I disagree. Jim is not stuck in the static world of neo-classical micro. He is stuck in the static world of vulgar classical wages-fund doctrine (as are many erstwhile neo-classicals). I tried to draw out this "marginalist throwback" syndrome back in my 2000 article on the lump-of-labor fallacy. But apparently the lure of not being distracted by pointless academic deconstructions is just too powerful to resist.
And so instead we are left with the astonishingly radical transitional program: Increase Public Investment! More Government Spending Now! And then, after full employment is restored (and everyone has sighed a sigh of relief at capitalism's rescue from the brink)... But, you know, if I thought that slogan was a winner, I would sooner hitch my wagon to Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong or even Larry Summers than the tawdry banner of some autre faux radical movement proclaiming the same panacea in the name of socialism. On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > Shane Mage here gives the same answer that Jim Devine trots out > periodically. "Don't discuss this until everything is perfect, then we can > do it, if we want to." And then Devine adds -- see his subsequent posts -- > that cutting hours is a bad idea because it might increase productivity and > lower wages. Talk about being stuck in the static world of neo-classical > Micro!!! > > > On Jul 23, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Shane Mage wrote: > > > On Jul 23, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Sandwichman wrote: > > 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. > > This has to be the most pointless discussion since the mice discussed and > concluded that a bell had to be put around the cat's neck--but when one of > them asked "Now, how do we bell the cat?" the only answer was > > 4. silence > > because none of them had grasped the magic inherent in Chapman's Theory of > Hours. > > Reduction of the legal work week is a *political* issue, ie., a matter of > class struggle, not a question of theory. Until a mass "People's" (ie., > left-populist) Party is formed and the Dumbocrats have gone with the Whigs, > cutting work hours without cutting incomes will never be on anybody's > agenda. And if popular disgust with Obama keeps mounting to the point where > a People's Party is formed to contest the 2012 elections, it will still have > no place on that party's agenda because the central need of the people is > vastly increased public investment with the concomitant establishment of > full employment (~3% of the potential labor force temporarily unemployed). > Then and only then, with full employment a reality and the Labor Movement > reborn, and with the official work-week actually enforced on the whole > economy, could we begin to talk meaningfully about reducing the official > work-week. > > > Shane Mage > > "scientific discovery is basically recognition of obvious realities > that self-interest or ideology have kept everybody from paying attention > to" > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
