🚀 go-pugleaf

>> >> "Jim Blair" <jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote :
>> >> >
>> >> > ??? As ever fewer people have been able to make ever more (and better)
>> >> > goods because of higher productuvity, the fraction of the population
>> >> > employed has increased, and family incomes have increased to their highest
>> >> > levels ever.
>> 
>> >Mark Martin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> That makes no sense at all.  "...fewer people making goods means more people
>> >> are employed."
>> 
>> Peter Lawrence <peterl@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >Actually, you've read in the "means more". While what he is driving at is not
>> >actually what is happening (everywhere), it is consistent to have both more
>> >employment and more productivity - IF there is vastly more output.
>> 
Jim Blair:
>> 
>> And I was not generalizing  about "everywhere", just about the USA.

Peter Lawrence <peterl@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>
>A couple of points here.
>
>The behaviour in question is flowing over national boundaries, so you only 
>get a full description by looking around.
>
>And when postings are going on a WORLD wide web (half the newsgroups getting 
>this are non-US), whatever your personal intentions, if you don't make that 
>explicit you are not getting your message across very well. By now I know 
>where you are coming from - but you should make your specifics less implicit 
>if you want to avoid confusion.

Hi,

Sorry if I was unclear.  Note that the thread title and the reference to 
BLS and Census data is clearly for the USA.


> And yes, there has been vastly more output... (in the USA bur also in the world as well.  Except maybe Africa :-(

>.
>.
>> >Mark Martin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I don't see how a higher fraction of the population can be employed.

Jim Blair:
>> 
>> ??? You mean that you recognize the fact that they are, but don't
>> understand WHY?
>> 
>> Or do you mean that you didn't know that they are?
>> 
>> Look at the figures for "employment rate" (labor force participation rate)
>> from 1960 to 2000.

Peter Lawrence <peterl@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >Well, not with the present framework. But there are ways (see my material
>> >linked via my signature below). PML.

Jim Blair:

>> 
>> Talking about Australia again?

Peter Lawrence <peterl@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>
>No. If you DO look at that material, which was written for an Australian 
>audience, you will find Australian examples and illustrations. However the 
>whole thing has also been brought out in a British context by Professor Kim 
>Swales of the University of Strathclyde. In a model using the British 
>equivalent of GST, VAT, Professor Swales found that an NPT set at 5% of 
>average UK wages would lead to serious improvements in both employment and 
>GDP, under a number of varying assumptions. You can find his material within 

>http://www.faxfn.org at 
>http://www.faxfn.org/feedback/right/issue_03/jobs_tax.htm#23feb98a.

>.. I 
>analysed this using Game Theory (see the link in my signature below).
>
>As there is not currently a suitable carrying tax in the USA, that does not 
>give you a prescription, just food for thought. However other carrying taxes 
>are possible (and actually GST is a pretty bad one), and the analysis I did 
>NOT put up shows how the same things work out in developing countries, both 
>past and present. Oddly, the assistance the poor got from things like 
>commoners' privileges worked out like a "Universal Basic Income" set too low 
>to survive off in isolation. That is the key aspect; the Australian Greens 
>are advocating a "Guaranteed Adequate Income", when what would actually work 
>(long term) is a "Guaranteed INadequate Income". And Negative Income Tax 
>approaches, including your own EITC in the USA, also come in the same body of 
>policy.
>
>That only describes end results, not transitions. The NPT approach minimises 
>transitional problems and funding problems.


I agree that the USA may be unusual.  Europe (at least many of the EU 
countries) have had problems with unemployment for decades. I doubt that 
this is the result of automation and increased productivity, but that case 
could be claimed.

>
>  Didn't "Women's Lib" reach down-under yet?
>
>Where did that come from? What has feminism got to do with these issues? Am I 
>missing something? PML.
>

Most of the increase in the US "employment rate" during the last 40 years 
has been because of the increase in working wives.  I say this is mostly 
the result of the rise of the "Women's Lib" movement.  But at any rate, 
they would not be "working" (for pay outside the home) unless the jobs 
existed.


http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/wwives.txt

                     ,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
                       (_)
jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time 
call:   http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834