On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > Raghu wrote, in part: >> I think you will find absolutely no argument on PEN-L - not even I >> suspect from our resident Tea Partier David Shemano - about the >> desirability of this. >> >> But I don't think it can be done by fiat overnight without causing >> huge disruptions. It will have to be done gradually over a number of >> years and therefore it is no solution to the immediate problem of >> unemployment. > > I should clarify to agree that cutting working time is not an immediate > solution to the problem of unemployment. But the unemployment the US faces > is chronic (as well as cyclical) and needs a solution beyond fiscal and > monetary steps. So even if we have an immediate problem, is it not a good > idea to move immediately on the chronic problem? >
Gene, No arguments there. I'd add though that we need more than a consensus in principle on the desirability of shorter working hours: we need a plan for how to get there. Most importantly, that requires large-scale buy-in from the working class. Presently in the US there is very little ideological solidarity in the working class. Unfortunately, most people have been very successfully indoctrinated into the individualistic ethos, so this idea is likely to encounter very large-scale resentment from within the very classes it is intended to benefit. -raghu. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
