On Mar 29, 2010, at 8:26 PM, Gar Lipow wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Carrol,,
>>
>> <snip>
>
>
> Yes it is something to move towards. But the reason you don't get
> much response even on the left, is that it is not something you can
> reasonably advance on its own. It can be one of many demands. Or it
> can be a demand you make after other demands are won. But I can't see
> the work week being cut without other things that advance social
> equality happening either at the same time or first. So it only makes
> sense in context with other ways of advancing social equality. The
> same for global warming. The effects on the environment of cutting the
> work week depends on how it is done, and upon what else is done at the
> same time.
Gar,
Thanks for the response. I don't see why cutting hours can't be
advanced on its own, and before other demands are won. Cutting hours has been
done repeatedly in the US -- pushed hard by the Abolishonists after the Civil
War, by labor unions, by churches, by women. Hours cut from 60 per week to 50
per week, from 6 days to 5.5 days to 5.0 days. And there we have been stuck
for reasons well established -- e.g. by the attacks on Labor after WWII. But
now the environmental movement and women's groups are pushing hours cuts once
again.
Not sure what you mean by "social equality" so I don't know how to respond.
I agree that the impact of cutting the work week depends on how it is done.
The four day week takes a lot of commuting off the road. A cut to five 7 hour
days has much less impact on cars off the road. So, yes, the impact depends on
the cuts. But if a significant cut is made the impact will be large, either
way. And not only on the amount of GHG the USA puts into the atmosphere. The
impact will be on aspirations in the USA, in India, in China, etc. So a
significant impact will occur if the cut in hours is significant.
But I;m not clear on what you mean by "what else is done at the same time." --
Does that mean things like carbon tax? Or massive spending on science and
technology? Yes, those "what elses" will make a difference. But what are you
thinking of?
Gene
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
