I would take "the unwaged portion of the working day" to refer to the proportion of surplus value extracted and the specific reforms listed by Robert to have to do with reproductive labor. Whether such reforms would be "easier to achieve" might depend on whether they were to be financed by reducing the proportion of surplus value or simply by transferring a portion of direct wages into a social wage. The latter might be "easier to achieve" but how much of an "achievement" would it be?
Ultimately, the struggle over the hours of labor is a struggle over the expropriation of surplus value. That's why it's hard. The second question also depends. Are the child care workers, home care workers and teachers' aides a well-paid, unionized workforce with good benefits or a marginalized "servant" class? In other words, are "those at the bottom of the labor market" going to benefit as recipients of the services or as poorly-paid providers? Robert asked some good questions. The answers are not self-evident. On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Robert Naiman < [email protected]> wrote: > <snip>several worthwhile questions</snip> > > Might some of these and similarly-minded efforts to reduce unwaged > labor be easier to achieve than mandating a reduction in the waged > work week? Wouldn't they also disproportionately benefit those at the > bottom of the labor market? > > > > > -- > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
