Keith, Your story reminded me of the marvelous Peter Sellars movie "I'm All Right Jack".
I'm sorry I was late replying. I usually flag interesting stuff to reply later which is what happened (sometimes much later). That doesn't diminish your reply, which continues your usual first class writing. Finish your draft - then stuff yourself with turkey! Best wishes, 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: Monday, December 07, 2009 9:48 PM To: Harry Pollard; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Cc: Keith Hudson Subject: Re: [Futurework] I like Ike. (sort of): Thomas Jefferson vs. Larry Summers 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]] 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 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 _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework Keith Hudson, Saltford, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, <www.amazon.com/dp/1906557020/>, <www.handlo.com> Keith Hudson, Saltford, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, <www.amazon.com/dp/1906557020/>, <www.handlo.com> _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
