On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Carrol Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Keeping free time scarce means people pay a lot more for convenience, > gratification, and any other relief they can buy. It keeps them watching > television, and its commercials. It keeps them unambitious outside of > work." > > Are these effects not partly at least due to the fact that 40 hours is > still > too exhausting? Longer free hours would at least _begin_ to turn into > freedom, period. That is the point. The 40 hour week is very close to the shortest time that still leaves people exhausted. I don't know exactly where the line is, but I suspect that any reduction susbstantially below that would be a qualitative rather than quanitative change - as you say beginning to turn into freedom. Of course we want as much as we can get, but I suspect that even a 35 hour week might cross that line. A 30 hour week I'm almost certain would. Below that - well great. > > Carrol > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/ Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
