Progressisti e liberisti uniti nella lotta

[San Siro]

Una sorprendente iniziativa dei più importanti economisti americani, sia progressisti che liberali.


Statement from leading American economists

Although its collapse has dominated recent media coverage, the financial sector is not the only segment of the U.S. economy running into serious trouble. The institutions that govern the labor market have also failed, producing the unusual and unhealthy situation in which hourly compensation for American workers has stagnated even as their productivity soared.
Indeed, from 2000 to 2007, the income of the median working-age household fell by $2,000 – an unprecedented decline.
In that time, virtually all of the nation’s economic growth went to a small number of wealthy Americans. An important reason for the shift from broadly-shared prosperity to growing inequality is the erosion of workers’ ability to form unions and bargain collectively.
A natural response of workers unable to improve their economic situation is to form unions to negotiate a fair share of the economy, and that desire is borne out by recent surveys. Millions of American workers – more than half of non-managers – have said they want a union at their work place. Yet only 7.5% of private sector workers are now represented by a union. And in all of
2007, fewer than 60,000 workers won union status through government-sanctioned elections. What explains this disconnect?
The problem is that the election process overseen by the National Labor Relations Board has become drawn out and acrimonious, with management campaigning fiercely to deter unionization, sometimes to the extent of violating labor laws. Union sympathizers are routinely threatened or even fired, and they have little effective recourse under the law. Even when workers overcome this pressure and vote for a union, they are unable to obtain contracts one-third of the time due to management resistance.
To remedy this situation, the Congress is considering the Employee Free Choice Act.
This act would accomplish three things:
* It would give workers the choice of using majority sign-up-- a simple, established procedure in which workers sign cards to indicate
their support for a union – or staging an NLRB election;
* it triples damages for employers who fire union supporters or break other
labor laws;
* and it creates a process to ensure that newly unionized employees have a fair shot at obtaining a first contract by calling for arbitration after 120 days of unsuccessful bargaining.
The Employee Free Choice Act will better reflect worker desires than the current “war over representation.” The Act will also lower the level of acrimony and distrust that often accompanies union elections in our current system.
A rising tide lifts all boats only when labor and management bargain on relatively equal terms. In recent decades, most bargaining power has resided with management. The current recession will further weaken the ability of workers to bargain individually. More than ever, workers will need to act together.
The Employee Free Choice Act is not a panacea, but it would restore some balance to our labor markets. As economists, we believe this is a critically important step in rebuilding our economy and strengthening our democracy by enhancing the voice of working people in the workplace.


Henry J. Aaron
Brookings Institution

Katharine Abraham
University of Maryland

Philippe Aghion
Harvard University

Eileen Appelbaum
Rutgers University

Kenneth Arrow
Nobel Laureate in
Economics
Stanford University

Dean Baker
Center for Economic Policy
and Research

Jagdish Bhagwati
Columbia University

Rebecca Blank
Brookings Institution

Joseph Blasi
Rutgers University

Alan S. Blinder
Princeton University

William A. Darity
Duke University

Brad DeLong
University of Calif. - Berkeley

John DiNardo
University of Michigan

Robert H. Frank
Cornell University

Richard Freeman
Harvard University

James K. Galbraith
University of Texas

Robert J. Gordon
Northwestern University

Heidi Hartmann
Institute for Women’s Policy Research

Lawrence Katz
Harvard University

Robert Lawrence
Harvard University

David S. Lee
Princeton University

Frank Levy
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Lisa Lynch
Brandeis University

Ray Marshall
University of Texas

Lawrence Mishel
Economic Policy Institute

Robert Pollin
University of Massachusetts-Amherst

William Rodgers
Rutgers University

Dani Rodrik
Harvard University

Jeffrey D. Sachs
Columbia University

Robert M. Solow
Nobel Laureate in Economics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

William Spriggs
Howard University

Peter Temin
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Mark Thoma
University of Oregon

Lester C. Thurow
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Laura Tyson
University of Calif.- Berkeley

Paula B. Voos
Rutgers University

David Weil
Boston University

Edward Wolff
New York University

[dottoraus]

Originalmente inviato da San Siro

As economists, we believe this is a critically important step in rebuilding our economy and strengthening our democracy by enhancing the voice of working people in the workplace.

Questi liberisti mi sembrano un pò come la chiesa cattolica che da un giorno all'altro capì che Galileo - l'eretico - vedeva giusto (moto della terra intorno al sole), hanno sempre negato il corso naturale delle cose.
Da un pò si stanno ricredendo e la cosa buffa è che pensano di fare delle grandi scoperte - che per loro sono rivoluzionarie - a firmare questi documenti quando è lapalissiana la cosa, da più di un secolo.

Meglio tardi che mai comunque.

[San Siro]

Originalmente inviato da dottoraus

Questi liberisti mi sembrano un pò come la chiesa cattolica che da un giorno all'altro capì che Galileo - l'eretico - vedeva giusto (moto della terra intorno al sole), hanno sempre negato il corso naturale delle cose.
Da un pò si stanno ricredendo e la cosa buffa è che pensano di fare delle grandi scoperte - che per loro sono rivoluzionarie - a firmare questi documenti quando è lapalissiana la cosa, da più di un secolo.

Meglio tardi che mai comunque.

Non so quanti, fra i firmatari, sono di estrazione liberista.
Di quelli conosco solo Baghwati, ma penso ce ne siano altri.
Molti sono chiaramente progressisti (Baker, Galbraith, Mishel); altri potremmo definirli di "centro" (Rodrik).
Però quello che dici tu è sacrosantemente vero.
La cultura europea non riesce a pensare l'economia come un qualcosa di slegato dalla cultura, dalla politica, dalle istituzioni.
La cultura americana sì. Il paradosso è che gli americani sono comunque dei tipi pragmatici: se una cosa non va, la cambiano, senza star lì a farsi troppi problemi. Gli europei, no. Se hanno affermato (nel caso dell'economia, assorbito dall'esterno) una tesi a livello dottrinale, la mantengono fino in fondo, anche se i fatti hanno dimostrato che è sbagliata.