On 2010-08-08, at 11:02 AM, [email protected] wrote: > The problem with quantitative easing and fiscal stimulus, besides the > exhaustion of the political space to execute them, is that they address the > wrong problem. They aim to deal with a job shortage. But if we look at the > problem as a worker surplus rather than a job shortage, a third tool for > dealing with the macro economy emerges. That tool is cutting working hours. > The US repeatedly in the past reduce the standard work week -- until it > stopped doing that. There will be no recovery, despite fiscal and monetary > policy aimed at recovery, until working hours are cut in the US. Many other > things will accompany the cut in hours, almost all of them good for workers. > In addition, if the cut in hours eventuates in reducing the standard week to > four days, a serious benefit for the climate change crisis will occur. ====================================== The problem with reduced hours, if not accompanied by the historic labour movement demand "at no loss in pay", is that it it represents a pay cut. Furloughing is already widespread. Absent pay protection, reduced hours shifts the responsibility for reducing unemployment to workers who bear no responsibility for it and who can least afford to alleviate it. It detracts from the need for state-sponsored job-creation measures and the (less realizable) requirement that employers reduce the work week at no loss in pay which are each a more appropriate response within this context.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
