Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: employment

2002-10-12 Thread lisa stolarski
Oh, I have followed this thread a bit, sorry, there is so much email. Melvin makes a fabulous analysis because he points out the opening of a positive space in which opposition to capital can occupy, both in theory and in reality. He has identified fertile ground on which an alternative economy

Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-10 Thread topp8564
On 10/10/2002 1:54 AM, Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thiago Oppermann: Wouldn't the quality of unemployment also be relevant? A rate of 1% where the unemployed end up indentured to credit companies might be a lot worse than 5% if they are free to enjoy productive unemployment.

Re: Re: Re: RE: employment

2002-10-10 Thread Carrol Cox
lisa stolarski wrote: Actually Carrol, I think in Melvin's theory the technically unemployed and under employed play a significant role in revolution. It was really fascinating, you should read it if you have not already. Many sectors of the working class play (will play) a significant

Re: Re: Re: RE: employment

2002-10-10 Thread Carrol Cox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose that what interests me in this discussion is not the question of the political significance of the third digit right of the point, but rather that of the social role of different kinds of unemployment and near-unemployment. Correct! But that is

RE: Re: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-09 Thread Devine, James
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31131] Re: Re: Re: employment Thiago Oppermann: Wouldn't the quality of unemployment also be relevant? A rate of 1% where the unemployed end up indentured to credit companies might be a lot worse than 5% if they are free to enjoy productive unemployment. ... there's

Re: Re: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-09 Thread Michael Perelman
Nice post, Lou, except for the personal dig at the end. I remember when the New Republic was my fave. Kopkind and Ridgeway were great. On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 06:26:18PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: I guess that a different kind of left is being described here than

Re: RE: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-08 Thread ravi
Devine, James wrote: Please don't tell me what I think. did you hear the one about the two behaviourists who were having sex? at the end of the steamy session, one of them said to the other it was good for you. was it good for me?. most of the time i couldn't even tell what you write,

RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-08 Thread Devine, James
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31048] Re: RE: Re: Re: employment ravi: did you hear the one about the two behaviourists who were having sex? at the end of the steamy session, one of them said to the other it was good for you. was it good for me?. -- no, one would say: my behavior clearly reinforced

Re: RE: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-08 Thread Doug Henwood
Devine, James wrote: OK fellas, I am going to imagine what Sabri could have meant. JD's are not the the only perspectives on how we can treat statistics, government or otherwise. Yes, even statistics are subject to perspective, numbers may be objective but their presentation has its purposes.

Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-08 Thread Michael Perelman
Don't we see the same thing in every anti-war statement? X is a very bad person. I don't support X, but . On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 11:23:05AM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: There's this extremely annoying habit in left discourse (cue to Carrol Cox to say that the left doesn't exist) that

Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-08 Thread Doug Henwood
Michael Perelman wrote: Don't we see the same thing in every anti-war statement? X is a very bad person. I don't support X, but . No, it's not the same. X (= Saddam, Slobo, etc.) generally is a very bad person. I was at an antiwar demo - a very good, inspiring one - in NYC just the

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-08 Thread Louis Proyect
Look at the shit Marc Cooper takes from people busily policing left ideological boundaries. There are American leftists - I won't name names, for the sake of amity - who spend more time denouncing him and The Nation magazine than they do actually engaging with American politics. It's

Re: RE: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-08 Thread Doug Henwood
Devine, James wrote: Paul, can you name a participant of pen-l who is fixated on a single number measuring the reserve army of the unemployed? See - we didn't invoke the standard litany, therefore we're either ignorant, insensitive, or on the verge of heresy. I'd laugh, but I care about this

Re: RE: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-08 Thread phillp2
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:31057] RE: Re: Re: employment Date sent: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:06:30 -0700 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul, can you name

RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-08 Thread Devine, James
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31084] Re: RE: Re: Re: employment I wrote: Paul, can you name a participant of pen-l who is fixated on a single number measuring the reserve army of the unemployed? Paul responded: Well, I sure read a lot this past day on the list about THE unemployment rate

Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-08 Thread phillp2
: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:31077] Re: RE: Re: Re: employment Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Devine, James wrote: Paul, can you name a participant of pen-l who is fixated on a single number measuring the reserve army

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-08 Thread phillp2
:[PEN-L:31088] RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment Date sent: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 12:05:55 -0700 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wrote: Paul, can you name a participant of pen-l who is fixated on a single number measuring the reserve army of the unemployed? Paul

Re: Re: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-08 Thread lisa stolarski
Doug, don't be mad, just say yes, yes, perhaps I took that point for granted when I made this other point. Sometime people just want to point the qualitative stuff out. We are all on the same side here, there is so much work to do. I hope the list won't crumble over this. Lisa S on

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-08 Thread Michael Perelman
Doug is only gone temoporarily.I don't think attacking him or Liza is appropriate here. I wish that Doug had not brought up Cooper. I agree with Lou that the policing does no good. On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 01:58:02PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: Look at the shit Marc Cooper takes from

Re: RE: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-08 Thread Michael Perelman
Come on, let's cool it with the personalities. On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 12:37:06AM +0100, Mark Jones wrote: ravi wrote: i hope doug does not find me in the list of those he finds unreasonable. whether it be my general responses to his posts, or to the particular issue of marc cooper

Re: Re: Re: Re: employment

2002-10-08 Thread Michael Perelman
makes sense to me. On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 01:41:25PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/10/2002 12:49 PM, Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Several times in the past, I mentioned that the unemployment rate should include something to adjust for the quality of available jobs.

Re: Re: RE: Re: employment

2002-10-07 Thread Louis Proyect
And, fevered claims to the contrary, they're not cooked by Enron-style accountancy. The people who collect and process the U.S. jobs data are honest, competent professionals. If anything, the political sympathies of BLS employees are slightly to the left of center. Doug I don't have time to

Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: employment

2002-10-07 Thread Michael Perelman
I don't think that there is a contradiction between Doug and Lou. There are criticism's about the method of calculating unemployment -- the discouraged workers being excluded. But such matters are transparent, not the result of skulduggery. On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 05:21:30PM -0400, Louis

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: employment

2002-10-07 Thread Doug Henwood
Michael Perelman wrote: I don't think that there is a contradiction between Doug and Lou. There are criticism's about the method of calculating unemployment -- the discouraged workers being excluded. But such matters are transparent, not the result of skulduggery. On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at

RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: employment

2002-10-07 Thread Devine, James
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31008] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: employment Michael Perelman: I don't think that there is a contradiction between Doug and Lou. There are criticism's about the method of calculating unemployment -- the discouraged workers being excluded. The BLS currently calculates

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: employment

2002-10-07 Thread phillp2
, Economics, University of Manitoba Date sent: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:39:46 -0700 From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:31008] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: employment Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I don't