> > Gary McLennan: > > > A leading > >right wing economist Terry McCrann has argued that the layoffs were > >necessary and that anyway, like in USA, the sacked workers would get jobs in > >the service industries. He claims that unemployment in the former American > >steel towns is now 3-4%. He writes > > > >"The old industrial jobs that were destroyed have been replaced with better, > >more sustainable and more meaningful jobs in service industries. This was > >possible only because of the enormous flexibility of the American economy" > > > > Is he correct in this? What has happened over the American rust belt? A > >comment on this plus data would be greatly appreciated. > > The right winger is, to a large extent, right. During the sixties, when unemployment was low workers often intentionally screwed up, as an act of rebellion. Capitalism is brutal. It needs depressions and unemployment to become efficient. The idea that the new jobs are meaningful is ridiculous. I recall going back home in the mid 70s and early 80s. Many older steel workers were long term unemployed. The most common pattern that I saw was that their wives took menial jobs to support them, although a few did go back to school to retrain. ---- Michael Perelman Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
