Peter,
I guess we are part way along to something. But along the way, further
along, won't the culture change so that our aspirations for stuff and esteem
evolve, our disposition of rewards, material and otherwise evolve as well?
What steps can we take now to push the evolution along? Is an
important one, perhaps an indispensable one, cutting working hours now?
Gene Coyle
On Mar 26, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Peter Hollings wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
