> Max Sawicky wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> Because of the weak organization of the US working class, I think the
> ruling class will tolerate a lower rate of U than it would if the
> w.c. were stronger.>
So the r.c. tolerates low UE when it is afraid of the w.c., and also when it isn't?
> But responding to this point: 1) Kalecki said *sustained* full
> employment, not a cyclical peak,
I take your point about the difference between sustained and momentary. But this has not been that 'pointy' a peak. UE has been low for a while now. Another point is that in the 80's when labor was under the stewardship, as it were, of Mr. Kirkland, the UE rates were higher. So was this because the r.c. was not afraid of the w.c., or did the r.c. keep rates up in order to beat up the workers?
There seem to be enough other factors, as you, De Long, and Devine note, to further discount the salience of an inverse, binary relationship between working class power and UE.
MBS