A structural model of the labor market should improve our understanding of and ability to predict unemployment and wage change. With such a model of the labor market and the inflation process we should be better able to prescribe policies for aggregate demand and for structural improvements that are designed to reduce inflation and unemployment. Because labor market dynamics are fast, the duration of unemployment being only a few months, a structural model to reflect turnover and search behavior must have a very short period-a quarter would be too long. However, since real wages change sluggishly, the usual allocation variables will not be fully effective in regulating the turnover and search behavior of workers and employers. Hence, we expect that the short-term dynamics of the labor market will be regulated primarily by the availability in the market of jobs and workers. The composition of unemployment shows wide disparities for different demographic groups which suggests the desirability of separately estimating their search and turnover behaviors

The article focuses on a discussion on ramifications of tax deductibility of a visiting professor's travel expenses as discussed by researcher Allen Ford. The article deals extensively with the tax implications during the professor's stay; however, an addendum is needed for the professor who decides to remain permanently in the position, especially in light of the number of professors so inclined. The two tax questions facing the professor in a decision to stay or even to move to a new position are the taxability of any gain on the sale of the residence at the former location and the availability of a moving expense deduction. Under section 1034, gain from the sale of a taxpayer's principal residence is not recognized, provided certain conditions are met. Regulation 1.1034-1(c)(3) (i) states that the mere fact that property is, or has been, rented out is not determinative that such property is not used by the taxpayer as his principal residence. In the case where a taxpayer uses more than one property as a residence, the determination of whether property is used by the taxpayer as his principal residence depends upon all facts and circumstances in each case

ago. It is the object of this paper to examine some implications of these two regulations for the control of the money supply via reserve aggregates, To control the money supply (M 1 or other aggregate) using reserves, it is necessary to have an idea of the pattern by which changes in the reserve instrument affect changes in the money supply target. That is, one must have a model (perhaps implicitly) of the money supply, which would generally include an estimated response-path of the aggregate to changes in the reserve instrument, from which to make forecasts of that aggregate, conditioned on choices of instrument values. Accuracy of control is limited by accuracy of our forscasts, which in turn is limited by the appropriateness of the model. Thus model specification is of paramount importance in control. In the next section it is shown that a single-equation model, which relates a monetary aggregate including member bank deposits to present and past values of a reserve instrument, is of necessity misspecified if that instrument* contains required reserves as a component-basically because current deposits are then associated with future reserves. Thus, for example, multipliers derived from such equations are inconsistent. This leads to a consideration of reserve series, such as free reserves, obtained by eliminating the predetermined required reserve series from the reserve instrument. To examine the effect of lagged vault cash on money supply/reserve relationships, Section 3 describes various reserve series, obtained by substituting current for lagged vault cash in the reserve aggregate. This concept is then integrated with that of Section 2 by developing some contemporaneous marginal reserve and base measures, which take into account both aspects of lagged accounting