I think your question can be better addressed in the context of a discussion of the Harvey/DeLong dustup and John Hicks's model of labor supply. Stay tuned.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > I asked: >>> how about moving to a system where the jobs and thus the ability to >>> live of workers are no longer dependent on the greed and happiness of >>> employers? where a effort is made to destroy the artificial >>> distinction between play and work? > > Sandwichman replied: >> Or how about "why can't we all just get along?" > > yes, it's possible to get into meaningless "good feeling" slogans, but > that was not my point. > > Let's review. Tom presented his slogan, endorsed by appeals to three > authorities. Though I think it's a good slogan (as long as there's no > cut in pay), I suggested that perhaps we'd like to go further than > that, to think about (1) going to the root of the problem (capitalist > control over jobs) or (2) going to where socialists would like to get > (the abolition of the work/play distinction). This is not just a > matter of "getting along." I can imagine that the capitalists would > resist like crazy (as they likely would resist cutting work hours > without a similar or greater cut in pay). > > By the way, was Keynes in favor of work-hour restriction with no cut > in pay? or did he want total wage earned to fall in step with hours? I > don't know the answer, but remember that he was the type who thought > that the world would be much better off if ruled by people like him > instead of those grubby financiers and rentiers... > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own > way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > 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
