--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 9:13 PM > Subject: Re: Race to the Bottom > > > > --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So, let me understand this correctly. You are > > > arguing that a smaller > > > increase in labor supply that is focused on a very > > > substantial increase in > > > low skill labor will have a larger impact on the > > > price (wage) of medium and > > > high skill labor than a larger increase in supply > > > that has a greater > > > percentage in the medium and high skilled labor > > > supply? > > > > > > In short, you appear to be arguingthat the impact of > > > an increased supply of > > > low skilled labor is more important to the price of > > > high and medium skilled > > > labor than the impact of an increased supply of high > > > and medium skilled > > > labor. > > > > > > > > > Dan M. > > > > It's possible that I'm misunderstanding you. I'm > > arguing that a (very large) increase in the size of > > the very bottom of the labor pool will have very large > > effects throughout that pool. > > Right here is where I depart. The labor pool of possible employees > increased by 49% from '57 to '80, but by only 32% from '80 to '03. (The > participation in the work force increased 60% and 37%, respectively. > During the first time period inequality decreased; during the second it > increased. Not only that, but the increase was not just a transfer of > income share from the poor to the rich, it was a transfer from everyone to > the rich. > > Let me get some approximate numbers from '60 to '80 to '00 to illustrate > the changes. They are approximate because education attainment is for >25, > while workforce is for >16, but that normalization shouldn't be a big > factor. We have three catagories of educated work force: less than a high > school education, a high school but no college education, a college > education. We have, for fraction changes from '60 to '80 and for '80 to > '00: > > < high school high school college > '60-'80 -24% 121% 216% > '80-'00 -35% 45% 93% > > > As a result of the slowing of the enlargement of the labor pool, the > decrease in workers with less than a high school education has accelerated > slightly, while the increase of workers with high school and college > educations has slowed down noticably. If you factor in illegals, we > probably would have a deceleration in the decrease in workers with less > than a high school education. > > So, if the job market were to expand in the same manner from '80 to '00 as > '60 to '80, there would be a significant undersupply of educated workers, > while uneducated workers would have about the same balance as before. > > Looking at it another way, the average growth in GDP from '80 to '03 was > about 84% of the average growth from '57 to '80. But, the average growth > in employment from '80 to '03 was only 65% of the average growth from '57 > to '80. I would argue that slowdown in the increase in the demand for > labor has a greater impact on the nature and magnitude of the growth in > income inequality than the change in the distribution of available labor. >
Dan, are you saying that both are not contributing factors? Would not a change in the distribution of available labor not exaserbait the slowdown in the increase in demand for labor? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
