From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:42:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.182455.27303@sequent.com> bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.153541.25676@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>In article <Bt8GIq.99E@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>  I'm not sure what Mr. Moore's point is.  That we should be grateful
>>>  that the economy's not in even worse shape?   The fact is that jobs
>>>  have NOT trickled down.   There was a time in the US when someone 
>>>  without a college education or the brains of a rocket scientist 
>>>  could get a job sufficient to support a family on.   The 80's were
>>>  good at creating two kinds of jobs:
>>>
>>>  1.    High-end white collar jobs
> [...]
>>>  2.    Dead-end diddly-squat jobs like flipping burgers at MacDonald's
>>>        which are insufficient to support a family on.
>>
>[ stuff deleted ]
>>That element of truth
>>lies in the fact that we (and the rest of the world) are in a changing
>>information economy.  This change emphasizes education and not just college,
>>but decent high school levels that allow workers to work better with
>>the new machines and robots that require some modicum of know how such as
>>the ability to read well.  This is a real problem in a lot of states where 
>>25% - 30% of the populace have problems reading.
>>
>>  This has little to do with "policies of the 80s".  
>
>I beg your pardon?  It sounds to me like the 80s are exactly the reason that
>we have 25-30% of the populace unable to read in some states.  Where the heck
>is the "education" president?

  OK,  I was actually referring to tax and budget policies having little
to do with changes to an information economy.  However, if you want
to blame the lack of emphasis on education in the 80s, I'll give that
to you.  Although, really we could start earlier than the 80s if you want
to talk about missing the need for education reform.    Also, we
did see large increases in funding to education in the 80s, so maybe
it wasn't terribly clear until very recently that more funding would not
be sufficient to solve the problem and that we really needed
more fundamental reform.   What do you think?


  I would like to point out (once again) Mr. Bush's America 2000 plan.
He hasn't pushed it hard enough for my taste, but _I_ consider it
a positive fundamental change in our education system.  (You may not,
but remember Mr. Clinton supported the general idea until the teachers'
unions slapped his wrist.)

>> It has a lot to do
>>with changing times.  The answer is to prepare for those times by emphasizing
>>education, not to act like there exists some way to ignore it and curl
>>up into the past.
>
>Exactly!  Now, who are you suggesting is going to provide that type of
>education?  Somebody who wants to reduce revenue and reduce spending or
>somebody who wants to increase revenue and reduce spending?  Sounds to me like
>we have a better chance with Clinton.

  Well, glad to see I have some support on the education issue!  I'll
leave it to you to decide about who has better education plans.  Certainly,
Clinton's rhetoric has been solid in this regard, however his backing down
from the teachers' unions has left me less than certain that he will do
little more than the status quo.

>
>>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.
>
>If you are willing to concede the reduction in wages is due to new entrants,
>why aren't you willing to concede that the job market is shrinking?  If the
>job market was expanding, then there wouldn't be so many new entrants to
>drag the wages down.  This wage change may also be effected by companies
>"laying off" workers who are close to pension and then replacing them with
>new workers (at a much reduced wage) as profiled in "20/20" or "60 minutes" or
>maybe both.

  No, this does not follow.  When you have 20 million new jobs (or so)
you have a lot of new entrants.

  Remember, I am talking about the 80s expansion in this case.  I tell you
what, if you are interested I will type in part of an article from
_The Economist_ in this regard.  It is pretty good.

  To be honest, I really don't understand your above logic.  If there
are more jobs, there will be more new entrants.  In this case, actually,
we appear to have a lot of women and immigrants who joined our work force.

  Also remember, we went from having 97.6 million employed Americans to 
117.7 million employed Americans.  (From 1980 to 1990.)  That was a 20%
increase when there was only a 10% growth in population.  That is
about 20 million new entrants.

  What you say about "20/20" and "60 minutes" may be true, but I have
seen little evidence that this happened on a wide scale. If you have
a more complete analysis, I'd love to see it.

>
>>  I don't suppose increasing employment figures are at all valid.
>
>I am not aware of such figures (please excuse my ignorance), would you be
>willing to post them so that we can talk on even ground?
>

   Well, here I reverted back to the present.  I apologize if that
confused you.  However, I do have one problem.  The only data I have
sitting nearby is a graph and it isn't terribly easy to read and give
you exact numbers.  I'll try and get back to you with more exact 
figures when I find them, but basically what it shows is that the
number of employees on nonfarm payrolls peeked in about mid 1990.
It then dropped steadily until April of 1991 and then has started
to slowly rise since about April of 1992.  Once again, I'm reading
a graph so it may not be exact, but it has definitely been on the rise
recently, just not that dramatically.  The rise in unemployment 
has been because there have been more people entering (or re-entering)
the work force rather than because of any fall in employment.


  I hope this helps.  I am more than happy to clarify if it does not.

Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41107 alt.politics.bush:2409 alt.politics.clinton:2498