My recall of events is slightly different, Jim: 1. gene: let's cut work hours 2. Jim: good idea, but how do we keep employers from cutting wages? 3. Sandwichman: by doing our own hours accounting based on Chapman's theory of hours. see link to power point presentation or manuscript chapter detailing how this can be done. 4. silence
Rinse and repeat. The last version of this was two days ago: I'm certainly not blaming you for the silence, Jim. There are plenty of other people who's response would be welcome. But when you ask a question and someone answers it, it would be nice if that answer was acknowledged. Instead, the next time the issue comes up we get the same question repeated with the complaint that nobody answers it. I've done a lot of work over the last 16 years on this question, Jim. And > I've developed a spreadsheet model based on Sydney Chapman's theory of the > hours of labor that demonstrates the plausibility of a scenario where > current overwork actually depresses productivity and wages to the extent > that total income for given hours may be LESS than it could be if people > worked average annual hours more in line with the long term trend that > prevailed up to the 1950s or even up to the 1980s. > > Frankly, I've answered your question, Jim, unless it is a rhetorical one. I > presented a Power Point of it an an URPE summer conference just about a year > ago and I discuss it in narrative form in chapter four of my manuscript, > Jobs, Liberty and the Bottom Line, which was featured today at the P2P > foundation blog. > > > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/towards-a-labor-commons-considering-employment-as-a-common-pool-resource-through-social-accounting/2011/07/20 > > I would welcome a substantive critique of the arguments I've presented. It > is not a question that can be answered with a sound bite. The answer has to > swim upstream against a gaggle of implicit assumptions that are hardwired > into conventional thinking about the issue but have absolutely no substance. > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps it's my poor memory, but the "discussion" on cutting hours > always seems to go as follows: > > 1) person #1: "let's cut work hours! It's a great idea because it > shares work among the unemployed, replaces GDP as a source of > happiness, etc." [this doesn't do person #1 enough justice, but I > can't summarize anyone's position better than he or she can.] > > 2) me: "good idea, but how do we keep the employers from cutting > wages?" [or some other practical problem with the program, trying to > get beyond slogan-mongering.] > > 3) person #1: silence. > > I get the impression that person #1 doesn't want a discussion as much > as to have everyone accept their program as gospel and then go from > there. > > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
