Presents letters to the editor referencing articles and topics discussed in previous issues. "Let Them Eat Stocks," which suggested that laid-off workers be given stock options in lieu of severance pay in the U.S.; "Huddled Excesses," which argued that immigration restriction laid the groundwork for labor's gains in 1920 to 1960 in the U.S.; "Econ 2," which offered views on the issue of minimum wage increase

Beyer, Wayne

Bhagwati, Jagdish N.

Bloch, Bradley

Carney, John

Cohen, Andrew Wender

Cohen, Randolph B.

Delano, D. B.

Esrig, Dave

Starling, Elizabeth

Columbia University Academic Commons

CORRESPONDENCELosing their appetiteTo tkt editori:James Cramer's suggesiion ("Let ThemEat Stocks," April 29) that laid-off work-ers be given stock options in lieu of sever-ance pay is well intended but deeply mis-guided. Cramer fails to recogni/e thatstock options are traded commodities. Iflaid-off workers want to use some or all oftheir severance pay to purchase options,they can do so. Typically they choose notto because options are very risky, and ingeneral unemployed people prefer hold-ing more secure and liquid assets such ascash. Cramer is correct in saying that anystock price increase that accompanies thelayoff announcement will increase thevalue of the options. But he misleads byintimating that this value is created out ofthin air, saying his plan requires "nomoney from the companies themselves."Of course in the end the value increasecomes from the same place severance paydoes—the pockets of stockholders, whenoption redemptions lead to dilution anda drop in the stock price. So the share-holders and firm are neither helped norharmed, but the employees are adverselyaffected since they are in effect forced toinvest their severance pay in securitiesnot of their chocsing.The absurdit)' of Cramer's plan is high-lighted when we consider (as f Jramer evi-dently did not) the question of who gainsand who loses when severance pay is re-placed by stock options. WTien relative-ly unproductive employees are laid off,firm efficiency improves, and the stockprice rises, benefiting those who hold op-lions. But when highly productive, valu-able worket s are laid off due to poor busi-ness judgment, the company suffers, andstock options become nearly worthless.Thus the more valuable a group of dis-placed workers was to their employer, themore they will lose under Cramer's plan.R\M)ot,PH B. COHENChicago, IllinoisTo tke editors:Great idea, James Cramer, though yourealize that the market's response todownsizing will likely change if and whenyour plan becomes commonplace.Such is the perversity of the market-place. Or could it be that by subtitling hisconcept "A Modest Proposal" Cramer issimply Swiftly following in the footstepsof the master of bitter irony and is fullycognizant of the market's obstinacy?WAWE BEYERChevy Chase, MarylandLite at the end of the tunnelTo the oditori:i was distressed to read Alex Heard's off-handed remarks linking Ted Kaczynski,the so-called "unhinged Berkeley profes-sor," with the Unabomber ("MommieDearest," April 29). Despite daily newsreports from Montana, to the Americanjudicial .system Mr. Kaczynski is only sus-pected of" being the mythical Unabomb-er. Like all defendants, Mr. Kaczynski isinnocent until proven guilt)'.El.l/AtlEIHSTARlJNt;St. Paul, MinnesotaTo ttie editors:Alex Heard's engaging account ofenviro-millennialism simplifies a key fac-tor in the paradoxical longevity of apoca-lyptic movements and thus obscures atelling difference between contemporarygrotips such as Earth Changes and wackypredecessors like Early ('hristianity.As Heard notes, all end-of-the-worldgroups need doctrinal "safety valves"allowing them to continue after the worldfails to end on schedule (what eschatolo-gists tactfully refer to as the "disconfirm-ing event"). Typically, however, theseescape hatches evolve only after the trau-matic failure of prophecy. Indeed, suchretooling is a psychological response tothe unpleasant predicament that inev-itably results from stating that the worldwill end, for example, in the year afterMarch 21,1843 (as the Millerites did).But in today's apocalypticism lite, theescape hatches are built in from the be-ginning. You don't bave to stick your neckout with such easily disprovable claims—avague unease with the state of the worldis sufficient. As befits our something-for-everyone, consumer-friendly culture,apocalypticism has been defanged andpredigested to be accessible to the widestpossible audience. Even the end of theworld, it seems, isn't what it used to be.BRADLEY Bt.ocHNew York, New YorkStretch marksTo tke editori:In an attempt to justify an idiosyncraticinterpretation of St. Paul's statements re-garding homosexual practice, Robert A.Hettinger (Correspondence, April 29)quotes St. Paul as allegedly stating thatheterosexual monogamous marriage isnot the (.hristian ideal. Thus, since Chris-tians do not take Paul seriously on thispoint, they should be equally free in theirinterpretation of his views on homosexu-ality.I C-orinthians 7, which Hettingerquotes, is not an attempt by St. Paul to setforth a theology of marriage. Like mostof his letters, this communication was anattempt to deal with concrete problemsthat arose in the lives of Christian com-munities that Paul had ministered to.In view of the severe persecutions thatChristians were undergoing at that time,Paul was offering pastoral advice that thesingle life would involve fewer complica-tions. In no sense was he legislating forthe church or prejudging future contin-gencies. In fact, in Ephesians 5:25-33,Paul's high view of marriage is madeabundantly clear, and, in I Timothy 3:2, itis implied that most Christian pastors willbe married.It is important in looking at any bibli-cal passage to consider the contextwithin which the passage is embedded.In any event, to consider Paul's pastoraladvice on the subject of marriage asbeing on the same level as his unequivo-cal statements regarding homosexualbehavior is quite a stretch, to put it ascharitably as 1 know how.D. B. DEL/\NOLos Angeles, CaliforniaTrade warsTo tke editors:Michael Lind displays a thin skin ("SmearTactics," April 29) while turning to innu-endo to justify a silly charge of "smear tac-tics" against me for my Nexo York Times oped and against Charles Lane.Lind should know that you cannothave it both ways: take a striking positionon an issue and have it taken seriously byonly those you admire and not by tboseyou despise. Indeed, one's fate is often tobave one's ideas vulgarized and misusedby tbose one despises and ignored bythose one admires.That Pat Buchanan's specific trade pol-icy ideas on Japan were not merely theresults of such misuse but came direct-ly from the mainstream policy wonks,many walking the corridors of the Clin-ton administration, is both undeniableand is what I argued. Did Buchanan in-vent for himself the notion that Japan is a"threat," that its trade policies are "un-fair," that Japan ought to be "contained,"that (in view of all this) we ought to levyan across-the-board tariff on Japan of10 percent? No, Mr. Lind: go and read|ames Fallows in The. Atlantic Monthly, andyou will find that he discusses withwarmth a Bush shokku that would enacta 20 to 25 percent, not just Buchanan'smodest 10 percent, acros.s-the-board tar-iff on Japan, citing sources such as Rudi-ger Dornbuscb, a well-known advocate ofthe use of such weaponry. Buchananclearly has read these gentlemen. If Bu-chanan is a mad bomber, he certainlyfound his bombs, not just tbeir compo-6 THE N E W REPUBLIC MAY 27,1996nents, on our front porches, not even ourbackyards.And it would be a heroic folly to assumetliat the administration's vote-seeking,fiamboyant and assiduous adoption of aconfrontational if ineffective policy ontrade with Japan, and the influential writ-ings in the media of the Japan-worrierssuch as Lind, did not serve to water thefields which Buchanan ploughs.Instead of growing up and acceptingthis reality, Lind whines. He sees me aspart of a "libertarian" attempt to "associ-ate liberals with a particularly noxiousfar-right extremist." This will appear ashilarious to my friends as to my foes.I must confess to being a registeredDemocrat, a social liberal and even ahappy member of the MIT diaspora whowas also for twelve years on the MITfaculty. I used the description (he putsit in quotes) of Dornbuscb as an MITeconomist because he is not a celebrityand needs identification, not because 1wished to imply, as Lind clearly thinks,that he was a "liberal."Lind charges me with creating an "ene-mies list." But academics call the "namingof names" the citing of sources. Lind'signorance of this culture is equally mani-fest when he wrongly cites my affiliation,to reinforce his libertarian conspiracythesis, as the American Enterprise Insti-tute. Of course, I am at Columbia Univer-sity. Like many academics, I have foundit useful to work briefly with or at sever-al reputed institutions, including bothBrookings and the AEI (with whom I ter-minated my periodic visits last year). ButLind would not understand that, wouldhe?JAGDISH BHAGWATINew York, New YorkTo tht BditorcWhile I have no desire to accuse MichaelLind of being a "Buchananite" or to ex-pel him from the ranks of organized lib-eralism, I would like to question his ex-tremely problematic use of labor historyin the cause of a more restrictive immi-gration policy.Eirst, in "Huddled Excesses" (April 1)Lind argues that immigration resuictionlaid the groundwork for labor's gainsin the extremely broad period, 1920to 1960. Unfortunately, Lind fails tocompare these years with the decadesthat preceded them. Between 1880 and1920—during the height of \irtuallyunrestricted immigration—the ranks oforganized labor grew from less than60,000 to over 5 million. By contrast, inthe first three years following the Emer-gency Quota Act of 1921, organized laborlost over 20 percent of its membership,over 1 million members. This is why laborhistorians refer to the 1920s as "the LeanYears." Meanwhile, most of the gaitis thatLind attributes to restriction occtirrednearly two decades after the laws werepassed. So mucb for easy correlations.Then, in "Smear Tactics" (April 29),Lind compounds this mistake by puttingforth a crude labor-market segmentationargtiment, hijacking David Brody as hisauthority. Nobody denies, of course, thatemployers used ethnic differences to cre-ate disunity among workers. But, in thethirty-six years since Brody published theclassic Steetwm'kns in America., a ntimber ofscholars have questioned whether immi-gration actually impeded unionization.In crafts where particular ethnic groupsgained control over a niche—in the gar-ment industry, in the building tiades andin puhhc transit—ethnicit)' frequentlyproved to be the foundation upon whichorganizers btiilt strong unions. And evenin Big Steel, as Lizabeth Cohen, a Brodystudent, has recently shown, cultural dif-ference proved to be an impediment toorganization only as long as labor re-fused to confront it constructively. TheCIO's successes of the '30s were directlyattributable to its sticcessful appeal toethnicity on behalf of industrial union-ism. If the modern labor movement andits supporters wish to duplicate the suc-cesses of that period, they must buildupon existing cultural structures ratherthan seeking to limit their presence inthe American economy.ANDREW WENDER COHENChicago, IllinoisTo the edltsn:Thanks for giving Michael Lind spaceto clear up the difference between hislukewarm "liberal nationalism" and theAmerica Eirst economic nationalism ofPat Buchanan.I t s hard to see why left-wing libertari-ans like Virginia Postrel can't make thedistinction. Building on badly potted his-tory and loony-left idealism, Lind hasconstructed a "nationalism" that bearsonly a nominal resemblance to Btichan-an's nationalism, which has its rootsin the ail-American tradition of GeorgeWashington, Thomas Jefferson, HenryClay, Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roo-sevelt.For Postrel-types who are still con-fused, here's a litmus test for tellingauthentic nationalism from the liberalpretenders: if it's fit to print in journalslike Thf Atlantic Monthly and Tilt: NEWREPUBLIC, it doesn't deserve to be associ-ated with Pat Buchanan.JOHN CARNEYChevy Chase, MarylandWage frightTo tke editors:Matthew Miller's ("Econ 2," April 29)conversion to the raise-the-miniinum-wage camp ranks him among the minor-ity of economisLs. And for good reason.The vast majority of authoritative stud-ies have agreed with the ivory-towereconomic theories that hold that raisingthe minimum wage causes joblessness.Miller's reference to the raft of recentstudies showing otherwise probably re-lates to news generated by one recentauthoritative study that showed no in-crease in joblessness. This analysis wasperformed by respected economistsDavid Card and Alan Krueger who stud-ied fast-food outlets on the New Jer-sey/Pennsylvania border after New Jer-sey raised its minimum wage. However,follow-up studies, which have been most-ly ignored by the press, have overwhelm-ingly reaffirmed the traditional ivory-tower view.Of course, today's minimum wage of34.25 is puny, but so is the proposed newone of $5.15. Someone earning $5.15 perhour working full time all year wouldearn well under $10,000. Thus, the no-tion that raising the minimum wagesomehow makes it a living wage is ratherfarfetched. Eurthermore, the joblessnesssuch an increase would create would havea lasting impact on the ability of low-skill workers to ultimately earn a true liv-ing wage. The real importance of keep-ing the minimum wage low is that itallows relatively unproductive laborersinto the workforce, where they can re-ceive on-the-job training. Indeed, one re-cent study has shown that workers hiredas minimum-wage workers average ap-proximately S6 per hour one year later.So, while I know this year's burger build-er may not be able to afford a family, Ithink next year's kitchen manager might.DA\T, EsRKiWest Orange, New JerseyMAY 27,1996 THE NEW REPUBLIC 7

Correspondence

https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8CN7DSX/download

Correspondence

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Columbia University Academic Commons