Re: The Working Consumer/was PKT and ecology

["Harry Veeder" <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----------
>From: "Canova, Timothy" <CANOVA@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "'pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: The Working Consumer/was PKT and ecology
>Date: Fri, Mar 23, 2001, 5:56 pm
>

>
>>>it would be nice to see PKT adopt a more expansive view of ecology.  the
>>>environment should include more than the physical environment, also the
>>>social environment.  doesn't Keynesian economics have anything at all to
>say
>>>about the fact that 2 million Americans are now behind bars, many because
>of
>>>a lack of decent job opportunities and the utter fiction of a 4 percent
>>>unemployment rate.  instead there are PKTers who have accepted the fiction
>>>that the US has been at full employment for the past few years.  that's a
>>>stretch -- only when compared to the basket cases of the world, like
>Japan.
>
>>It is not really a fiction. Those who register as unemployed have
>>identified themselves as unemployed. Of course, there are many other
>>people who don't feel unemployed even though they don't have
>>a paying job. What these people lack is not employment,
>>but income, recognition and validation.
>
>BUT:  if you're unemployed for more than 26 weeks, you're no longer counted
>as unemployed.  if you work even one hour per week in part-time work, you're
>not counted as unemployed.  those who end up in the prison system because
>they turn to the black-market drug trade are not counted as unemployed.  and
>then there's the entire issue of underemployment which includes the working
>poor, those working without health insurance, etc.  Full-employment is a
>fiction.
>

Sorry, I didn't make it clear.  Discussions of unemployment
are difficult because it depends on ones conception of work.
In our society and in academia there is a habit of centering
employment analysis around the wage-earner.


What I am saying is those who register as 'unemployed' are
'unemployed wage-earners', but it should not be assumed that those who do
not register as 'unemployed' see themselves as 'unemployed wage-earners' .
These people may not be earning a living, but it does not follow that
they are not engaged in worthwhile work of some kind. Many of these people
are raising their children, or 'volunteering' or struggling to become better
people. The government needs to create a new category for the
working non-wage earner. Otherwise society, tends to see them as
unfortunate freaks as if they were suffering from some pitiable deformity.

Fortunately the government and economists can bring these people into
the employment fold by giving them some income and categorizing them in
a respectful manner. Obviously this new category of employment will
not fit within the existing wage-welfare categories. Hence my earlier
suggestion that this new category of employment be called the
public service consumer or perhaps there is a better name.


Harry Veeder