUTION, maybe I'll be permitted a rewrite of a famous quote: "First they came for the gays, but I am not a gay; then they came for the Trotskyists, but I am not a Trotskyite; then they came...; then they came for me and no one was left". Paul _ Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 15:53:58 -0700 From: michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:239] Re: principles Yes, by all means. Gerald Levy wrote: > Does this mean that you think we should all stay silent in the presence of > homophobia, cop-baiting, etc.? * Paul Zarembka, on OS/2 and supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at ** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
[PEN-L:255] [Fwd: Korean general strike - news headlines]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --E2E647498D81D19641587F35 Eric Lee wrote: > The following are news headlines as of 10:50 GMT, according to LabourStart: > > Thousands on strike > Hyundai motor workers vote for walkout > Daewoo workers vote for 2 day partial strike > Authorities to crack down on strikes today > Official KCTU statement on the strike > KCTU sticks to strike schedule > Stage set for gov't, labour clash > KCTU to continue talks with gov't during strike > Labour unrest looms in unstable nation > > LabourStart will be updated continuously as new strike stories appear on > the Web. Its URL is http://www.solinet.org/LEE/labourstart.html > > Eric Lee > > Eric Lee, Kibbutz Ein Dor, 19335 Israel > Visit LabourStart - > Where trade unionists start their day on the net: > http://www.solinet.org/LEE/labourstart.html -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] --E2E647498D81D19641587F35 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED] -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 13:51:56 +0300 Reply-To: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Eric Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Korean general strike - news headlines To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The following are news headlines as of 10:50 GMT, according to LabourStart: Thousands on strike Hyundai motor workers vote for walkout Daewoo workers vote for 2 day partial strike Authorities to crack down on strikes today Official KCTU statement on the strike KCTU sticks to strike schedule Stage set for gov't, labour clash KCTU to continue talks with gov't during strike Labour unrest looms in unstable nation LabourStart will be updated continuously as new strike stories appear on the Web. Its URL is http://www.solinet.org/LEE/labourstart.html Eric Lee Eric Lee, Kibbutz Ein Dor, 19335 Israel Visit LabourStart - Where trade unionists start their day on the net: http://www.solinet.org/LEE/labourstart.html --E2E647498D81D19641587F35--
[PEN-L:254] Re: principles
This flame is ridiculous. Jerry asked should we be silent . I answered, "by all means." No one is asking anybody to condone oppression. Jerry has already made his case about Louis. People on this list can either conclude that Louis is a bad person and should be shunned or that we have better things to do. I guess I was responsible for the whole thread. I said that I appreciated the contributions of Doug and Louis. I retract what I said. They are both evil. I have not asked anybody to leave the list since Malecki, but I do not want to hear any more about this. If you don't like Louis, Doug, Mark Jones or me, just delete anything that one of the evil ones post. Yes, I do want you to be silent. I am sure that Paul Z. knew what I meant when I asked for silence. Enough already! Mark Jones wrote: > Paul Zarembka wrote: > >First > > they came for the gays, but I am not a gay; then they came for the > > Trotskyists, but I am not a Trotskyite; then they came...; then they came > > for me and no one was left". > > > This would be the men in flapping white coats, presumably. > > Mark -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:247] Re: principles
Previously, I wrote: > Susan Flack wrote: > > May only ye who hath no sin cast the 1st stone. > Does this mean that you think we should all stay silent in the presence > of homophobia, cop-baiting, etc.? Michael answered: > Yes, by all means. A few days ago someone on pen-l commented on the sad state of the Left. Here we are in 1998 and a group of "progressives" can't agree that homophobia, cop-baiting, anti-labor snitching, etc. should be condemned. Woe be the revolution! If someone had *publicly* and *in writing* voiced outrageously racist and/or sexist comments, would/should we also be silent then? In the name of "unity" and opposition to "flames", basic socialist/radical/progressive principles are being abandoned. What price "unity"? "Unity" with whom?Perhaps it is time to take the "P" out of PEN-L. Jerry > > in case there are ***any*** doubts about Mark J, remember what he had to > > say: > > He wrote that: > > ***THE _NEW LEFT REVIEW_ IS A "FAGGOT-VALHALLA" CONTROLLED BY M16!***
looking for two references on globalization
I am trying to polish off an article tonight. All that remains is tracking down a few wayward references, and perhaps some folks on pen-l can lend a hand. I am trying to establish the argument that many on the left regard the globalization discourse as a distraction. It was reported here many moons ago that Frances Fox Piven gave a talk to that effect. Has anyone seen anything she has written downplaying globalization? Our own Doug Henwood has adopted a version of that position in debates here and, if I remember correctly, wrote a piece in LBO some time back lambasting liberal anti-globalizers (Korten et al.) Doug, if you're listening, could you offer a cite? And while I'm at it, does anyone know any other "globaloney" references I could employ? It's so much easier to absorb the general mood than keep track of who said what where. (I remember David Gordon's piece in the CJE, which is not in the Econlit database--CJE must not be real economics--but I can find it at the library...) FWIW, the paper I'm finishing is called "Actually Existing Globalization". I gave it at a conference here a month ago and now have to get it in shape for the conference volume. I will be happy to email a copy in WP8 to anyone interested. (I think I made this same offer a month ago and got a few takers. The latest version is near-final and, in good scholarly fashion, includes a long list of other authors who agree with me.) Peter Dorman
