I am pretty much skeptical of purely economic 'explanations' especially when it comes to labor market. There is plenty of research showing that rather then liberating from social prejudices, capitalism enshrines them in the language of efficiency, meritocracy and purpose-rationality.
Your argument that unemployment carries a moral stigma fits that frame. But that would be more of a yuppie thing as their work seem to be their identity politics, no?
Wojtek
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jeffrey Fisher <jeff.jfisher at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But what not hiring the "reserve army?" From an economic point of view,
> > the
> > "opportunity cost" of an employed person is much higher than that of an
> > unemployed one. So one would think that ceteri paribus the bosses would
> > prefer hiring a currently unemployed person because they could get away
> > with
> > paying him/her less, no? What gives?
> >
>
> Well, as Joanna notes, this has been going on for a while, and there are
> other stories on it, but hasn't it always been true that it's easier to get
> a job when you have a job than when you don't? The difference now is that
> with so many people unemployed, the impact is much more broadly felt.
>
> Obviously, if you don't have a job, something is wrong with you. Even with
> nearly 10% unemployment. Don't the least skilled, talented, responsible
> people get cut first, just like it's the slow ones in the herd ho get
> caught
> by the predators?
>
> It's the same moralistic logic that says poor people are bad people.
>
> Isn't it?
>
> j
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>