At 03:38 PM 3/13/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>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.
I don't understand what you are driving at here.
I am aware that inequality has increased since @1978. But what do the
different increases in the size of labor force have to do with this?
In addition, eyeballling your data set in your subsequent message, it would
seem that increases in employment have consistently outstripped increases
in the labor force since 1984. Thus, your data tables would seem to
contradict your conclusion that a "slowdown in the increase in the demand
for labor has a greater impact on the nature and magnitude of the growth in
income inequality." As I see it, the demand for labor appears to have
been greater in the post-1984 (measured on a ten-year basis) time period
than in the pre-1984 (same basis.)
> < 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.
I'm not sure what data set you are using, but the INS estimates that
5.5million illegals arrived between 1990 and 2000. Other sources suggest
that the total illegal population is around 8-11 million. At any rate, I'm
not sure that I like the above anlaysis. I'm not sure that you are making
appropriate use of the time series' involved to conclude a "deceleration."
That is, I don't know that that taking a time series and dividing into into
time period "t" and "t-1" can describe a decceleration.... but I haven't
worked it out mathematically. Secondly, describing a "decceleration" may
not be appropriate since the number of workers with less than a high school
education has a limit of zero.
>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.
I think that there are some tautological effects here as GDP is a function
of employment. Honestly, I am only barely following you from one point to
the other here, but I think that in the above statement at least, you need
to be using GDP/head, not GDP. An increase in population, after all
increases demand, and thus, increases GDP, but does not boost GDP/head.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
