dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (06/02/85)
"If the ordinary wage-earner worked four hours a day, there would be enough for everybody, and no unemployment -- assuming a certain very moderate amount of sensible organisation." -- Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness (1932) When Russell wrote the above quote, those who had jobs worked 8 hours per day. Since then, there has been a great deal of technological progress, so that an hour of work can produce more now than it did then. The workforce has been made larger by the addition of a large number of women. And a larger proportion of the workforce is working, now. So, what's the result? A larger number of people are working more productively, but they are *still* working 8 hours a day. Something is wrong here. Much of the work being done in our society has nothing to do with providing for our survival and comfort. An example, from another of Russell's essays, is the mining of gold buried underground, only to bury it again, in bank vaults. A more modern example is two large countries (which will remain nameless), which each have sufficient nuclear weapons to destroy the other several times, and yet continue to produce more. Or, consider the work that goes into producing dreck like electric knives. Or "paperwork". Probably, most office work (including computer work) is inessential. With unemployment being the problem it is, "job creation" has become a sacred cow. It is a sacred cow in need of a kicking. With the working day fixed at 8 hours, "job creation" can be more accurately described as "work creation", and perhaps in that form you can see more clearly how perverted an idea it is. The eight hour day is no longer necessary. In fact, if Russell is to be believed, it hasn't been necessary in over 50 years. Technological progress enables us to produce more. Why is it that so few people ever see the obvious implication, that technological progress can also enable us to work less? And why is it, whenever shorter hours are suggested, usually by some university professor, in a newspaper article, the idea is instantly forgotten by almost everybody, while the concept of "job creation" refuses to go away? -- David Canzi "Permission is not freedom."
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (06/05/85)
> "If the ordinary wage-earner worked four hours a day, there would be > enough for everybody, and no unemployment -- assuming a certain very > moderate amount of sensible organisation." > -- Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness (1932) Consider what that "moderate amount" really is. > Or, consider the work that goes into producing dreck > like electric knives. Or "paperwork". Probably, most office work > (including computer work) is inessential. > The eight hour day is no longer > necessary. In fact, if Russell is to be believed, it hasn't been > necessary in over 50 years. > > Technological progress enables us to produce more. Why is it that > so few people ever see the obvious implication, that technological > progress can also enable us to work less? And why is it, whenever > shorter hours are suggested, usually by some university professor, > in a newspaper article, the idea is instantly forgotten by almost > everybody, while the concept of "job creation" refuses to go away? > > -- > David Canzi Given the choice between producing the same amount with reduced labor input and producing more with the same amount of labor, industrial managers tend to choose expansion. It offers more immediate benefit to both enterprise and worker. The real cost of the goods produced then drops. As necessities become cheaper, the economy of discretionary spending grows, and "unnecessary" things get done. There is nothing wrong with this in principle, and I think it advances the human condition at least as much as taking an approach which says, "We will produce only the essentials of life, can do so ever more cheaply, and are going to spend our time in non-productive activities instead." It is indeed wrong that a society that produces MTV and frozen yogurt can allow people to be unwillingly deprived of food and shelter. But I don't see how reducing the working hours of industrial labor addresses that problem at all. Baba
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/05/85)
>/* watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) / 1:21 pm Jun 2, 1985 */ >When Russell wrote the above quote, those who had jobs worked 8 hours >per day. Since then, there has been a great deal of technological >progress, so that an hour of work can produce more now than it did >then. The workforce has been made larger by the addition of a large >number of women. And a larger proportion of the workforce is working, >now. So, what's the result? A larger number of people are working >more productively, but they are *still* working 8 hours a day. Don't forget that the material quality of life has increased tremendously. >Much of the work being done in our society has nothing to do with >providing for our survival and comfort. An example, from another of >Russell's essays, is the mining of gold buried underground, only to >bury it again, in bank vaults. If many people value gold, then of course people are going to spend time mining it. While this may seem wasteful, the alternative is to let some government decide what we should want. >Or "paperwork". Probably, most office work >(including computer work) is inessential. Nonsense. Much office work is probably wasteful, but some waste is unavoidable in managing an organization (for profit or otherwise). Perfection is unattainable. > . . . The eight hour day is no longer >necessary. In fact, if Russell is to be believed, it hasn't been >necessary in over 50 years. Personally, I would love to believe you. However, you need to present more evidence. >Technological progress enables us to produce more. Why is it that >so few people ever see the obvious implication, that technological >progress can also enable us to work less? And why is it, whenever >shorter hours are suggested, usually by some university professor, >in a newspaper article, the idea is instantly forgotten by almost >everybody, while the concept of "job creation" refuses to go away? >-- >David Canzi I suspect this has much to do with the work ethic. Mike Sykora
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (06/16/85)
To Baba, and Michael Sykora: I'm afraid I'll have to get back to this after my vacation, as it looks like I have to put more than the average amount of thought into my response, and right now I'm a bit short of time. -- David Canzi P.S. I'm on vacation, and won't be around to take part in the shouting matches for the next three weeks.