Tom, We actually disagree far less than you imagine. For the sake of those FWers who can't stand long quotes I'm going to extract:
At 08:41 04/09/02 -0700, you wrote: (TW) <<<< I should preface my response to Keith by observing that the French government's "scrapping" of the 35-hour week may turn out to be one of the all-time great empty gestures. It's likely that there will be little in the way of roll-backs of successfully implemented 35-hour weeks . . . >>>> That's a matter of opinion and we'll have to wait and see. Suffice it to say that the French government has changed its tack pretty considerably even though they were only into eight months of operation (as regards small firms). (KH) <<<< I'm all in favour of shorter working weeks for anybody who wants them. But shorter working hours will only create jobs to take up the numbers of the unemployed if: (a) the weekly pay is cut; >>>> (TW) <<<< (a) has some short-term plausibility. However over the longer term shorter work time enables productivity gains that result in both shorter hours and higher earnings. >>>> No, it doesn't "enable" productivity gains automatically. It gives the *opportunity* for them, if the nature of the business gives enough scope for them to be made. Some firms won't be able to adjust -- particularly small firms. Economically, this may be a good thing over the long term but it doesn't help the unemployed in the short term (this is the other side of the coin which Bosch mentions below) -- which, presumably, is what concerns you. TW <<<< Gerhard Bosch: "It is generally taken for granted that, without reductions in working time, the productivity gains of the past 150 years would have led to high and persistent levels of unemployment (Dr�ze 1986:36, Hicks 1946: 301). However, what is regarded as self-evident over the long term is controversial in the short term." >>>> I agree with the first sentence -- it's obvious. I agree with the second -- but with the observation that employers, like everybody else, resist changing their habits (like their workers, like everybody, in fact) unless they are forced to by economic circumstances specific to its products and methods of manufacture or service. But government legislation at reducing the working week is unspecific and cuts an equally wide swathe across all different types of business. It's a blunt weapon. It may do some good (in the sense of encouraging productivity) in some cases; in others it can make a firm bankrupt. It cannot be a satisfactory way of increasing employment across the whole spectrum in the short term. (KH) <<<< (b) the unemployed have the necessary skills to take the surplus jobs created. >>>> (TW) <<<< (b) is circular to the extent that the unemployed can best attain the necessary skills on the job. "Skills training" is nonsensical in the absence of job openings. Sure, employers would like to have all their training costs subsidized by only ever having to hire employees who already have the necessary skills. >>>> This is where I totally agree with you. I think all skills (after, say 14 or 15 years of age, or even earlier) should be taught "on the job" (except for the intellectual high-flyers -- but even there, the much lauded "tutorial" method of Oxbridge is really "on the job" training). The problem is that the state education systems gear their curricula away from the actual job structure in the region/country and towards what they imagine it to be or what they would like it to be (or to what they are capable of teaching -- resulting, for example, in today's lack of maths and science teaching). Fee-paying schools (as they are now -- that is, only a small proportion of schools in most developed countries) don't have to worry too much about precise skill-training/matching because they are teaching children who are going to be placed in comfortable jobs anyway, according to the various elite networks that their schools, universities and parents have access to. Keith Hudson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
