Kalecki on full employment

[Brad De Long]

>>
>>It's arguing that sustained full employment is politically impossible under
>capitalism unless the state crushes labor. The ruling class just won't
>tolerate it for long. Places where full employment was previously tolerated,
>even encouraged - like Sweden during the high days of Soc Dem - no longer
>subscribe to the doctrine.>
>
>So why does the U.S. tolerate it now at
>all, with all the current, pervasive weakness
>of the working class?  What's to be afraid of?
>
>MBS

Perhaps because the memory of 1982 (and of the great press-led downsizing
scare of the early 1990s) is still strong? From the perspective of the
functioning of the system as a whole, unemployment *is* a worker discipline
device--a way of keeping workers afraid of the consequences of not working
hard, or asking for higher wages, or whatever.

Even when unemployment is low, the fear that you may be fired and that
unemployment may rise and that you 'll have a hard time getting a job (or
getting a good job) may still be a powerful motivator among those sections
of the labor force that have to be disciplined.

And as long as inflation stays low, productivity stays high, and the memory
of 1982 fresh, the Federal Reserve Governors can continue to give each
other high-fives and wonder if they shouldn't be willing to let measured
unemployment drift down to 4%...

Brad DeLong (who has been teaching efficiency wage theories to the
second-year graduate students)