> 1. the cause and effect link is already inferred in the description of the > reform: _redistributing_ work and work time. > > 2. in a private message, I referred him to a rough calculation (based in > part on econometric studies done for the Government of Canada by Mike > McCracken of Econometrica) of the redistributive effect of work time > reduction. And the numbers are: for a 20% average reduction in length of > full-time workweek, a 10% increase in employment at the cost of a 5% > reduction in net full-time pay and benefits. Not exactly "30 for 40", but at > least "32 for 38". This assumes _no change_ in the cost of labour per unit > of output. Full circle. Now we are back to what sound like economic arguments. A quick response: if this is just a policy of redistributing existing employment, isn't it a rather timid reform? Wouldn't it be better (1) to try and raise the level of output and hence total employment and (2) to try and increase the wage share of national income? You ask me to counterpose a position, that's one. Where does this assumption about " _no change_ in the cost of labour per unit of output." come from? Does this proposal raise hourly labor costs and if so, how does that effect work through the national economy? This must be addressed if any claim about a macro effect is made. Tom, I'm going to bow out now. Despite what seems to you like evidence to the contrary, my purpose has not been to offend you. If I had not formed a very good opinion of you from your earlier posts I would not have even entered this discussion. I bow out because the tone of this exchange has gotten too unpleasant. I apologize for the part I played in that development. My tone has been needlessly rough. I leave to you the last word and any pleasure you may derive from denouncing me for weaselling out. I simply don't know what your grounds for adjudicating debate are. A post or 2 ago you were assailing economic arguments per se. Now we are back to very conventional-sounding economics with the full panoply of ceteris paribus and econometric backing. I do not want to run around this circle again. Best, Colin
