I'll take a swing at it, after stipulating that I am down with the shorter work week agenda. At least, I think I am.
We might want to ratchet down the level of hours per working age person, but ongoing growth in productivity (where output includes non-market amenities and accounts properly for environmental costs) is hard to reject. It takes affirmative action to rebuild coastal wetlands, restore natural habitats, create alternative energy sources, save endangered species, help the developing world, explore the universe, and other good stuff. Growth is not necessarily individualist consumerism. Regarding work time, lengthier periods of education prior to work and retirement after are in some sense a substitute for shorter hours, in terms of well-being. Finally, the problem of the poor and the working class to a great extent is not too much consumerism. On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:01 PM, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Eugene Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Robert Frank, from Cornell, wrote a popular book that sold well, Luxury > > Fever. In it he deplored rampant consumerism and also attacked the > exisitng > > income distribution. He ended lamely by suggesting higher taxes on the > rich > > as a remedy for both, but remarked that such wouldn't pass Congress. He > > didn't touch growth or worktime as the solution. > > Economists won't touch the growth subject. Why won't PEN-L? > > > Exactly, why won't PEN-L? From last week's thread on Volcker's > "standards of living have to decline", I get the impression that there > is little sympathy on PEN-L for the no growth idea. > -raghu. > > -- > Confucius say, dirty book rarely dusty. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
