On Jan 21, 2008 9:31 PM, Sandwichman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As Mark Twain DIDN'T say (but it is nevertheless widely attributed to > him), " 't ain't what people don't know that hurts 'em; it's what they > think they know that just ain't so." What I am constantly trying to > call attention to is not MY slogan or MY program but the slogans and > programs that are so deeply embedded in the discourse that good people > like Jim mistake them for their own presumably "unbiased" thoughts.
What is the best (neoclassical) argument against shorter working hours? What if, say workaholic programming types in Silicon Valley really do want to put in 80 hour work weeks? Should they be prevented by law from doing so? > As for Shemano: David, there are moments at work when there is nowhere > else I would rather be, moments when I can share joyous laughter with > an almost complete stranger. Those moments happen more frequently when > I have enough time outside of work to accomplish the things I want to > accomplish. So getting robots to do all the work doesn't appeal to me. > Eliminating the drudgery, the waste of time and gratuitous instances > of social domination at work do appeal to me. The idea that robots will someday replace human labor is silly: who is going to service the bloody robots? It is not even true in general that robots replace unpleasant, difficult work with pleasant, easy work. Can anyone point to any research that shows otherwise? -raghu.
