If I may, let's shift to a somewhat different perspective in a hypothetical future where most manual tasks are automated via robots, etc. Under current institutional arrangements with capital owning the means of production, there would be a vast reduction in the need for labor and a concomitant reduction in aggregate wages for that resource. We'd have the gap in incomes to purchase potential output that we are currently experiencing. Yet, training these people to be molecular biologists or computer scientists (where there would be demand for labor) would not be an option. How would we best adjust social and economic arrangements to best serve that society? The offshoring of jobs aside, aren't we experiencing the effects of being part way along to that kind of future?
Peter Hollings -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sean Andrews Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 2:30 PM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] What job shortage? On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:44, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > But there is a remedy for the glut of workers. Shorter working time. If we > adopt a four day week, 20 percent of the work-hours on offer in "standard > jobs" disappears. Supply drops, pay rises. Why won't Pen-l discuss this > beyond the sneer level? Well it only works as a solution if there is a mandated wages and benefits for those reduced hours. Earlier today, Jim Devine passed around a story mentioning that, at the moment, the average number of hours/week is 33. That's already almost equivalent to a four day work week. BUt most of those people are underemployed and would like to be working more so that they can actually "reproduce their labor power." the increase in employment, as the article mentioned, would likely just be to give those workers more hours rather than hiring a few other part timers to fill the new demand. Likewise, one of the main critiques of companies that offer benefits to full timers (like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, etc.) in recent years is precisely that they would hire more part timers, i.e. more people at 20-30 hours/week, so that they didn't have to provide benefits. If the wages for a 32 hour work week are 20% less than that of the 40 hour (and the benefits are 100% less, i.e. part timers don't get health care) then this is hardly a workable solution. I've heard it mentioned before so maybe I am misunderstanding the particularities, but there doesn't seem to be a clear way this would help the problem unless there is the enormous external variable of mandated living wages and benefits. s _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
