Colin Danby wrote,
>So here's a question. Actually, several.
>
>Other things being equal a shorter working day would probably be a good
>thing.
Stop me if you've heard this one but other things are never equal.
I'm currently mining a book titled _Reduced Working Hours: Cure for
Unemployment or Economic Burden?_ By John D. Owen (funded by the General
Electric Foundation). It's quite a handy source book for statements opposing
a shorter working day. Owen pulls out all the stops in an effort to imply,
insinuate, suggest, infer, claim, inveigle and propound that reducing
working hours would be an unmitigated disaster for workers, for business and
for the national economy. He even goes so far as to suggest it would
contribute to global warming.
Not least in Professor Owen's rhetorical arsenal is ceteris paribus, and a
very sly ceteris paribus it is indeed (BTW, Sid, your next assignment is
based on how paribus Owen's ceteris is). Here is a short example:
"For example, if employees work 9 hours a day and the law provides for
time-and-a-half pay after 8 hours, their daily pay is 9.5 times their
standard hourly rate. But if the law is changed so that overtime is paid
after 7 hours, they are paid 10 times the hourly wage each day. Thus the
cost of hiring an additional employee is, CETERIS PARIBUS [emphasis added],
increased by a reduction in the standard workweek, on these assumptions.
Since the cost of an additional hour per employee has remained the same and
the cost of an additional employee has risen, employees have become dearer
relative to hours, and the cost-minimizing employer has an incentive to
substitute hours for employees, which is likely to yield a longer workday or
workweek."
Thusly the good Professor demonstrates that "a legislated reduction in the
standard workweek would *increase*[emphasis in original] hours of work, at
least for those employees already working overtime." As preposterous as the
preceeding may sound, the arithmetic works. Go ahead; try it. Why it works
is another matter. To make a long story short, Owen is pulling a fast one
with his "ceteris paribus" -- a spitball.
But "other things being equal", a little comparative eschatology is in order:
ceteris paribus is to progress
as
predestination is to apocalypse
and
determinism is to "The Revolution"
Don't ever, ever use any one of these six terms unless you are confident
that you could expound knowledgeably on all six, all other things being
equal.;-)
Now what was Colin's question? Oh yes,
>is it possible that the
>lure of growth has somehow undermined social democracy?
I'd go a step further and say that it's possible the idol of growth has
somehow undermined reason.
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
knoW Ware Communications |
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Though I may be sent to Hell for it,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | such a God will never command my respect."
(604) 688-8296 | - John Milton
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
