Nathan, Your argument is an important one. And it's wrong. It is important because understanding WHY it is wrong is the key to understanding the necessity of shorter working time.
At the core of the case AGAINST shorter working time is the claim that it is not needed because "increased productivity [technology, trade, immigration, postponing retirement age, etc.] creates more jobs than it destroys." The classic version of this was the 1701 anti-mercantilist pamphlet, "Observations upon the East-India Trade." With regard specifically to technology, the locus classicus is the 1780 pamphlet by Dorning Rasbotham, "Thoughts on the Use of Machines in the Cotton Manufacture." But you say that a large spike in productivity from reduced hours and an increase in wages would mean "that not many more workers would be needed to produce the same amount of output as before." Repeat the last seven words of that sentence: "the same amount of output as before." Does that sound to you at all like "a fixed amount of work to be done" or "a certain quantity of labor to be performed"? It does to me. That means you are making a lump-of-labor assumption and the lump of labor is a fallacy. What makes you think that the demand for output would remain unchanged after a reduction in hours and an increase in wages? A Keynesian argument could be made that the increase in wages would redistribute income to people with a higher propensity to consume thus increasing aggregate demand. As Keynes pointed out, working less is one of three elements of the same "intellectual theorem" as investment policy or income redistribution to encourage consumption. In fact, when you analyze it carefully, shorter working time contains aspects of both investment and redistribution to stimulate demand. Investment or consumption: THERE ARE NO "OTHER" POLICY OPTIONS FOR CREATING JOBS! If shorter working time "can't work" or "won't work" then NEITHER WILL ANY OTHER POLICY. If other investment or redistribution policies are feasible than so is shorter working time. Take a deep breath because I'm going to explain again why shorter working time is the preferred policy option: it is NOT because it is a panacea or is infallible. 1. It is as feasible as any other policy option because it has the same attributes as any other proposed policy option (investment, increasing propensity to consume through progressive redistribution of income, promoting productivity) -- any objection to shorter working time applies equally to any other policy option. What's sauce for the goose... 2. It is worth doing anyway. That is, aside from any job-creating potential, reducing the hours of work from current levels will improve the quality of life. I have written a 3,000 word essay, "What's wrong with the case AGAINST shorter working time," http://lumpoflabor.blogspot.com/2011/12/whats-wrong-with-case-against-shorter.htmlthat will be distributed at a London colloquium next month. Towards the end of the essay is a link to another essay, "The problem with 'The Problem of Social Cost" http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/p/problem-with-problem-of-social-cost.htmlthat I have been invited (unsolicited by me) by the editor of an economic thought historical journal to submit for publication. The thing that may seem hard to accept for those who haven't studied the interface between labor history and history of economic thought intensively is the extent to which "the case against shorter working time" has been incorporated into contemporary mainstream analysis as unexamined assumptions -- for example, the assumptions that individual labor supply is determined by choice between income and leisure and that the given hours of work are optimal for output. Unpacking these hidden assumptions is not the task for idle dreamers or unrealistic schemers. On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 5:56 PM, nathan tankus < [email protected]> wrote: > As a preface, it should be noted that I'm a complete and utter > supporter of "shorter work weeks with no loss in pay". > That said I think some of it's proponents overestimate how much of a > "job creator" such a policy would be. Remember that the push to work > people as hard (or harder) then they can possibly be worked (often > during recessions) leads to some burnout productivity but ultimately > leads to falls in productivity per hour that can only be marginally > compensating by even steeper cuts in compensation (in fact the > trendlines of changes in output per hour and the unemployment rate > have a PERFECT correlation. see: http://goo.gl/Q6Rni). i suspect that > an effective increase in wages per hour corresponding with an enforced > cut in hours worked would lead to a large spike in productivity so > that not many more workers would be needed to produce the same amount > of output as before. > > Again, i certainly think it should be done (mainly because of the > productivity, health and quality of life benefits) but i think it is > not a very effective jobs program. it should be implemented along with > a jobs program. > > -- > -Nathan Tankus > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > 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
