On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > There''s no job shortage at the macro level. The fixation on creating more > jobs is distracting us from the problem of a worker glut. > > In the "two blades of a scissors" image of supply and demand, the > conversation is always about one blade -- adding to the demand for people > willing to work. And so we ignore the real problem, the excess supply. By > focusing on only the demand side --- we end up only with a policy trying to > fix that problem. > > 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? > > All this is not to say, of course, that individuals, and large segments of > society, are unable to find work and need policies to assist them in a > terrible plight. > > But let's discuss the glut of working hours on offer. > > Gene Coyle > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
First I think you are right that this is important. And the people who point out that it is not presently popular are right, though I don't think this need preclude discussion. Most of us on this list support things that are not currently popular. However, it is important to understand how this interacts with other aspects of the labor market. A great many hours worked are already worked with employers violating labor laws. Offbook hiring, workers hired on-book who are illegally force to put in a certain amount of time at no pay (Clean up done by workers after officially clocking out and so on), safety laws violated, break rules violated and so forth. To some extent this will be met by increasing productivity via new capital investment, or clever innovation like Sizzler adapting the classic buffet into the "Salad Bar" when minimum wages rose. Some will be met by increasing productivity via just sweating workers more, the old-time speedup. That does not make what you advocate wrong. Simply that the net effect is not linear. Also it would be worth discussing what could make it popular. Part of it is context of a program of social equality - single payer health, improved social security, free child care, fully paid decent education available to all, subsidized mass transit and so is programmatic context. Basically a context where a cut in hours is not fearsome because more of the wage is social and more core neccesities are guaranteed. >From an organizing standpoint, the question where this becomes a possible demand may be related. One of the things that makes many radical demands marginal is fear. People are terrified that radical change may make things worse. What role this plays in "conservative common sense" vs. other factors may be worth discussing. Don't think it is a determining factor, but I think there has been a deep down terror a lot people have been feeling for a long long time. They don't have much they are holding on by their fingernails, and they are afraid of anything that can rock the boat and make them lose their grip. The danger of doing nothing may be greater, the emotional reaction is to the immediate threat. The way drowning people struggle against would be rescuers. How important do you think this type of reaction is in response to 4 day week proposals? _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
