Tom
I found your post to be a gem amongst the coal-dust
I have lurked for a couple of years in FW and continue to do so despite the
high "noise/gems" ratio
My own take is that most of what is posted is intellectual ramblings that I
can do little with
When I post "practical stuff that has the
If the man from Time Inc. says it, it must be so. And no doubt
we'll be reading shortly in Time magazine a rousing call for national action
against the Bill Gates monopoly--a journalistic tour de force that's a
worthy successor to the one offered in an earlier serious American
periodical
Jim Dator wrote:
>
> Well, and depending on what is meant by "socialism", the Scandinavian
> countries, Holland and France (certainly) do pretty well, too.
I would not argue with you. "Socialism" surely is a
Wittgensteinean concept (i.e., it covers a lot of different
possibilities which need
As Ed Weick points out, the job creation potential of redistributing
overtime hours is limited. Advocates of redistributing work have long
acknowledged this fact. Estimates of creation potential routinely take into
account skill differentials, regional dispersion, non-divisibility of
operations e
I agree with Tom Walker that the Statscan article contained "flagrant
distortions" by assuming an equivalence between overtime hours and jobs.
Nevertheless, I felt that it was quite effective in addressing some of the
myths and misconceptions around the possibility of job sharing. For
example: "
