Mohammad Maljoo wrote: > ItÂ’s really interesting. Well, is there any > theoretical explanation for this > riddle?
>> to everyone's surprise there was little (if >> any) fall in production >> and in some factories output actually increased. As a matter of fact there is: S.J. Chapman's 1909 theory of the hours of labour. http://www.worklessparty.org/timework/chapman.htm To make a long story short, when the hours of labour are set by 'agreement' between employers and workers, they will tend to be longer than would be optimal for output. This is before considering that employers often have the power to simply impose hours rather than them being mutually agreed. So if you have overly long hours of work (which according to Chapman's theory is quite likely), when you reduce the hours of work, total output and not only hourly productivity may increase. This was observed several times in the 19th century when the hours of work were reduced from 12 hours a day to 10, from 10 to 9 and ultimately from 9 to 8. See also P. Sargant Florence's The Economics of Fatigue and Unrest. Even more extraordinary is the fact that the theory, accepted as authoritative by the 1930s and never challenged, has come to be simply ignored and forgotten by NC economists. The Sandwichman __________________________________________________________ Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca
