On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Yes a typo. Sorry.
>
>> 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?
Have in the past.
--
Sandwichman
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
