From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:40:16 GMT

In article <Bt8v31.FKA@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.153541.25676@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>
>>  Oh, if you are going to insist of adhering to your above comments about
>>"where the jobs are", I'm going to want to see some figures. 
>
>  That's exactly why I referenced the Fortune cover story.

  I'm interested in more complete statistics.  Not a couple of references
to "how bad things are."  Employment growth by sector, for example.
Remember too that my comment was in reference to job growth in the 80s.

  If you don't have these figures, that's ok.  I just don't think
your deleted comments concerning the 80s job growth being only
burger flipping jobs and high paying white collar jobs are supported by 
actual data.  I'm sure if you take an incomplete picture here and there
and you can arrive at those conclusions, but I think the overall picture
is less dramatic than you suggest.

>
>>not energetic enough to dig mine up, but I know there were overall
>>increases in factory employment.  In fact, a good part of the reason
>>for the slow growth in "average manufacturing wages" is because a large
>>number of new entrants drag the figures down. 
>
>   So?  A robust economy is one that can generate good jobs at a
>   sufficient rate to meet demand.  I don't care HOW many new 
>   jobs were created -- if it's significantly fewer than the
>   number of people who need jobs then it's a lousy economy. 

  And how do you propose to make it better?  Certainly increasing 
employment by 20% since 1980 isn't the sign of a sickly economy.
I think whatever you are using as a basis for comparison is unrealistic.
Which world economy isn't lousy and why?

  I'm certainly not saying our economy could not perform better,
but considering your earlier comments wholy the increasing
value of education, I'm not sure that whatever plan you are proposing
takes into account the realities of the changing world economy.  For
the U.S. to produce "good jobs" we are going to need a better workforce.


>   impressed by such talk.  Absolute figures mean nothing --
>   it's like saying India has a better economy than Norway
>   because they have a higher GDP. 

  This is fair, but in the 80s employment did increase by 20% at a time
when population only increased by 10%.  So, even in a per capita sense
there were more jobs.  I'm not sure what world economy you think provides
"good jobs" instantly to all who want them.  Feel free to enlighten
me on how such increases in employment are "bad".


>>>  The bottom line is that we have an outrageously high unemployment
>>>  rate and no sign of any impending improvement.   
>>>  Look at last week's issue of _Fortune_ magazine. 
>>
>>  Please. _Fortune_ is a rag.  How anyone can take it seriously is
>>beyond me.  They have been calling for protectionistic policies for
>>some time now and preaching the typical "gloom and doom" rhetoric that
>>one always sees during downturns.  
>
>           Fortune is a widely read and respected business
>    magazine which is quite a bit more conservative than many others
>    in its field.   

   Well, I can see we are not going to see eye to eye on the 
value of _Fortune_ magazine.  Quite honestly, it surprises me somewhat
that you personally support it as a valid source.  I find it useful
for such things as total sales of particular companies, but their
economic analysis tends to be much more off the cuff and protectionistic.

  This is not terribly surprising considering their audience.


>    In the current
>    issue [WSJ] they have an editorial advocating government retraining
>    and other programs for workers displaced by NAFTA.   

  As I have said before, I have no problems with this at all.  In fact,
I think we need such programs (one way or another) as a completely separate
issue from NAFTA.  This is all per my previous (deleted) comments on
the needs for education and training if we plan on maintaining good 
jobs in the changing information economy.

>    If you have some evidence that Fortune is wrong about the jobs
>    picture I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.

  Well, anyone that sits around and pretends they can accurately predict
unemployment strikes me as someone who is fibbing a bit.  However, the
WSJ has published articles recently (after the drop in the leading indicator
by 0.2%) that refer to continued slow growth and slow growth in employment.
(I think that was a week or two ago.)


  I really wish you hadn't deleted my points on education.  That is indeed
the real factor for future "good jobs". 

  However, this is really tangential to my point.  If you think that a 20%
increase in employment at a time when population grew by 10% is the sign
of a bad economy then feel free to let me know what these numbers would
have to been in order to indicate a "good economy"?  Also, I would
be particularly interested in knowing what you would do to get there and
what your basis for comparison is.  


  On the whole, I'm not sure we are disagreeing much.   It is just
that I have mentioned what I believe is necessary in the future to
maintain "good jobs" and I think you are stuck a bit in the past if you
think that workers who can barely read are going to be paid the high
wages of days past.

  I also think that the large job growth of the 80s is certainly the sign
of a flexible and strong economy.  It may not be as strong as you or I would 
like but to assert that it is somehow a weakness seems silly.  We would
all love a perfect economy that provides high wages to all levels of
employees.  Getting there is another thing entirely.  I'd love to
hear your recommendations.  


Pat
-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ