From the heartland

[Max Sawicky]

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthtribune/news/opinion/2741000.htm

Re: From the Heartland

[Tom Walker]

Max wrote,

 That still leaves the heap o' work. -- 
mbs
Having conquered the lump o' labour, the heap 
o' work should be a piece o' cake. Here arefour non-exhaustive suggestions 
for things that need to be done:

A comprehensive, cross-referenced, annotated 
bibliography on economics and history of work time limitation.
A survey of the use of accounting in 
collective bargaining with specific attention to the costing of work 
time.
Workshops that take union members through the 
steps needed to makeinformed decisions about work time 
issues.

A 'how to' book and free-standing computer program 
for use by unions in collective bargaining.

It would also help immensely if people would pay a bit more attention 
themodest heap o'work that has already been done on the issue, like 
Anders Hayden's Sharing the Work, Sparing the Planet andAndre Gorz's 
Critique of Economic Reason.

Tom 
Walker

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: From the Heartland

[Eugene Coyle]

We should take umbrage at anything over 3.0.

Gene Coyle

Max Sawicky wrote:

 Well-taken, but if people start to care about the unemployment
 rate, then it becomes important, indicators be damned.  Now
 that we've seen 4-oh, we should take umbrage at anything over
 5.0.

 mbs

  The Conference Board's consumer confidence index has as one of its
  components households' evaluations of the state of the job market
  (jobs easy to get/hard to get), and as another, an evaluation of the
  state of economic conditions. It's not just what pollsters call a
  feelings thermometer.
 
  Doug
 

Re: From the Heartland

[Tom Walker]

Gene Coyle wrote,

 We should take umbrage at anything over 
3.0.

I take umbrage where ever I can findit.


Tom Walker

Re: From the Heartland

[Tom Walker]

I agree with you, Max, that the best time to raise the 
Time issue is when the economy is in good shape. The problem then, however, is 
that no one is worried much about unemployment and so it is off the political 
agenda. I recall youspecifically makingthat comment to me in this 
forum, oh, about two or three years ago. That makes two times when it is not 
opportune to raise the Time issue -- when unemployment is not an issue and when 
it is.

Having established that it is *never* opportune to raise 
the Time issue, I have to fall back on the position that it is 
therefore*always*important in principleto do the heap of work 
it takes to launch that discussion. Certainly Lonnie's work and Eileen's are 
part of that heap and that's a credit to EPI.

I still can't quite square yourcharacterization 
ofthespending paradigmas the "one under discussion" when your 
op-ed piece was about the lack of attention being paid toit by Dems and 
Repubs alike. Perhaps the signal that it's time totry a 
differentparadigm iswhen Dems and Repubs aren't even paying the "one 
under discussion"much lip service.

mbs: It's a different paradigm. I'm 
sympathetic, but for a variety ofreasons I'm stuck in the current one. 
It's going to take a heap of workto launch that discussion. The 
downside of the business cycle handsus a context that is ignored if we shift 
to a timeless focus on time. Itwould not pay to try and change the subject 
when the one underdiscussion redounds to our advantage. I would say 
the time toraise the Time issue is when the economy is in what is 
ordinarilythought of as good shape.

Tom Walker

RE: Re: From the Heartland

[Max Sawicky]

You're right.  Now is a good time to talk about it.
That still leaves the heap o' work.  -- mbs



I agree with you, Max, that the best time to raise the Time issue is when
the economy is in good shape. The problem then, however, is that no one is
worried much about unemployment and so it is off the political agenda. I
recall you specifically making that comment to me in this forum, oh, about
two or three years ago. That makes two times when it is not opportune to
raise the Time issue -- when unemployment is not an issue and when it is.

Having established that it is *never* opportune to raise the Time issue, I
have to fall back on the position that it is therefore *always* important in
principle to do the heap of work it takes to launch that discussion.
Certainly Lonnie's work and Eileen's are part of that heap and that's a
credit to EPI.

I still can't quite square your characterization of the spending paradigm as
the one under discussion when your op-ed piece was about the lack of
attention being paid to it by Dems and Repubs alike. Perhaps the signal that
it's time to try a different paradigm is when Dems and Repubs aren't even
paying the one under discussion much lip service.

mbs:  It's a different paradigm.  I'm sympathetic, but for a variety of
reasons I'm stuck in the current one.  It's going to take a heap of work
to launch that discussion.  The downside of the business cycle hands
us a context that is ignored if we shift to a timeless focus on time. It
would not pay to try and change the subject when the one under
discussion redounds to our advantage.  I would say the time to
raise the Time issue is when the economy is in what is ordinarily
thought of as good shape.


Tom Walker