I take it you meant to say "insecurity." OK, here's the theory. Leisure is the key to economic security. Shorter hours means less unemployment and higher wages. I'm not making that up. Ira Steward said it. In the 1930s Dorothy Douglas found his analysis "strangely apposite." During the last Depression, US workers embraced the demand for shorter hours. Technocracy became a national sensation because of their theories about technological unemployment and a shorter workweek. Both the Democratic and Republican parties had planks in their 1932 platforms calling for reducing the hours of work. a A 30-hour bill almost became law.
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Julio Huato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sandwichman wrote: > >> But talking about shorter hours >> is anathema to post-Samuelson >> Anglo-American economists. Why? >> You need to talk about ingredient >> three, Paul. NOW NOW NOW. > > IMHO, the underlying issue is the enormous economic security facing > U.S. workers nowadays and in the recent past. Under those > circumstances, leisure is not a very top priority. Jobs, health care, > serious unemployment insurance, collective bargaining, basic rights of > union organizing are top. I think that working people are ready now > to pay attention to *propaganda* on shortening the working day, week, > month, and year, but they are not equally ready to turn that into an > immediate demand. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
