🚀 go-pugleaf

>> "Jim Blair" <jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
>> news:ak0cau$ka7$1@news.doit.wisc.edu..
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > ??? 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.

Hi,

And I was not generalizing  about "everywhere", just about the USA.
And yes, there has been vastly more output.

>> 
>> > While Michael Coburn laments this as increased drugery, sensible people
>> > can see that living standards are higher than ever because of this, and
>> > few (other than Michael) would want a time machine to take them back to
>> > 1950.
>> >
>> > Would you?
>> 
>> <flame>
>> This worn-out ivory tower logic is tiring.  My *experience* is that a job
>> lasts about 2 to 3 years at the most, whereas my dad's job lasted some 35 or
>> 40 years.  This instability of employment means that a job is something I do
>> inbetween layoffs, that I live off of credit when I'm out of work and out of
>> unemployment benefits, and whenever I do have a job, I save like crazy and
>> eliminate my debts, reduce my expenses, and do my shopping at Walmart.  It's
>> worked pretty good so far.

PL:
>
>This is an interesting comparative. Here in Australia there is far more 
>last-in-first-out, so what happens is NOT this pattern but rather a growing 
>divide between employed and unemployed, with only some interchange between 
>the categories. And, we have serious disincentives to save (what's the point 
>when the channels are more constrained, you get ripped off using them, and 
>the more you save the fewer state benefits you get in the end anyway).

But not the pattern in the US. Currently (since the welfare reform of the 
mid-1990's pushed by Republicans and signed by Clinton), most welfare 
people (after generations on welfare) are now employed.

In my case, I worked at my first job 2 years (private company), my next 
one 13 (private school), then 2(another private school), then 5 (another 
private company) and finally 15 and counting (state lab).

I don't see any pattern to my employment tenures.

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

??? 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.

>
>Well, not with the present framework. But there are ways (see my material 
>linked via my signature below). PML.
>

Talking about Australia again?  Didn't "Women's Lib" reach down-under yet?

                     ,,,,,,,
_______________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