On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
Several subjects, several answers. One as Raghu says very hard to get the response to cutting work hours signifcantly below 40 for the same pay because of puritanism. (A very modest possibility restoring the 40 hour work week which we have lost in a great many areas including low paid ones). And if we are talking about cutting the work week and pay in proportion, well most people working 40 hours don't want the pay cut. Now I know that is not what you intend, but a work week cut in the absence of other social changes would lead to that. For example suppose you told an employer they must now pay the same for a 30 hour work as they did for a 40. OK, so they pay the same but stop paying for health insurance. They cut holidays. Or, given how little enforcement we have of labor laws they simply tell the workers that they will be paid for 40 hours, work 30 hours clocked in and another ten for free off the clock. Employee complaints will incur a small fine five years down the road. I think a thirty hour work week would make sense only if: 1) You included a provision to strengthen the department of labor so that labor laws were actually enforced 2) You increased the social wage so that workers were not so dependent on employers for non-cash compensation - single payer health insurance at minimum, but while you were at it I'd say paid child care, funding for decent education K- Bacholer or MS (with trade school and apprenticeship funded for those who did not want to go to college), greatly improved social security and housing benefits. OK now on the environment 1) Commuting. Employers like having their stuff covered. So even if total hours and stuff were cut, they would end up having some people take Mondays off, some take Fridays off - so three days a week the same traffic, two days a week half traffic. So even if the cut in total work hours was proportional modest cut in commuting - not nearly as significant as large scale use of car pools for example. 2) Less stuff. A 30 hour work week does not cut amount of work done by 1/4th. More limited labor equals more capital investment and more attention to business practice innovation p having customers provide some of the labor (i.e. bag your own groceries, more use of buffets and self-busing in eateries). Also with 30 hour week, an employer can simply hire more labor - which is good for the working class but does not do as much for the environment. To the extent this happens you are not making less stuff at all. Also, to the extent this happens you are not cutting commuting. If the "same pay" thing is enforced then this is more expensive and might not happen at first but eventually: 3) More bargaining power increases labor compensation, increases effective demand which helps drive the demand for more stuff. So even if total working hours were temporarily cut they go back up again, not per person, but by moving people out of the reserve army of the unemployed. I would say that if you want to cut the demand for stuff, increase taxes to pay for more social consumption. Education and day care use less energy than Amway and plastic doodads and in general social consumption can replace consumption of stuff in a lot of ways. The one exception is single payer health, because the current health care system is so inefficient that single payer health would not be a shift of consumption but an increase in efficiency that would add to GDP. But obviously single payer health is a good thing in itself, and we can do other things to cut consumption of stuff. A hasty reply, but I hope I'm clear. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
