Tim is making the same argument that Galbraith made in The Affluent Society. I don't see this argument as antithetical to the demand for shorter hours, though. It seems to me he is doing a bit of unconventional framing as a conversation starter.
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > In the NY Times of 5/27/2012 there is an essay by Tim Jackson, who is a > prominent UK advocate of shorter working time, and associated with The New > Economics Foundation and its demand for a 21 hour work week. > > Jackson makes a shocking error and compounds that with what is a > profoundly wrong-headed strategy to achieve his goals. > > The Opinion Piece is at > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/opinion/sunday/lets-be-less-productive.html > . > > The error is this: He has confused "productivity gains" with "working > faster." The examples he gives, of doctors seeing more patients an hour, > or teachers teaching ever bigger classes, are not productivity gains but > speed-ups. If he'd used a factory example and talked of speeding up the > line, perhaps the error would have jumped out at him. > > Jackson recommends a change, an overturning really, of the culture of > capitalism and would achieve that, it seems, by telling us it is a good > idea. > > Sharply cutting the work week is attainable, has frequently been achieved > before in the USA. Jackson's recommendation might follow, but cannot lead > a sharp cut in hours. > > Gene > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
