Search results

Using unpublished time‐series data for three specific age/gender groups, we first determine the percentage of female employment to total employment for nine sectors of the U.S. economy. Second, we estimate the cyclical change in hours of employment for each age/gender group within each sector. Third, we estimate the cyclical behavior of the nominal wage for each sectoral gender group. The paper’s evidence does not support, in general, a more cyclical response of female hours worked in the service‐producing sectors that are dominated by women. We find partial evidence that hours worked by men are more cyclical compared with hours worked by women in the male‐dominated goods‐producing sectors. Given the evidence of no pronounced difference in the cyclical behavior of hours and wages for men and women, the business cycle is gender‐neutral.That is, the elastic female labor supply is washed out over the business cycle across major sectors of the U.S. Economy. Observational evidence suggests supply‐side and structural factors in the economy have attenuated the business cycle, especially in the service‐producing sectors.

A review of recent notable research on socioeconomic inequality, including Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014), Rebecca Blank’s Changing Inequality (2011), Joseph Stiglitz’s The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future (2013), and Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger (2010).

I critically compare the contributions of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Joseph Stiglitz’s The Price of Inequality, Rebecca Blank’s Changing Inequality, and Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s The Spirit Level. The comparison is focused largely on discerning analytical trends in studies of inequality and differential relationships with capitalism.

Popular scholarship on inequality is surprisingly diverse with varying analytical approaches and conclusions represented. Each of the works was consistent with regard to important role of the state as a mitigating institution.

The intent of these works was to engage the general public on the subject of economic inequality. Thus, it is important to know what information is being disseminated in a general sense and how this “public political economy” might influence popular views on inequality.

Comparative reviews of scholarship intended for general popular consumption are rare. Postrecession economic realities have driven inequality to the fore in many advanced capitalist societies making such a review timely as well.

The purpose is to offer a critique of the process of decision-making by top university administrators and to analyze how their decisions imposed their preferences and expanded administrative control.

In the fall of 2021, the top administrators at Boston-based Northeastern University required that all members of the university community return to fully on-campus face-to-face work. That decision involved a return to what was labeled “normal operations” and followed a year-and-a-half of adjustments to the COVID-19 pandemic. Building on that case example, the analysis then ranges backward and forward in time. Other decisions – by Northeastern University leaders as well as leaders at other schools – are considered as well.

Leaders impose labels on complex contingencies as a way of constructing meaning. No label is objectively true or indisputable. In the hands of individuals who possess hierarchical power and authority, the application of a label such as “new normal” represents an exercise of power. Through an exploration and analysis of the underlying, unspoken, assumptions behind the application of the “new normal” label, the article suggests how the interests of university leaders were being advanced.

Because of its reliance on labeling, the paper focuses mainly on the words of administrators – at Northeastern University and elsewhere – that are called upon to explain/justify decisions. The multiplicity of interests forwarded by the “new normal” label are explored. No attempt is made – nor would it be possible – to understand what was in the hearts and minds of these administrators.

The article makes a case that any and all pronouncements of leaders should be understood as assertions of power and statements of interests. The practical impact is to suggest a critical analysis to be applied to all such pronouncements.

The approach taken in this article is situated within post-modernist analysis that critiques dominant narratives, disputes epistemological certainty and ontological objectivity and takes cognizance of coded messages contained in language.

Everyone has been through a traumatic period of time with the pandemic. The author has focused on a specific community – university administrators and tenure/tenure track faculty – as a window to help explain how decision-makers shaped their response. The author wants to emphasize the labels imposed by leaders and the assumptions behind the application of those labels.

Labor markets for unskilled and low-wage workers in the United States stagnated in the last quarter of the 20th century. The collapse in the low-wage labor market has been well documented¹ and numerous research initiatives have investigated the causes. Despite some geographical mismatches between buyers and sellers low-paying jobs are generally available but forces are at work on both the demand and supply sides of unskilled labor markets that make it increasingly difficult for working families at or near the bottom of the income distribution to earn enough to meet basic needs. Welfare reform effectively increased the supply of unskilled workers, which placed added pressures on wages and earnings of low-income families.

We examined the role gender plays in managerial stereotypes and changes that have occurred in the US for executive women in the workforce. We also investigated factors and personality traits that affect advancement into upper management for all executives and those that affect women in particular. Despite increased organisational sensitivity, public policies, and equal rights legislation, women continue to be underrepresented in corporate America. Pay increases and promotions for females have not kept pace with those for men. Study results also indicate that managerial womenwho juggle jobs and family life benefit from these multiple roles, but women who put off marriage and family to build top‐level careers suffer in later years from greatly reduced chances of finding spouses and having children. Further adaptation of organisational culture in the new economy, weakening of the glass ceiling phenomenon, and family friendly work policies may alleviate some of the difficulties experienced by women who want it all.

“Being poor is a cardinal sin in our society,” one attorney notes in connection with an observation that women face an uphill battle in terms of the effects of poverty on child custody outcomes. Evidence from the same document quotes a Minnesota referee who is renowned for his usual statement to female AFDC recipients:’ How much of the taxpayers money are you currently receiving? (17,p.25)”.