<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Doctors Remove Bullet From Victim's Head: Seek to Determine Cause of Death, Dylan Matthews Edition</title>
		<description>Comments for Doctors Remove Bullet From Victim's Head: Seek to Determine Cause of Death, Dylan Matthews Edition at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.cepr.net</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 May 2013 01:20:06 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/doctors-remove-bullet-from-victims-head-seek-to-determine-cause-of-death-dylan-matthews-edition#comment-18658</link>
			<description>I think Dean Baker and others similar views on structural employment are too dismissive of the fact that all of the employment growth over the last 2 decades has gone to people with more than a high school education.  Since 1989 employment for workers with HS or less has declined 14% whereas employment for workers with college degrees has increased 82%.  This trend has been in place during the bubble years as well as during the recession periods.  I think one important element is that educated workers have a broader skill base and are more apt to be hired even if their skills do not exactly match the job since employers can provide job specific training.  Increasing economic activity through whatever means will almost always preferentially advantage the more skilled and educated.
 - AlanInAZ</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 05:21:32 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/doctors-remove-bullet-from-victims-head-seek-to-determine-cause-of-death-dylan-matthews-edition#comment-18652</link>
			<description>Actually the growth of inequality began in the 60's and the crash of real wages at the lower end of the income scale was in the 70's:

http://www.skeptometrics.org/WeeklyWages/WeeklyWages.htm

By the time Reagan administration policies began to take effect growth of real wages had already come to an end. Evidently people who think what happened in the 80's was critical are just not looking at the data for before then.

What caused the crash of real wages? It wasn't China and it wasn't Reagan or Bush. Think about it. - skeptonomist</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 04:20:39 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>What Exactly Are the Structuralists Saying?</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/doctors-remove-bullet-from-victims-head-seek-to-determine-cause-of-death-dylan-matthews-edition#comment-18651</link>
			<description>[quote]The largest shift upward redistribution in wages from the middle and bottom to the top, occurred in the early 80s.[/quote]

[quote]The marginal workers that firms hire when demand picks up tend to be less educated on average than the core workers who stay employed no matter what.[/quote]

This implies if unemployment was structural then core and marginal workers could be affected equally over time as turnover of skills would occur on the demand and supply side.

If the housing bust created structural, not cyclical unemployment, that implies aggregate demand never declined below full employment levels that existed before the bust.  Instead there was more demand for different skills in conjunction with less demand for others.

If structuralists claim the unemployment existed before the housing bust then it somehow existed as part of cyclical full employment without causing wage inflation.

As for the structural unemployment and correction in the early '80s that resulted in upwards wage redistribution, 
it didn't occur during full employment either given Volcker's policy of high interest rates to grind down high inflation concurrent with less cyclical employment.

It seems even where structural unemployment is legitimate, most of the employed workers no longer needed (especially core workers) are let go opportunistically during a cyclical demand slump, then workers with different skills are hired in the subsequent recovery.

Then again, look what the car industry did in this recovery using two tier wages that gave new workers lower income than existing ones, clearly not a structural difference, rather a cyclical opportunity to lock in lower wages and benefits for the long term. - Last Mover</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 04:16:41 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/doctors-remove-bullet-from-victims-head-seek-to-determine-cause-of-death-dylan-matthews-edition#comment-18649</link>
			<description>Dylan Matthews clearly has not seen Ed Lazear's new paper, which argues against the skill-mismatch claim. Lazear obviously has made many other silly claims, but at least he's starting to recognize the demand slump. - JSeydl</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 03:38:05 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
