Sandwichman said... "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."
NT:that would be wrong. fortunately that wasn't my argument. my argument is exactly the opposite. i argued that productivity increases would be generated by cuts in the work week and those productivity increases would lead be biased towards labor saving. SM: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. NT: you are correct that i made a simplifying assumption. SM: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. NT: it's an increase in wages per hour and a simultaneous cut in hours worked. barring an immense amount of extra overtime i don't see how this would increase demand for output immensely. my entire argument is that a large cut in hours worked would increase productivity, so that not many more workers would be needed to meet the current demand for output and thus the positive feedback loop would be weak. how would these increases in wages paid per hour increase aggregate demand if annual income for these workers is the same? SM: 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. NT: I said that exact same thing. In fact I think that the increase in productivity is an extra reason to do it. -- -Nathan Tankus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
