Carl Remick wrote:
> >Carl Remick wrote:
> >> > >BTW, one figure I do find intriguing is the "Paul and Percival
> >>> >Goodman ... [estimate] that just five percent of the work ... being
> >>> >done ... would satisfy our minimal needs for food, clothing, and
> >>> >shelter." By my reckoning that estimate is now 35 years old. Are
> >>> >there any more recent estimates along these lines?
> >>> To figure that out, you'd have to "fart around with economic
> >>> Doug
> >>And the answer is?
> >Look over <ftp://184.108.40.206/pub/news.release/ocwage.txt> and tell
> >me what you think.
> For starters, you can certainly liquidate the 98,240 "public relations
> specialists and publicity writers" and not impair anyone's quality of life.
> And, what the hell, you can also trash-compact the 54,590 "economists,
> including market research analysts" w/o causing the wheels to fall off
> civilization. Sticking to the broad classifications, looks like 26.9% of
> workers belong in the category of actually useful -- i.e., "agricultural"
> (1.3% of employment) and "production" (25.6%). Beyond that ... lessee, the
> half million or so "physicians and surgeons" sure come in handy, along with
> assorted other healthcare types. And I'm sure the several millions listed
> as some sort of teacher aren't all timeserving assholes. Hmm, on the fly
> it's pretty difficult to ascertain the full complement of parasites with
> certainty, but then again, we're looking at *actually existing* work
> categories. I am quite certain that the future happiness of humankind will
> depend on divvying up necessary chores in a markedly different way than they
> are now assigned.
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu