Sandwichman writes: >> > 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.
I enjoy reading your posts and really have little disagreement with much of what you argue. Take my question at face value. In general, you argue that a reduction in hours is a good thing in itself. However, that cannot be true as a categorical statement, because you end up at the absurd position that the best world is no work at all. Therefore, the argument for reduction in hours as a good thing in itself must be qualified. Your statement above reflects a common goal: a world where we do what we want to do and don't do what we don't want to do. That would be nice. But your posts are more programmatic -- you are advocating policy for our mundane world. So if I am a policy maker, in a capitalist or socialist world, and you are my policy advisor, I want to understand how to determine the appropriate amount of reduction in hours. Where you and I differ, I assume, is I don't see how a policy maker can correctly make the decision. I am an attorney. I work at a small firm. I bill probably 1500 hours a year. I could work at a large firm and bill 2500-3000 hours a year, and make a lot more money, but I choose not to. But there are people who choose to work at a big firm and I understand why they do it. I would hate to have a policy maker tell me and the other attorney we have to work the same hours on the theory that the policy maker knows better than me and the other attorney what would make us happier, or more productive. I want those decisions to be made at the individual level. David Shemano
