On Oct 7, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
< snip >
if you're going to rule out further expansionary fiscal policy based
on the power of the "deficit hawks," you should rule this one out,
too. Capitalists would resist this policy like the plague, likely more
than they resist government deficits. This extra resistance is
especially likely in that fiscal deficits actually have been
acceptable among much of the economic establishment, especially after
the melt-down of 2008.
Agreed, that cutting hours will be a tough, long fight. But it is one
that has been repeatedly won in the past. Resistance to deficits is
entering new territory. Deficits are very large and have already been
enlarged for the stimulus. The dollar is heading down. Resistance is
growing and may become triumphant, but I take your point.
how do we do this? by decree? how do we prevent worker incomes from
falling in step with (or even more than) hours? I doubt that labor
unions and their allies are strong enough at this dreary point in
history to push through this legislation _and_ defend wages. After
all, it looks as if the the much milder "Employee Free Choice Act"
will lose any of the teeth it had.
First, there isn;t a dual problem to "push through this legislation
_and_ defend wages" (your emphasis). Cutting hours IS defending
wages. You've noted yourself that "defending wages" has been a flop
for years and at the moment seems likely to get worse. Cutting hours
is the best way to defend wages.
BTW, I've discussed this issue before on pen-l. Since "progressive"
economists are reluctant to discuss it, I must not be "progressive."
That's fine, since the word is pretty meaningless (Carrol alert!!),
currently being used as a euphemism for New Deal "liberal."
Why not include cutting hours as part of your frequent talks to
community groups? And please tell us about the reaction?
Gene Coyle
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
