mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (02/02/85)
>Too bad we aren't still working the 60 to 80 hour week they averaged >around the turn of the century. Just think how much more efficient >that would be................ >not to mention the increased unemployed milling around desperate for >any job they can get!! >Seems like the economy has done better since going to the 40 hour week >than it did before the 40 hour week. >What would be *most* efficient might be the 168 hour week... >that used to be called "slavery"........ >My question is: what are the poor robots going to do??? > tim sevener Mr Sevener has generated yet another straw-man. Given that I, with other net-users, consistently point them out, I expect that they have lost their effect as a rhetorical ploy. Could it be that Sevener is so wedded to their use that he is UNABLE to argue without building one? I did not argue that long work weeks are desirable; so long as their length is voluntarily arrived at, I pretty much don't care what the typical length is. What I presented was simple amoral analysis, explaining that: 1) Unions and Minimum Wage laws increase wages at the cost of increased unemployment (which, as I did not point out then but will point out now, means lower real wages in the long run). 2) Thus, increased wages achieved by coercion no more reflect oligopoly power on the part of employers than increased dairy prices reflect oligopoly power on the part of grocery-buyers. 3) A shortening of the work week, unless accompanied by a corresponding reduction of weekly pay, amounts to an increase in the wage rate and would lead to higher unemployment -- contrary to Mr Seveners uneducated guess. All of this was purely descriptive, altho it does undercut the justification that Sevener gave for his prescriptions. Mr Sevener points out that 'the economy has done better since going to the 40 hour work week'; I take it that we are to conclude that the 40 hour week has improved economic performance. I would be interested in a more rigorous demonstration of this thesis. Waiting for it to roll back down, Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/03/85)
> Mr Sevener points out that 'the economy has done better since going >to the 40 hour work week'; I take it that we are to conclude that the 40 >hour week has improved economic performance. I would be interested in a >more rigorous demonstration of this thesis. > > Waiting for it to roll back down, > Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan This comment illustrates what is wrong with DKMcK's long writings: they look for mathematical rigour to prove what are really psychological and sociological hypotheses. When I studied Industrial Engineering, the story was that workers produced more in a 40-hour week than in the substantially longer work weeks that had been popular (with employers). The reasons? Workers had more time to be themselves and relax, and worked with a better humour, as well as probably better health. Nothing I have seen in the mathematical arguments includes such effects in the assumptions on whose correctness the validity of the results must depend. I am afraid that DKMcK's writings slide right by, however loudly he proclaims his expertise in economic theory. He has not shown a deep knowledge of sociology, psychology, or public health in presenting his theorems. Some things, though obvious, are true. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt