Home Mail Articles Stats/current Supplements Subscriptions Links
|
Unemployment, pay, & race |
a discussion of Heather Boushey's piece that occurred on the lbo-talk mailing list |
click here for Boushey's response
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 18:55:47 -0700 From: "Gar W. Lipow" <lipowg@sprintmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Just wanted to comment on one point in your article on unemployment and how unemployment lowers wages. You made the point that while *White* unemployment lowers wages, unemployment among the non skin privileged does not affect white wages in an area. Well facts are facts, and if it is true I will have to live it -- but you have just removed an argument I have found very powerful in combatting racism -- the ability to argue to white workers that racism lowers their own standard of living. Let me ask: are you absolutely sure of this? Is it possible that non-skin privileged unemployment does lower wages for everybody -- just not as much as white unemployment? I would swear that in the fifties someone did a study showing that wages drop the higher the level of racism in an area -- which should correlate pretty well with unemployment among racial minorities. I have stopped saying it for the moment; if an argument is wrong better not to use it. Lies and errors always come back to bite you sooner or later. And there is always moral outrage at injustice which I have found is also a powerful argument with most people -- contrary to the cynical attitude our mainstream media tries to promote about ordinary people. But I always like my arguments to stand on two legs. If my Hawaiian friends will pardon my stealing their joke: I try to show people they can do well by doing good.
From: "Andrew Kliman" <Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com>
To: <lbo-talk@lists.panix.com>
Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 04:43:15 -0400
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com
On Saturday, August 08, 1998 10:07 PM, Gar W. Lipow wrote:
"Just wanted to comment on one point in your article on
unemployment and how unemployment lowers wages."
The article's author was Heather Boushey, not Doug Henwood.
Gar: "You made the point that while *White* unemployment lowers
wages, unemployment among the non skin privileged does not
affect white wages in an area.
"... you have just removed an argument I have found very powerful
in combatting racism -- the ability to argue to white workers
that racism lowers their own standard of living. Let me ask: are
you absolutely sure of this? Is it possible that non-skin
privileged unemployment does lower wages for everybody -- just
not as much as white unemployment?"
Unfortunately, this section of Boushey's article does not give
any numbers, so it is a bit difficult to evaluate her claims.
However, the findings she reports do *not* support the notion
that "unemployment among the non skin privileged does not affect
white wages in an area." Part of the problem is that the
findings seem not to support a couple of conclusions she attempts
to draw from them.
She writes that "the unemployment rate of [blacks and women] does
not have a strong effect on the earnings of the aggregate
population. ... Increases in unemployment for
discriminated-against workers lowers all earnings, but to a
*lesser extent* than the unemployment of
non-discriminated-against groups."
Hence, the evidence indicates that an increase in unemployment
among Blacks *does* lower the pay of white workers. It just does
not lower their pay as much as does an increase in unemployment
among whites. The evidence thus suggests that the answer to
Gar's final question -- "Is it possible that non-skin privileged
unemployment does lower wages for everybody -- just not as much
as white unemployment?" -- is yes.
It should come as no surprise, BTW, that a rise in the white
unemployment rate has a stronger negative effect on pay (of
whites and Blacks) than does a comparable rise in the Black
unemployment rate. Whites greatly outnumber Blacks, so a rise in
the white rate corresponds to a much greater rise in the
*aggregate* (white & Black) unemployment rate than does a
comparable rise in the Black rate. Thus, if, as is in fact the
case, wages of *both* groups are inversely related to the
aggregate rate, a rise in the white rate will reduce wages for
both groups much more than will a comparable rise in the Black
rate.
Even in the absence of any segmentation in the labor market,
then, Boushey's finding is exactly what we should expect. Labor
market segmentation does exist, but, contrary to what she
suggests, her findings do not seem to count as evidence of
segmentation. (I hedge here because it is possible that she
controlled for differences in the groups' sizes, though nothing
in the article suggests that that was the case.)
Even more problematic is her claim that "These findings support
the argument that it is in the interest of whites and men to
maintain their privilege because it sustains their higher
earnings." The term "higher" is unclear: higher than what? The
context would seem to indicate that she means higher than the
earnings they would have in the absence of discrimination. Yet
her data showed that unemployment among Blacks REDUCES the
earnings of whites. Moreover, the data imply that discrimination
also REDUCES the earnings of whites: all else equal, a reduction
in the Black unemployment rate toward the white rate would RAISE
the earnings of whites.
It could be, however, that what Boushey means by "higher" is
higher than the groups that suffer from discrimination. But if
this is the case, the statement begs the question. No one doubts
that whites benefit *relatively* from discriminatory wage
differentials. That is a tautology. The question is whether
they benefit *absolutely*; Boushey's own findings indicate that
the opposite is the case. Moreover, if the statement is meant to
refer to *relative* benefits from discrimination, we need to ask
why the interests of white workers should be assessed in terms of
them rather than in terms of *absolute* benefits. It is really
plausible that, given the choice between (a) making $30,000 while
Blacks also make $30,000, or (b) making $20,000 while Blacks make
$10,000, the latter is in the interests (real and/or perceived)
of white workers?
Andrew ("Drewk") Kliman Home:
Dept. of Social Sciences 60 W. 76th St., #4E
Pace University New York, NY 10023
Pleasantville, NY 10570
(914) 773-3951 Andrew_Kliman@msn.com
"... the *practice* of philosophy is itself *theoretical.* It is
the *critique* that measures the individual existence by the
essence, the particular reality by the Idea." -- K.M.
X-Ident: IDENT protocol sender: slip-30.bard.edu [192.246.235.161] Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 12:05:54 -0400 From: Mathew Forstater <forstate@levy.org> Organization: Jerome Levy Economics Institute MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com I will not subject everyone once again to another repeating of my repetitious take on all this, as well as my endless citations of books and articles on the topic. and i have to get heather's piece (hopefully she will respond herself). but two brief comments on just one point, the issue of "absolute" and "relative" gains. Andrew "Drewk" Kliman wrote: > It is really > plausible that, given the choice between (a) making $30,000 while > Blacks also make $30,000, or (b) making $20,000 while Blacks make > $10,000, the latter is in the interests (real and/or perceived) > of white workers? But what if that is not the choice, but rather the choice is between (a) whites making 10k while Blacks also make 10k, or (b) whites make 12k while blacks make 8k? (or something like that?) Also, relative wages do matter--absolutely--if you get what i mean. it's about power relations and hierarchy, it involves capitalist control over workers but also power relations within the working class. if we can imagine another socioeconomic system in which everyone is absolutely better off, and that is what we use as our benchmark, then we can never employ the distinction between absolute and relative within the present system. everything is relative, then. for example, if Blacks sufffer higher unemployment rates due to discrimination, and whites therefore have a lower chance of being unemployed, then some whites are doing absolutely better than they would be in the absence of discrimination. of course, according to the way Drewk has framed the issue, everyone would be better off if there were full employment for all. true enough. so in that sense we can never say that someone or group is fairing absolutely better--even if millions of white workers are employed instead of unemployed, have higher instead of lower wages, have better instead of worse jobs and working conditions, have more instead of less job security, all due to discrimination-- unless there is no "better" imaginable. isn't there a problem here with the way we are using "absolute" and "relative"? i guess i am repeating myself. so i'll restrain myself. sorry. Mat
X-Ident: IDENT protocol sender: slip-30.bard.edu [192.246.235.161] Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 12:18:57 -0400 From: Mathew Forstater <forstate@levy.org> Organization: Jerome Levy Economics Institute MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com let us suppose for a moment that the thesis that some white workers are absolutely better off due to discrimination is true. wouldn't that awareness that some white workers have a real objective material interest in racism better inform your political work and struggle? if true, shouldn't your awareness of it lead to more effective activity? it may be difficult, but how effective can it be to tell workers that they are worse off when they may have a strong feeling they are not? unless we treat the working class as passive, without agency, who are not active participants in history, etc. mat Gar W. Lipow wrote: > you have just removed an argument I have found very powerful in > combatting racism -- the ability to argue to white workers that racism > lowers their own standard of living.
X-Sender: dhenwood@popserver.panix.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 15:03:25 -0400 To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood@panix.com> Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com I've forwarded the comments on Heather's article to her, but apparently she's away and may not be able to answer for a while. As for the political point....well, it does seem that white workers gain relative to blacks thanks to racism. It may well be, in fact it probably is the fact, that racism has hindered the strength of the working class as a whole. So from that point of view, the "black & white, unite & fight" slogan makes sense. But that doesn't address the relative gains. Sure, in a nonracist world, workers as a whole would be better off, but that's difficult to imagine and a long way off. So in the short term, the gain to the white worker of knowing that s/he makes more than a black counterpart provides some psychological benefit. Part of the disturbing message of Roediger's Wages of Whiteness is that you have to look within the working class for the origins of racism as well as outside it. That doesn't mean that you have to denounce white workers as a bunch of hopeless bigots, but it does mean that it's wrong to say that it's all a capitalist plot, too. Doug
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 22:51:03 +0100 To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com From: Jim heartfield <Jim@heartfield.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com In message <35CDC8E2.98991931@levy.org>, Mathew Forstater <forstate@levy.org> writes >if we can imagine another socioeconomic system in which everyone is >absolutely better off, and that is what we use as our benchmark, then we >can never employ the distinction between absolute and relative within >the present system. everything is relative, then. > >for example, if Blacks sufffer higher unemployment rates due to >discrimination, and whites therefore have a lower chance of being >unemployed, then some whites are doing absolutely better than they would >be in the absence of discrimination. of course, according to the way >Drewk has framed the issue, everyone would be better off if there were >full employment for all. true enough. so in that sense we can never >say that someone or group is fairing absolutely better--even if millions >of white workers are employed instead of unemployed, have higher instead >of lower wages, have better instead of worse jobs and working >conditions, have more instead of less job security, all due to >discrimination-- unless there is no "better" imaginable. isn't there a >problem here with the way we are using "absolute" and "relative"? The way I see it, it is wrong to say that white workers gain by discrimination against blacks. To take sucha view is to see things only in terms of the distribution of a presumed finite number of jobs and/or other social resources. Indeed that is to share the presuppositions of so many racialised arguments that 'there is not enough to go round'. Starting from the premise of scarcity leads pretty inexorably to rationing, and from there to one or other species of sectionalism, whether based on nationality, race, gender or generational cohort. Methodolgically it strikes me as an error to take distribution on the market (including the labour market) as the starting point. Before there is a distribution on the market there is production, and it is in the realm of production that the basis for inequality is created. You can easily enumerate the inequality between black and white workers in distributional terms. But that only tends to mask the substantial inequality between employers and the rest. So Mat states out with the assumption that white workers are better off because they are in a job. But what does that mean? That they are wage slaves who dedicate just a third of their working lives to creating their own means of subsistence, and the rest making a surplus for the class of employers. For this we should be grateful? It might be marginally better to be exploited than unemployed, in the same way that it would be better to be taken slave than slaughtered by a conquering army. In distributional terms white workers are better of than blacks. But in the prior relation of social production the underlying inequality is the one where one class works to provide the luxury consumption of another. White workers 'gain' only in the minimal sense of having the advantage of a life of wage slavery. -- Jim heartfield
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 16:06:51 -0700 From: michael perelman <michael@ecst.csuchico.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Let me begin by saying that I have not read the piece. Mail service to California might be very slow -- Hey, where is it? The question of black unemployment raises an obvious point. Whites commonly think that blacks take their job. An enormous number of rejected white job applicants think that they lost their job because of affirmative action. In effect, the blacks are represented disproportionately in the reserve army of the unemployed. When black unemployment is high, so is white unemployment; hence little downward pressure on wages until the reserve army becomes too depleted. The fact that we distinguish between black and white employment reflects the reality that many workers see their situation in terms of conflict between black and white instead of capital versus labor. If the races were more united, then we would not be speaking as other posters have been about a fixed wage pie -- or should we say wages fund? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael@ecst.csuchico.edu
X-Sender: dhenwood@popserver.panix.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 19:13:35 -0400 To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood@panix.com> Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com michael perelman wrote: >Let me begin by saying that I have not read the piece. Mail service to >California might be very slow -- Hey, where is it? I switched printers - to the same hole-in-the-wall outfit in Skokie that prints Counterpunch. He promised a 3-day turnaround. It took more than a week - and 8 days for copies to reach New York. Other LBO subscribers on the list, please let me know when #84 shows up so I can kvetch. Doug
X-Ident: IDENT protocol sender: slip-28.bard.edu [192.246.235.159] Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 19:28:17 -0400 From: Mathew Forstater <forstate@levy.org> Organization: Jerome Levy Economics Institute MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Jim, I agree it would be better if no one was exploited and if everyone had enough. I agree that it doesn't have to be the way it in fact is--I don't believe the pie has to be fixed, or unemployment has to be what it is, etc. But I find it problematic to argue that it is actually a good thing for Blacks that racism has resulted in their being disproportionately unemployed or receiving lower wages, because they are therefore less exploited. Within the present capitalist system, people who are unemployed are worse off than those who are employed, people who get paid less are worse off than those who get paid more, people who have less benefits or job security are worse off than those who have more. It doesn't mean that things couldn't be better for the employed or those with higher pay, etc., but that doesn't change the fact that the unemployed and lower paid are objectively materially worse off and experience greater hardship in their lives. But if we want to work toward a better society then there are some things I think are important to recognize. It is not simply a matter of 'false consciousness' if there are workers who have an objective material interest in racism. If white workers want to climb the wage/employment ladder instead of smash it, then racism may be helping them, whether they actively participate in it personally or not. Don't you think this is an important thing for organizers to be aware of? Won't it help effective political activity to realize this, if it is the case? By the way, my approach (not really "my" but the approach of Botwinick, Darity, Mason, Williams, et al, who people on this list don't seem to have the time or willingness to take a look at) does start with production. Very much so. (By the way, Botwinick has been very active in labor organizing and politics for many years. I believe he is one of the key figures in the US Labor Party). Are the LBO list posts archived? Again, I'd be glad to forward past posts where I thought I outlined the basis in capitslist production for this story and/or my reading list to any interested, or those who missed this topic the first couple times around. best, Mat
X-Ident: IDENT protocol sender: slip-28.bard.edu [192.246.235.159] Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 19:38:27 -0400 From: Mathew Forstater <forstate@levy.org> Organization: Jerome Levy Economics Institute MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com There is both inter-class and intra-class competition. Both are important to recognize and analyze. Of course the pie doesn't have to be fixed. But as long as there is politically-enforced unemployment to discipline workers and supposedly prevent inflation, than the fact is that if overnight wages and employment rates were readjusted to correct for the impact of racism, millions of white workers would find themselves with lower wages and without jobs. But if one wants to do political work to promote a better system, isn't one better prepared if one understands this rather than approaching things as though all white workers are "hurt" by discrimination (Michael Reich)? Mat
X-Sender: dhenwood@popserver.panix.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 19:55:57 -0400 To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood@panix.com> Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Mathew Forstater wrote: >By the way, my approach (not really "my" but the approach of Botwinick, >Darity, Mason, Williams, et al, who people on this list don't seem to have >the time or willingness to take a look at) Well, some of us do. Patrick Mason, who besides doing excellent work is a heck of a nice guy, has a bunch of his papers at http://www.nd.edu/~pmason/. >does start with production. Very >much so. (By the way, Botwinick has been very active in labor organizing and >politics for many years. I believe he is one of the key figures in the US >Labor Party). Botwinick and Adolph Reed were the lead authors of the Labor Party's platform. >Are the LBO list posts archived? Not yet (Jordan?), but I have 'em all. Let me know what you're looking for. Doug
From: MScoleman@aol.com Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 23:30:20 EDT To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com What the BOUSHEY article does is provide a rationalization for continued racism in the working class. It is well worth reading. maggie coleman mscoleman@aol.com
From: "Andrew Kliman" <Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com>
To: <lbo-talk@lists.panix.com>
Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 03:21:29 -0400
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com
A response to Doug's post of Sunday, August 09, 1998 3:03 PM.
Doug: "I've forwarded the comments on Heather's article to
her...."
Cool.
Doug: "it does seem that white workers gain relative to blacks
thanks to racism."
Yes. Putting the *same thing* differently, Blacks are
discriminated against thanks to racism.
Doug: "It may well be, in fact it probably is the fact, that
racism has hindered the strength of the working class as a
whole."
Yes.
Doug: "So from that point of view, the "black & white, unite &
fight" slogan makes sense."
No. It is a disastrous slogan. In the interests of so-called
unity, it would have the racism of whites and the discrimination faced by
Blacks be ignored or declared of secondary importance. If, as
you say, "racism has hindered the strength of the working class
as a whole" -- and I'd say white workers' racism it is *the*
single most important obstacle to the coalescence with Blacks
(inside and outside the workplace) that is crucial to
transforming this society for the better -- then the fight
against racism is of first-rank importance. It should not be
subsumed under some "general class struggle" and phony "unity."
The conditions for real unity must be created, and they depend on
breaking down racism and discrimination.
Doug: "Sure, in a nonracist world, workers as a whole would be
better off, but that's difficult to imagine and a long way off."
Right. So isn't the foremost task to make it easier to imagine
and therefore not such a long way off? The acceptance of the
limits of the given has proven, time and time again, to throttle
social progress. What is needed is "*critique* that measures the
individual existence by the essence, the particular reality by
the Idea." We've got to keep our eyes on the prize or we end up
tailending lesser evils that keep getting ever more evil .
Doug: "So in the short term, the gain to the white worker of
knowing that s/he makes more than a black counterpart provides
some psychological benefit."
It seems that the "gain" doesn't "provide" psychological benefit,
but that the psychological benefit *is* the gain. This may seem
like nitpicking, but given the too-easy sliding from "Blacks
lose" to "whites gain," it is important to be precise concerning
just what the gains are and are not.
Sure there's psychological benefit. That's why, for instance,
Marx said that freedom for Ireland was necessary for the
liberation of the English working class, to shake them out of
their complacency and sense of superiority. And it's why
_Capital_ holds that labor in the white skin cannot emancipate
itself when it is branded in the black and, conversely, the
emancipation of the slaves rejuvenated the fight for a shorter
workday.
Andrew ("Drewk") Kliman Home:
Dept. of Social Sciences 60 W. 76th St., #4E
Pace University New York, NY 10023
Pleasantville, NY 10570
(914) 773-3951 Andrew_Kliman@msn.com
"... the *practice* of philosophy is itself *theoretical.* It is
the *critique* that measures the individual existence by the
essence, the particular reality by the Idea." -- K.M.
From: "Andrew Kliman" <Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com>
To: <lbo-talk@lists.panix.com>
Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 03:18:22 -0400
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com
I response to Mat's post of Sunday, August 09, 1998 12:06 PM.
I had written:
"It is really plausible that, given the choice between (a) making
$30,000 while Blacks also make $30,000, or (b) making $20,000
while Blacks make $10,000, the latter is in the interests (real
and/or perceived) of white workers?"
Mat: "But what if that is not the choice, but rather the choice
is between (a) whites making 10k while Blacks also make 10k, or
(b) whites make 12k while blacks make 8k? (or something like that?)"
Well, IF it is a zero-sum game, then one group benefits
absolutely at the expense of the other. But that's the big if.
In subsequent posts, you clarify that you don't believe in the
zero-sum game (wages fund, fixed pie, or whatever) doctrine, but
it seems to me that your two choices here presuppose it.
Is the underlying issue here that you don't think it is
politically feasible for both white and Black working people to
improve their conditions of life and labor, so that instead you
advocate redistributive policies?
Mat: "Also, relative wages do matter--absolutely--if you get
what i mean. it's about power relations and hierarchy, it
involves capitalist control over workers but also power relations
within the working class."
Well, no, I don't really get what you mean. But of course
relative wages matter, as do racism and discrimination. To
question the claim that white workers benefit from racial
discrimination in absolute terms is not make racism and
discrimination any less repugnant.
Mat: "if we can imagine another socioeconomic system in which
everyone is absolutely better off, and that is what we use as our
benchmark, then we can never employ the distinction between
absolute and relative within the present system. everything is
relative, then."
My point does not reduce to the notion that white workers don't
gain absolutely because something better is possible. Rather,
the issue is whether racism and disrimination HINDER, not only
the realization of a new human society, but also the fight for
improvements in people's lives, in the meantime, within the
present system. If so, then both white working people and Blacks
lose due to racism and discrimination, though not to the same
extent.
Mat: "for example, if Blacks sufffer higher unemployment rates
due to discrimination, and whites therefore have a lower chance
of being unemployed ...."
I do not think the "therefore" follows. You're thinking in
static (or zero-sum) terms. What about the possibility that
discrimination and racism hinder the coalescence of white working
people with Blacks, that they get fewer concessions from the
ruling class (if not the shit kicked out of them, as has been
happening for 2 decades) such as job creation, and that whites
therefore have a higher chance of being unemployed, not relative
to Blacks, but relative to what would be the case were there less
discrimination and racism?
Mat: "of course, according to the way Drewk has framed the
issue, everyone would be better off if there were full employment
for all. true enough."
I'm glad we agree, but it is not I who has framed the issue in
this way. This is the way the issue has been framed for decades.
Mat: "so in that sense we can never say that someone or group is
fairing absolutely better--even if millions of white workers are
employed instead of unemployed, have higher instead of lower
wages, have better instead of worse jobs and working conditions,
have more instead of less job security, all due to
discrimination-- unless there is no "better" imaginable. isn't
there a problem here with the way we are using "absolute" and
"relative"?"
No, my position is not that if something better is imaginable,
then it is impossible that whites gain absolutely. This is a
perfectly plausible hypothesis, and I'm happy to entertain it.
There are lots of things that I would consider to be evidence
that supports it; for instance, inverse relationships between the
movements in the two groups' wages, unemployment rates, poverty
rates, and so forth. But I haven't seen such evidence (I
couldn't find any evidence, nor even any claim that whites gain
absolutely, in _Persistent Inequalities_).
There *is* overwhelming evidence of *discrimination* and labor
market *segmentation*, but by itself such evidence proves only
that Blacks suffer, not that whites benefit. A zero-sum
postulate is needed to move from evidence of discrimination to
the conclusion that white workers gain absolutely.
Andrew ("Drewk") Kliman Home:
Dept. of Social Sciences 60 W. 76th St., #4E
Pace University New York, NY 10023
Pleasantville, NY 10570
(914) 773-3951 Andrew_Kliman@msn.com
"... the *practice* of philosophy is itself *theoretical.* It is
the *critique* that measures the individual existence by the
essence, the particular reality by the Idea." -- K.M.
From: "William S. Lear" <rael@dejanews.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:00:02 -0500 (CDT) To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com On Sun, August 9, 1998 at 15:03:25 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes: >I've forwarded the comments on Heather's article to her, but apparently >she's away and may not be able to answer for a while. ... In the meantime, people might want to browse through Robin Hahnel and Mike Albert's *Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics*, which has a section reviewing various theories on economic discrimination. Bill
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 11:28:35 -0400 From: Mathew Forstater <forstate@levy.org> Organization: Jerome Levy Economics Institute MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Andrew Kliman wrote: > I response to Mat's post of Sunday, August 09, 1998 12:06 PM. > > I had written: > "It is really plausible that, given the choice between (a) making > $30,000 while Blacks also make $30,000, or (b) making $20,000 > while Blacks make $10,000, the latter is in the interests (real > and/or perceived) of white workers?" > > Mat: "But what if that is not the choice, but rather the choice > is between (a) > whites making 10k while Blacks also make 10k, or (b) whites make > 12k > while blacks make 8k? (or something like that?)" > > Well, IF it is a zero-sum game, then one group benefits > absolutely at the expense of the other. But that's the big if. > In subsequent posts, you clarify that you don't believe in the > zero-sum game (wages fund, fixed pie, or whatever) doctrine, but > it seems to me that your two choices here presuppose it. I don't believe the pie has to be fixed, but in fact it pretty much is. Or maybe the pie as a whole has grown, but workers' share hasn't (even shrunk). But, yes, I made an error in using an example of both cases adding up to 20. We could do it in terms of rates of increase or shares or whatever, but my point was simply that your example may not be the only way to think about it. And, in fact, there is a big difference between a potentially growing pie and an actually growing pie, and the relative shares of the pie, even if it is growing. Whose real wages are growing? How far will the Fed let unemployment fall? Also, (and I apologize for implying that no one on the list had looked at any of the literature I cited, of course some have), Botwinick's analysis does outline that there are limits to wages in capitalism. This is key to his analysis. > Is the underlying issue here that you don't think it is > politically feasible for both white and Black working people to > improve their conditions of life and labor, so that instead you > advocate redistributive policies? No. I think we have to go beyond the old simplistic idea that everything is explained in terms of capitalist divide-and-conquer. It is more complex than that, and I think that understanding that some white workers may have a real material interest in racism, males have a real material interest in gender discrimination, is important in the struggle for the better society we all want. But I don't attribute this simplistic view to you. Our disagreement may be more semantic than anything else. And it may also concern short-term vs. long-term strategies, and relatedly, issues that are relevant within the present socioeconomic and institutional structure of modern capitalism vs. those that regard possible alternatives. We need to think about both (all). > Mat: "Also, relative wages do matter--absolutely--if you get > what i mean. it's about power relations and hierarchy, it > involves capitalist control over workers but also power relations > within the working class." > > Well, no, I don't really get what you mean. But of course > relative wages matter, as do racism and discrimination. To > question the claim that white workers benefit from racial > discrimination in absolute terms is not make racism and > discrimination any less repugnant. Right, and it appears you did get what I meant (I think?). There are hierarchies within the working class, and "race" has been an imporant factor mediating one's place in the hierarchy. The working class is not homogeneous (again I am not attributing this view to you, but rather it is one that is out there.) And the working class actively participates in these processes. > Mat: "if we can imagine another socioeconomic system in which > everyone is absolutely better off, and that is what we use as our > benchmark, then we can never employ the distinction between > absolute and relative within the present system. everything is > relative, then." > > My point does not reduce to the notion that white workers don't > gain absolutely because something better is possible. Rather, > the issue is whether racism and disrimination HINDER, not only > the realization of a new human society, but also the fight for > improvements in people's lives, in the meantime, within the > present system. If so, then both white working people and Blacks > lose due to racism and discrimination, though not to the same > extent. > Yes. But I don't see this as inconsistent with my view. Within the present system, some white workers are absolutely better off because of discrimination than they would be without that discrimination, within the present system. But in another system it is conceivable that everyone could be better off. > Mat: "for example, if Blacks sufffer higher unemployment rates > due to discrimination, and whites therefore have a lower chance > of being unemployed ...." > > I do not think the "therefore" follows. You're thinking in > static (or zero-sum) terms. What about the possibility that > discrimination and racism hinder the coalescence of white working > people with Blacks, that they get fewer concessions from the > ruling class (if not the shit kicked out of them, as has been > happening for 2 decades) such as job creation, and that whites > therefore have a higher chance of being unemployed, not relative > to Blacks, but relative to what would be the case were there less > discrimination and racism? In the present system it is zero sum. Until the end of politically enforced unemployment and endogenous reproduction of the reserve army. Capitalism reproduces a reserve army of unemployed. It is part of the reproduction of capitalism. Same with differential wages, different 'sectors' Unless there is some set of policies that can change this, or unless the system is changed, then someone's got to be in the reserve army, etc. As Darity argues, eliminating one form of discrimination will just change the composition of the reserve army, not eliminate the reserve army. That's all for now. Thanks, Mat
X-Sender: dhenwood@popserver.panix.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:03:47 -0400 To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood@panix.com> Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Andrew Kliman wrote: >Doug: "Sure, in a nonracist world, workers as a whole would be >better off, but that's difficult to imagine and a long way off." > >Right. So isn't the foremost task to make it easier to imagine >and therefore not such a long way off? Yes, absolutely. One of the reasons I asked Heather to write up her work for LBO was because it forces a confrontation with some unpleasant truths, notably the fact that there are real material reasons why cross-racial class unity, so passionately embraced by anti-identarians, is so difficult. When I said: >Doug: "So from that point of view, the "black & white, unite & >fight" slogan makes sense." > >No. It is a disastrous slogan. In the interests of so-called >unity, it >would have the racism of whites and the discrimination faced by >Blacks be ignored or declared of secondary importance. you rightly rebuked me for sliding too easily back into the one big happy class mode. But can the slogan be rethought as a second movement, after race and racism are confronted? Are there any U.S. unions that explore race and racism? Any non-U.S. unions? Or do they just not want to talk about it. Doug
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:34:09 -0400 From: Mathew Forstater <forstate@levy.org> Organization: Jerome Levy Economics Institute MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Doug Henwood wrote: > Are there any U.S. unions that explore race and racism? Any non-U.S. > unions? Or do they just not want to talk about it. This gets back to the contributions of the communist party thread. Communists were not without problems on these issues, but there is very good evidence that they were better than everybody else. Of course, as we all know, not all workers are communists.Earl Ofari Hutchinson's REDS and BLACKS, Robert Allen's RELUCTANT REFORMERS, Gerald Horne's BLACK AND RED, Philip Foner's ORGANIZED LABOR AND THE BLACK WORKER, Herbert Hill's BLACK LABOR AND THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM, and other writings by Angela Davis, Herbert Hill, the Foners, etc. are all useful and informative here. We should also look at the work of Du Bois, C.L.R. James, Eric Williams, Harry Haywood, Abram Harris, Oliver Cox, George Washington Woodbey, Paul Robeson, Aime Cesaire, George Padmore, Walter Rodney, etc., etc., and the many Black Marxists, Socialists, Communists who have "sweat blood" (or just bled) over these issues. Mat
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:53:57 -0400 From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB@CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dont.panix.com id MAA04765 Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com However, at the same time that the CPUSA had the slogan "Black and white unite and fight" it proposed "super seniority" for Blacks (i.e. affirmative action) in industry and Reuther and others opposed it. Wm. L. Patterson, a CP leader, was charging the U.S. with genocide against the Negro People, (at the UN), et al. In other words the slogan was not put forth absent a vigorous assault directly on white racism, not ignoring it or leaving it to a secondary importance. Charles Brown
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 19:13:32 +0100 To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com From: Jim heartfield <Jim@heartfield.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com In message <35CF2101.B648C61A@levy.org>, Mathew Forstater <forstate@levy.org> writes >Doug Henwood wrote: > >> Are there any U.S. unions that explore race and racism? Any non-U.S. >> unions? Or do they just not want to talk about it. I think that's a bit out of date, certainly for Britain. It is true (as I said before) that British unions in the post-war period were fiercely nationalistic. But nowadays most unions are concerned with equal opportunity policies, black representation and so on. The Transport and General Workers Union has made much of the question of the seniority of black staff on the London Underground. Its General Secretary is black. Public sector unions especially are very much tied up with the local authority's concern to balance representation in the workforce, often in ways that tend to exacerbate divisions. In their book Age of Insecurity, Larry Elliott and Dan Atkisnon, two eonommics writers on the leftish Guardian newspaper make an interesting comparison: 'the shrunken trade unions have themselves been transformed to a great extent into middlemen for the legal profession, packagaing up possible cases involving their members and bringing them to the lawyers. These days a union official is more likely to be found warming himself by the fire in a barrister's chambers ...than rubbing his hands over a picket- line Brazier' They ask the question whether 'the two phenomenon - the brutal "downsizing" and the "historic" courtroom win - can ... coexist permanently within the same economic and legal system' They go on to contrast the position in the seventies with that of today. indicating that 'unfair dismissal law was in its infancy' and 'Firing someone for falling pregnant or "coming out" may have been fairly easy, but firing someone on the sole grounds that the employer would be able to make more money without him was a very different business'. Today they suggest those roles are reversed, and unfair dismissal laws are much stronger, including racial discrimination, whilst union power is collectively much weaker. Verso, p 103. -- Jim heartfield
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 21:32:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: meisenscher@pop.igc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com, lbo-talk@lists.panix.com From: Michael Eisenscher <meisenscher@igc.apc.org> Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com At 12:03 PM 8/10/1998 -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: ... >Are there any U.S. unions that explore race and racism? Any non-U.S. >unions? Or do they just not want to talk about it. > >Doug That depends on what you mean by "explore." Unions don't tend to explore issues in the abstract, but rather in relation to specific conditions their members encounter or around strategic objectives they adopt. There are many unions that have conducted anti-racist struggles in hiring, promotion, training, etc. There are probably none that have taken up the issue theoretically or as an abstract principle (although nearly all have some broad convention resolution that asserts a principle). In some respects, the UE has conducted both specific struggle around issues of racism in the electrical industry, while also conducting a more general educational campaign in the pages of its paper and other publications. I imagine other unions could also be cited. (District 65 pre-UAW had a very robust educational life, including programs around racism; 1199 did also.) Coming to terms with immigrant organizing has forced some unions to address xenophobia and prejudice among its U.S. members toward workers from across our Southern borders, Southeast Asia, China, India, Pakistan, Japan, Korea, etc. Michael E.
X-Originating-IP: [38.234.107.75] From: "alec ramsdell" <a_ramsdell@hotmail.com> To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:48:49 PDT Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com This may qualify as a gratuitous post, but this morning, the second morning at my new temp gig, I was told I would not be permitted to arrive early to work to spend an unpaid 30 mins going through my email, that I wasn't to go on the internet period, so here I am. En Garde Mssrs.! A few observations. I know a guy, a union worker, who actually moved out of a state because of the racism in the union, he noted this in others states he had worked as well. I mean really bad talk, things like "Hitler was right" (applied to blacks). Also, I have a friend who now works for SEIU and AFL, who attended union summer last year. She noted a tendency among the to-be organized workers of being more interested in asking her out on a date than in labor organization. Anyone involved with unions: what about homosexuality and homophobism in unions? Is this a topic that is dealt with in any public context? -Alec
From: MScoleman@aol.com
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:26:47 EDT
To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer
Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com
In a message dated 98-08-11 15:52:05 EDT, you write:
<< Anyone involved with unions: what about homosexuality and homophobism in
unions? Is this a topic that is dealt with in any public context?
-Alec >>
Well hell, everything else is dealt with in a public context....... However,
as with any form of tolerance, there seems to be the least tolerance and the
greatest amount of hypocricy with sexual preference. But this isn't just
unions, this is in companies, in the working class, and throughout our whole
society -- and unions tend to mirror the prejudices of the community. So, for
a few observations:
**union members in groups tend to have pretty prejudicial views on
homosexuality and lesbianism, but individually display far more tolerance (at
least where I work).
**union leaders claim to be tolerant in public but refuse to actually help
homosexuals and lesbians in trouble as individuals (this has been my
experience).
** Bell Atlantic officially recognizes company formed gay and lesbian groups
and puts out literature preaching tolerance. However, upper level management
routinely turns a blind eye towards lower management prejudice -- I recently
helped one person file an eeoc suit against the company after trying for TWO
YEARS to get management to stop an ongoing, personal harrasment situation at
their work location. One of the six persons named was a union steward who
refused to file grievances or help the person being harrassed.
Further, the company now advertises that they provide medical coverage
for non-married couples. However, a little investigation reveals the
following: the first time I called benefits to get a package for medical
coverage for non-married couples I was told the company did not provide
coverage by a clerk who clearly disapproved of my request (i.e., she gasped,
said NEVER, and slammed the phone down in my ear). The second time I called I
was told that non-married couples are not entitled to receive what we call the
Medical Expense Plan available to union members, but can only join HMOs. So,
as a union member, I could not cover a significant other under what is
considered the "best" option which is old fashioned assignment insurance where
I choose all the health providers, but must cover myself and a partner with
"second" best option, choosing an HMO. When I questioned this position, the
clerk told me that the company was doing this as a favor to people with
alternative life styles and didn't HAVE to provide any medical coverage. When
I pointed out to her that the company actually doesn't have to provide medical
coverage to anyone at all, and that this is bargained for in the most part by
the union, she asked me what address to mail the information to. I didn't
bother to call the union and ask why they didn't see to it that their dues
paying members with 'alternative' life styles didn't receive the same benefits
as 'other' union members, supposedly with 'non-alternative' lifestyles.
maggie coleman mscoleman@aol.com
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:11:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: meisenscher@pop.igc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com From: Michael Eisenscher <meisenscher@igc.apc.org> Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com At 12:48 PM 8/11/1998 PDT, alec ramsdell wrote: >This may qualify as a gratuitous post, but this morning, the second >morning at my new temp gig, I was told I would not be permitted to >arrive early to work to spend an unpaid 30 mins going through my email, >that I wasn't to go on the internet period, so here I am. En Garde >Mssrs.! > >A few observations. I know a guy, a union worker, who actually moved >out of a state because of the racism in the union, he noted this in >others states he had worked as well. I mean really bad talk, things >like "Hitler was right" (applied to blacks). Also, I have a friend who >now works for SEIU and AFL, who attended union summer last year. She >noted a tendency among the to-be organized workers of being more >interested in asking her out on a date than in labor organization. > >Anyone involved with unions: what about homosexuality and homophobism in >unions? Is this a topic that is dealt with in any public context? > >-Alec > While I don't question the experience of your friend, I would be cautious about drawing global conclusions on the basis of such annecdotal evidence concerning the extent to which racism permeates unions. Racism permeates every facet of this society, unions included. But unions are no more susceptible (I suspect less) than most college campuses, non-union workplaces, and other institutions, including non-profits. As for your friend's description of Union Summer and the preoccupations of its participants -- I don't know how old you are, but try to remember when you were 18-25 (the age of typical Union Summer participants). Can you honestly say there was not a day that went by when your hormones were not raging, sending your libido messages intended for another part of your anatomy than your union consciousness. I'd be damned shocked if you put a bunch of 20-somethings together an no one tried to hit on others in the group (although I confess to having met some REVOLUTIONARIES who were so doctrinaire that I would have a hard time imagining them doing anything with their free time other than studying some obscure section of the collected works of Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, etc.). CWA, SEIU and a number of other unions have very active gay/lesbian caucuses (both formal and informal), and at least in the larger urban settings, there is a conscious effort to promote gender preference tolerance. When you move outside the urban centers, however, I suspect that in most unions, like most other institutions, social tolerance becomes more restricted. In solidarity, Michael E.
X-Originating-IP: [38.234.107.75] From: "alec ramsdell" <a_ramsdell@hotmail.com> To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:09:33 PDT Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Michael Eisenscher writes: > >While I don't question the experience of your friend, I would be cautious >about drawing global conclusions on the basis of such annecdotal evidence >concerning the extent to which racism permeates unions. Racism permeates >every facet of this society, unions included. But unions are no more >susceptible (I suspect less) than most college campuses, non-union >workplaces, and other institutions, including non-profits. True, his observation is just a "street"-level anecdotal observation. But like you say, it would be a mistake to draw too much from it. > >As for your friend's description of Union Summer and the preoccupations of >its participants -- I don't know how old you are, 26 but try to remember when >you were 18-25 (the age of typical Union Summer participants). Can you >honestly say there was not a day that went by when your hormones were not >raging, sending your libido messages intended for another part of your >anatomy than your union consciousness. Boy don't I know it. But her anecdotal observation was of the older workers to be organized, not among the Union Summer participants. The gist I got from her was that what was important in the mentioned anecdote was less a foregrounding of male libido on the workers part, than a backgrounding of union interest. But again, this is just a small-scale observation. I'd be damned shocked if you put a >bunch of 20-somethings together an no one tried to hit on others in the >group Yes, it would be most strange and dispiriting. (although I confess to having met some REVOLUTIONARIES who were so >doctrinaire that I would have a hard time imagining them doing anything with >their free time other than studying some obscure section of the collected >works of Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, etc.). > >CWA, SEIU and a number of other unions have very active gay/lesbian caucuses >(both formal and informal), and at least in the larger urban settings, there >is a conscious effort to promote gender preference tolerance. When you move >outside the urban centers, however, I suspect that in most unions, like most >other institutions, social tolerance becomes more restricted. > >In solidarity, >Michael E. > Can you (or anyone else) recommend any books on gender & sexuality in the labor movement?
X-Originating-IP: [38.234.107.75] From: "alec ramsdell" <a_ramsdell@hotmail.com> To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Black unemployment in July 21 Left Business Observer Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:44:41 PDT Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com >Well hell, everything else is dealt with in a public context....... However, >as with any form of tolerance, there seems to be the least tolerance and the >greatest amount of hypocricy with sexual preference. But this isn't just >unions, this is in companies, in the working class, and throughout our whole >society -- and unions tend to mirror the prejudices of the community. Another gasp for air while the boss ain't around. . . Yeah, I have a friend who went to Barnard (who BTW has written about the above as one who identifies bi-sexual), and was actively involved in the goings-on there two years ago. She wrote a piece for the Village Voice critical of the class trappings of "liberal feminism", the hypocrisy, or at the least tunnel-vision along class (income level, type of work) lines. -Alec
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 17:09:52 -0400 From: Heather Boushey <HBoushey@compuserve.com> Subject: comments Sender: Heather Boushey <HBoushey@compuserve.com> To: Doug Henwood <dhenwood@panix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 I'd like to comment on a few of the comments on my article in the LBO (#84). First, with respect to some comments by Lipow, I would like to point out that my analysis, modeled using standard wage regressions and accounting for differences in individual's human capital, industry, and occupation, suggests that in locations where unemployment is relatively high, wages will be lower. African Americans experience the largest wage penalty for living in a high unemployment locality. Whites benefit from skin privilege in that they do not suffer as much as African Americans do when they work in an area where the local aggregate unemployment is high. Further, in locations where the white unemployment is high, whites suffer less than do blacks who live in locations where the black unemployment rate is high. Given that in African American unemployment tends to be double the white unemployment rate across cities, this finding is especially disturbing. What this means for cross-racial organizing is unclear, however, I don't believe it indicates that there is no hope. As has been pointed out, all workers benefit from low unemployment and organizing efforts must be aware of the fact that even in a tight labor market, whites are benefiting from greater employment opportunities and less wage penalty for living in a high unemployment region. With respect to Kliman's comments, I think the above addresses all of them except how these findings fit in with the notion of segmented labor markets. The finding that the elasticity of wages with respect to unemployment is substantially different for whites with respect to the white unemployment rate and blacks with respect to the black unemployment rate (and females with respect to the female unemployment rate) does count as evidence for segmentation. I do concede that the effects of black unemployment of all workers' wages should be smaller than the effects of white unemployment on white workers' wages, however, this analysis was done on the 50 largest cities where the proportion of blacks is relatively large (15% of all working adults). That the effects of black unemployment on black wages are so large is then even more astounding and points to blacks competing in highly segregated labor markets. Finally, with respect to the comments from Lear, my results differ from Blanchflower and Oswald's because the sample is different. I explore the wage curve in only the 50 largest cities in the nation. The larger elasticities are most likely due to differences in the structure of urban labor markets. (This is an issue I am dealing with in a current paper.) As to why white women are the least susceptible to the negative effects on pay >from unemployment, this may be for two reasons. First, many women are already near the bottom of the labor market and thus the scope of their wages to fluctuate downwards may be limited. Second, women's employment is less cyclical than men's. Women still experience a high degree of occupational segregation in the labor market and it may be that they are employed in jobs that are not susceptible to demand fluctuations in the same way that men are. Heather Boushey Research Department NYC Housing Authority 250 Broadway, Room 711 New York, NY 10007 (p) 212-306-3372; (f) 212-306-6485 hboushey@compuserve.com
Home Mail Articles Stats/current Supplements Subscriptions Links