Here's one response from the moderator of an unnamed other list to my web
page announcement ("How Iatrogenic Economics Killed the Standard of Living
-- http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/satanic.htm). I want to emphasize that I
think the response was INTELLIGENT, AMIABLE and SINCERE. It also presents a
shitload of food for thought. My reply follows.
>Tom:
>
>It is not in keeping with ___ list policy to post a message that continues
>on a web site, especially when the message is as polemical, and includes
>as much ad hominem argumentation, as yours. There are, however, several
>other ways to initiate a conversation with scholars in the history of
>economic thought regarding the origin and use of the "lump-of-labour"
>argument:
>
>1) You indicate on the web site that the term "lump-of-labour" probably
>can be traced to Schloss in 1891. You might inquire for older uses of the
>term, or for 19th century terms used for the concept.
>
>2) You might ask what members of the list think the source of Samuelson's
>argument was.
>
>3) You might ask for a list of dissenters in the history of economics from
>the "standard" view.
>
>4) You might write a non-polemical "guest" editorial on the topic,
>inviting discussion -- This editorial could be discussed with me in
>advance of posting it (we have a procedure for that).
>
>In other words, I welcome a discussion of this topic. I would simply like
>to see it initiated in a non-polemical framework that invites discussion
>and scholarly inquiry rather than name-calling.
>
>And now a more personal question. I've always been interested in the
>shorter work week argument, and can see its relevance in the context of
>industrial manufacturing and a few other industries. But how does it work
>in sectors in which work is taken as a "good" rather than a "bad"? (Of
>course, neoclassical theory assumes work is a "bad" also, and this is one
>of my problems with that theory). For example, information and knowledge
>based work is often undertaken by those who are paid for doing what they
>want to be doing anyway -- programming, teaching, etc. As a university
>prof, there are measurable aspects of my work (hours taught, etc.) which
>could be reduced, thereby creating employment for others. But I would not
>work any less! I would teach less, and simply spend more time
>researching, creating web sites, etc. My productivity, by the usual
>university measures, might actually go up! And, of course, it would make
>it difficult for my employer to pay me less, since I am really not
>working any less.
>
>Just wondering!
Dear ___,
It's interesting that you characterize my message as polemical -- not that
I'm denying it is polemical -- because what I am trying to address is a
well-entrenched polemic with an old and strange history. A key document in
the polemic is Lionel Robbins's _An Essay on the Nature and Significance of
Economic Science_, that in Samuelson's words made the profession
extraordinarily "jittery" about the issue of interpersonal comparisons. My
use of ad hominem is loosely modeled on Robbins's against institutionalists
and historicists, but based on more careful documentation. It's my
impression that the Robbins essay was sort of the entrée into the English
speaking discourse of the von Mises/Hayek anti-socialist polemic.
The question you asked about work being taken as a good instead of a bad
really is a key one. This is the case not just for some lines of work. It's
fair to say that MOST people enjoy doing their work, at least for some part
of the day (although, of course, not every day). Chapman's analysis
explicitly addresses this question as one of the elements that make analysis
of work time so complex. By comparison, von Mises adopts an unreflective
"work is pain" assumption and goes from there. The same 'simplification' is
inherent in Barone. The complication is not that some work is pleasurable
and other is painful, it is that some work which is pleasurable under some
conditions is painful under other conditions. The length of the working day
(and vacations, week-ends etc.) is a major factor in bringing about the
change of sign from positive to negative or vice versa.
Mathematically speaking, this changeability of sign makes work a "complex
number", which, any algebra text can tell you, is ordinally indeterminate.
In other words, work time, as analyzed by Chapman is too complex to fit into
a Barone/Bergson/Samuelson type social welfare function, so its complex
nature needs to be forgotten about. This mathematically convenient amnesia
is, on the other hand, literally a matter of life and death, which is why I
talk about "KILLING the standard of LIVING".
So, I suppose I could plea "self-defense" in my use of polemic --
counter-polemic really -- against this monstrous abstraction.
regards,
Tom Walker
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm
