Harry,
Gosh, you took your time replying didn't you? My argument must have been a
powerful one!
I was writing just a little tongue-in-cheek before. You're quite right.
Most people are lazy. I happen to be one of those who are afflicted with
too much energy. I'll always find the long way round of doing a job.
You mistook me on one point. I never said that division of labour, hidden
hand and comparative advantage were monetary concepts. As operational today
they are monetized examples of what always used to happen naturally in any
well-organized hunter-gatherer tribe. So yes, I actually agree with you --
they are understandings of human nature.
Nevertheless, the matter of jobs and exertion is not as simple as you make
out. When I was in quality control at Massey Ferguson 40 years ago I knew a
chap on the tractor assembly line who fitted the dashboard electrical
circuits. I was idly watching him one day (not part of my job -- just being
sociable) and he turned to me, laughing. "The time and motion people gave
me 23 minutes to do this. I can do two in 10 minutes.". So that's what he
did, of course. He'd do two tractors and then sit down and do a crossword
for half-an-hour (harder work than on the track! But much more
interesting.). In those days when Coventry City were playing an evening
match (soccer) only about half of the factory would turn up for the start
of the night shift. They'd clock the rest in. The foremen and
superintendents would pretend they hadn't noticed and make themselves
scarce in their offices. Come 11.00pm or so, the rest would drift in after
the match and a pint or two at the pub. The assembly track would speed up.
Not at double speed, mind you. But three times, four times, faster than the
day shift rate. By about 2.00am or 3.00am they'd not only have caught up
but the whole of the night's production also. Then everybody, foremen and
all, would snooze for the rest of the shift. Those were the days! And
that's why the factory had to close down, of course. Production shifted to
Canada, or China by now I expect. I dunno.
Have a good Xmas, yourself, old sport. I don't know whether I will. I have
at last got down to writing a book. I have an Indian agent-man who gave me
a deadline of 24th December to finish a first draft. Well, I've written a
rough-and-ready first draft in the last two or three months. But I must
give it another going over before Xmas -- before he starts to shred it and
move it all about. So I must be orf now, as we say in jolly old (decrepit)
England.
Keith
At 10:21 07/12/2009 -0800, you wrote:
Keith,
Sorry about that, but the assumption is still true. A major mistake is
to look at the actions of others from our point of view how else?
Yet, we should try to see things from the other's point of view. I said:
One of the Classical Political Assumptions is:
"People seek to satisfy their desires with the least exertion."
Seems to fit the makeup of human beings.
You responded:
Not in our modern economy. People at the top end, already working hard,
work even longer hours to raise their status and make themselves even more
visible.
Are these people seeking to satisfy your desires with the least exertion?
Or satisfying their own? They have presumably decided this is the best way
to raise their status and make themselves even more visible.
If they find an easier way to accomplish their desires, will they not take it?
You continued:
People in the middle and those towards the bottom end, just like the
Luddites of old, resist labour-saving methods in order to justify and
retain the jobs that they have.
Again, they believe they are accomplishing their desires with the least
exertion so they may destroy the machines. You might go in a different
direction, but they were doing their best to accomplish their desires with
the least exertion. It seemed sensible to them at the time.
I had a knockdown, drag out, fight with Hayek on this point. He pointed
out that people exert themselves tremendously to achieve their desire to
climb mountains. Of course the successful mountaineer is the one who
climbs with the least expenditure of exertion. Thats the way to get to the
top.
Both assumptions apply. To deny them puts a thinker at a disadvantage.
Your mention of automation and computerizationare good examples of the
least exertionprinciple.
The ideas of division of labour, hidden hand, comparative advantagestill
apply. They are not monetary concepts, but understandings of human behavior.
You can think of the unlimited desiresassumption as the reason why we
continually strive and the least exertionassumption as the stimulus to all
progress.
One must limit the assumptions one makes (something the Neos should learn.
(Economic texts are flooded with assumptions.). Bertrand Russell said two
assumptions are better than 16.
Of course you know the two unspoken assumptions of all science.
There is an order in the universe.
The mind of Man can discover that order.
Without these, there can be no science.
Have a Right Good Christmas!
Harry
******************************
Henry George School of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91043
Tel: 818 352-4141
******************************
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:14 PM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Cc: Keith Hudson; Harry Pollard
Subject: Re: [Futurework] I like Ike. (sort of): Thomas Jefferson vs.
Larry Summers
Harry,
At 15:10 24/11/2009 -0800, you wrote:
One of the Classical Political Assumptions is:
"People seek to satisfy their desires with the least exertion."
Seems to fit the makeup of human beings.
Not in our modern economy. People at the top end, already working hard,
work even longer hours to raise their status and make themselves even more
visible.
People in the middle and those towards the bottom end, just like the
Luddites of old, resist labour-saving methods in order to justify and
retain the jobs that they have.
In hunter-gatherer times 100% of the people worked;
In agricultural times 90% of the people worked
In industrial times 80% of the people worked
In post-industrial times we are rapidly going through the 70%. 60%. 50%
markers and are approaching a situation not far off in which only about
30% will be needed to keep the system going -- the rest (if they're lucky
enough to have a job) are only doing one another's laundry at present
because we have far more people than we need.
We don't much like exertion and try to reduce it as much as possible, so
the idea of expanding the total amount of workseems to be a no-no.
The other Classical Assumption is:
Peoples desires are unlimited.
(It was actually Man seeks . . .and Mans desires . . .but Ive
politically corrected it.)
With unlimited desires, it seems that if we all worked 24 hours a day we
could never satisfy unlimited desires. So finding things to do is no
problem. Yet, we have involuntary unemployment.
Perhaps, instead of trying to find work for people, we should concentrate
on why they can't find work when there is so much to be done.
Well, the Classical Political Economists knew why, something that seems to
be beyond the present generation of neo-Classicals.
Many of the adages of the Classical economists -- division of labour,
hidden hand, comparative advantage -- still apply in principle but they
were only the money-measured adaptations of the social services that
people always did for one another (that is, when they knew one another --
when they knew that, on balance, all effort would be reciprocated in kind
one day). Say, Smith, Ricardo etc hadn't the slightest inkling of the
increasing automation and computerization coming along.
And we can have little idea of how it's all going to shake out. My own
view is that when cheap energy has gone for good and populations have
declined enormously (advanced countries' birth rates are already showing
the trend) then we'll be back to smaller communities and substantial use
of solar power again. The ultimate end of the fantastic explosion of
modern research into DNA will be the dawn of DNA-based production methods,
and when communities will be trading DNA formulae and not having to haul
goods halfway round the world.
Keith
Harry
******************************
Henry George School of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91043
Tel: 818 352-4141
******************************
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[<mailto:[email protected]>mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Sandwichman
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 7:17 PM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: [Futurework] I like Ike. (sort of): Thomas Jefferson vs. Larry
Summers
<http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2009/11/i-like-ike-sort-of.html>http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2009/11/i-like-ike-sort-of.html
In a speech he never gave, Ike quoted Thomas Jefferson: "If we can
prevent government from wasting the labors of the people under the
pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy."
Compare with Summers: "It may be desirable to have a given amount of
work shared among more people. But that's not as desirable as
expanding the total amount of work."
--
Sandwichman
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
<https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework>https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
<https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework>https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England,
<<http://www.evolutionary-economics.org/>www.evolutionary-economics.org>,
<www.amazon.com/dp/1906557020/>, <<http://www.handlo.com/>www.handlo.com>
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>,
<<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1906557020/>www.amazon.com/dp/1906557020<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1906557020/>/>,
<www.handlo.com> _______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
