This is a very perceptive and effective article. I think it is fair to say the 40-hour week was indeed "engineered" to keep workers on a consumption treadmill. I'll defer to Ben Hunnicutt's and Lawrence Glickman's histories on this question. What struck me was the quantity, quality and endurance of the commenting and trackbacks on the article. The post is not dated but the comments go back to July 2010 and continue to the present. Nearly 100,000 facebook likes. So this little essay clearly has legs!
"Keeping free time scarce means people pay a lot more for convenience, gratification, and any other relief they can buy. It keeps them watching television, and its commercials. It keeps them unambitious outside of work." On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Gar. I will read and comment. > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Gar Lipow <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I th ink Tom Walker and Eugene Coyle will find this of interest, not >> because they will agree with all of it, but that it is always interesting >> when someone comes to a similar conclusion to oneself from a very different >> perspective. >> >> http://www.raptitude.com/2010/07/your-lifestyle-has-already-been-designed/ >> >> I think the author is ignoring the history of the 40 hour week - how it >> was not "designed" but fought for. Still if you substitute 'point at which >> capitalists resistance to worker demand for short work week rose sharply" >> for "designed" I think this article does make a good point. A work week >> much below 40 hours gives workers too much energy and too much freedom - >> too well rested to be good little consumers. Because enough free time and >> people start socializing with one another in ways that may reduce demand >> for consumer goods. Also more free time risk people becoming more informed >> and creates a better environment for activism. And it is not just more time >> but more energy. Can't track in down, but I remember Tom Walker wrote a few >> years back on how ~40 hours is the sweet spot on the curve for >> capitalists. Not that capitalists have not pushed back that gain so many >> work far more than 40 hours. But I think both this and Walkers article of a >> few years back makes the point that reduction of work time significantly >> below 40 hours is a fundamental change from the 40 hour week, not just >> more of the same. Maybe we can think of it as a step function. The change >> from sweatshop conditions to getting significant time off is one radical >> step. The reduction down to a 40 hour week is a second radical step. >> Reduction to say a 30 hour week would be another radical step. Each step is >> radical in the sense that they change life qualitatively not just >> quantitatively have serious implications for the power of working people >> vs. capitalists. Of course working hours reflect that balance of power, but >> they also affect it. >> >> The article I've linked above is ahistorical and deeply flawed. And yet, >> the link between a too-long work week and much of the pain in our society >> is so worth emphasizing that I think it is worth reading, flaws and all. >> >> -- >> Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow >> Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com >> Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/ >> Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> >> > > > -- > Cheers, > > Tom Walker (Sandwichman) > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
