Robert,
I like most of your list of good things to do -- teachers aides, public
transit, home health care. What's not to like? Sort of today's list for what
were once CCC or WPA programs.
Tom Walker, as he often does, goes layers deeper in his response to you.
But I take it that you are not against cutting hours of work, simply mentioning
additional things you'd support.
Gene
On May 27, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
> How much could actual work hours be decreased by decreasing the
> unwaged portion of the working day, through increases in the social
> wage?
>
> Suppose that there were a big expansion in after-school programs, so
> that 95% of school-age children were in them. Wouldn't working parents
> have more free time as a result, helping to fulfill the dream of
> "eight hours for what we will"?
>
> Suppose that there were a big expansion in money available to employ
> home health care workers. Wouldn't that replace a lot of unwaged work?
>
> Suppose that there were a big expansion in the employment of teachers'
> aides. Wouldn't that allow teachers to intervene more, reducing the
> burden on working parents?
>
> What if child care were more subsidized?
>
> If public transportation infrastructure were improved, might this
> reduce commute time?
>
> Might some of these and similarly-minded efforts to reduce unwaged
> labor be easier to achieve than mandating a reduction in the waged
> work week? Wouldn't they also disproportionately benefit those at the
> bottom of the labor market?
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> [email protected]
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
