I don't know; it's been a long time since I read the book (and then, I was proofreading it). I've heard him _say_ it, though.
>I don't want to come off as saying his book is of no value or anything
>like that. But I have been influenced by the very penetrating criticisms
>by Shulman, Rhonda Williams. I don't want to repeat them all here, but
>just to mention one, his discussion of unemployment and the reserve army
>is...well...there is no discussion of unemployment or the reserve army!
>In a book on racial inequality in the US!
I think you're probably right (given the state of my memory cells). It's important to remember that Reich's research, though extremely interesting, is empiricist in it method. He mostly describes the data. There are some neoclassical models (which, frankly, I helped him develop), but the actual theory is pretty shallow. I don't think calling his work "empiricist" is any call to reject it, BTW. Rather it says that others should confront the theoretical issues for us, keeping in mind MR's empirical results. Of course, further research can contradict those results, but I've never seen that contradiction. Of course, I'm no expert on this literature.
Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.