Wednesday, April 26, 2006
There you go, a Nobel Laureate writing to a comic!
The Nobel laureate for the Economy Joseph E. Stiglitz has sent me this analysis of the job market in Italy.
“Dear Beppe,
I get alarming news from Italy: the law about the first job in France is withdrawn after a few weeks of student protests and yet with you in Italy the Law 30 is still is still being used after all these years and it is without opponents. Allow me then a brief reflection. No opportunity is more important than the opportunity to have a job. Policies aimed at increasing the flexibility of work have often seen the lowering of salary levels and a decrease in job security. But flexibility of work has been dominating the debate about the economy in recent years. However, these policies have not kept the promise to guarantee higher growth and lower unemployment rates. In fact, these policies often have perverse consequences for economic performance. For example they cause a lower demand for goods, because of lower levels of income and greater uncertainty and also because of an increase in family indebtedness. /../ ¶ Wednesday, April 26, 2006
The Nobel laureate for the Economy Joseph E. Stiglitz has sent me this analysis of the job market in Italy.“Dear Beppe,
I get alarming news from Italy: the law about the first job in France is withdrawn after a few weeks of student protests and yet with you in Italy the Law 30 is still is still being used after all these years and it is without opponents. Allow me then a brief reflection. No opportunity is more important than the opportunity to have a job. Policies aimed at increasing the flexibility of work have often seen the lowering of salary levels and a decrease in job security. But flexibility of work has been dominating the debate about the economy in recent years. However, these policies have not kept the promise to guarantee higher growth and lower unemployment rates. In fact, these policies often have perverse consequences for economic performance. For example they cause a lower demand for goods, because of lower levels of income and greater uncertainty and also because of an increase in family indebtedness. /../ ¶ Wednesday, April 26, 2006
