So I realize that there is some intense debate about this--and I know I could search the archives to find out what it is about--but what, in short, is wrong with this kind of plan, at least as a short term measure?
sean On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 18:46, Sandwichman <[email protected]> wrote: > "The essence of the plan is a universal limitation of hours of work per week > for any individual by > common consent, and a universal payment of a wage above a minimum . . . I am > asking the > employers of the nation to sign this common covenant . . . in the name of > patriotism and > humanity." (President Franklin D. Roosevelt, 24 July 1933) > > Economica (2011) 78, 133–158 > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2009.00804.x/pdf > > Work-sharing During the Great Depression: Did the > ‘President’s Reemployment Agreement’ Promote > Reemployment? > By JASON E. TAYLOR > Central Michigan University > Final version received 28 January 2009. > > > The President’s Reemployment Agreement (PRA) of 1933 directed firms to > reduce workweeks during the > Great Depression so existing jobs could be spread into additional employment > opportunities. Similar ‘worksharing’ > policies have recently been implemented across Europe in hopes of reducing > unemployment. I find > that, ceteris paribus, the work-sharing aspects of the PRA created nearly > 2.5 million new employment > opportunities in around four months. However, the programme also required > firms to raise hourly wage > rates, offsetting close to half of these gains. Furthermore, most of the > remaining employment gains were > wiped out after cartel-oriented industry-specific codes of fair competition > supplanted the PRA. > > -- > Sandwichman > > _______________________________________________ > 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
