From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Sun Sep 01 2002 - 09:08:40 MDT
In a message dated 9/1/2002 9:49:18 AM Central Standard Time,
neptune@mars.superlink.net writes: If the above statement is in the context
of current labor idleness, one factor we have to account for is government
intervention in labor markets. Things like minimum wage laws, unemployment
payments, and union laws lead to "rigidities" in the labor market.
Dan,
You raised some interesting questions and I don't know the answers.
But, I do know that the government intervenes in the labor markets in many
ways.
The decision to allow illegals into the country virtually unopposed is
an intervention into our labor markets, IMHO.
The decision to impose conditions on manufacturing that make our
country less and less attractive as a place in which to manufacture also
intervenes in the labor market when manufacturing starts moving overseas in
wholesale lots.
One has to question also the programs to "retrain" workers. If the
workers were needed so badly why aren't the employers retraining them? If
you compare the money spent on education by traditional suppliers of
education such as public schools and colleges to the money spent by business
for education I am told that businesses spend the greater amount.
So, when I see the government running retraining programs I have to
question why? Are they training or simply intervening in the labor market by
increasing the supply of labor to bid the wages down? I don't know the
answers to these questions but would love to hear you (plural) comment on
them.
Ron h
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:36 MST