me:
>> the very simple Harrod model of growth (a.k.a. Harrod-Domar) says that
>> all else constant, technological change leads to falling employment.
>> Thus, the real GDP needs to grow to absorb the unemployed.
Tom ("Sandwichman") Walker writes:
> Well, yes, "all else constant" that makes sense. Technology leads to
> falling unemployment.
a typo? Harrod's theory said the opposite: without growing demand for
products, technical change leads to rising unemployment because it
increases output per worker.
> However, expanding real GDP is not the only
> conceivable way of absorbing the unemployed....
> Ira Steward proposed a very different solution than simply growth of
> real GDP: cutting the hours of work....
I'd expect that cutting the hours of work would increase output per
worker (all else constant, of course). But it doesn't lead to a
continuous increase in output per worker the way technical change does
-- unless we continually decrease working hours. Good idea, but will
capitalism allow it?
--
Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange
days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
