mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (02/19/85)
Lines marked '>>' are from an earlier article of mine; lines marked '>' are those of John Lupien. >> Given Martin Taylor's leisure-subsidy plan, the economically >>efficacious thing for the worker to do is train for a profession which he >>can expect to soon become obsolete. Wonderful. >No, although the above could be usefully construed as representing >an attempt at humor, it is not a fair assessment of Mr. Taylor's >plan. The *personally* efficacious thing might be as you say. However, >what a person does is up to them. The *economically* efficacious path >would be to work on a widget machine to produce more leasure oppor- >tunities<HUMOR<attempt>>. Next time that you are tempted to correct someone, consult a dictionary. The word 'economic' means pertaining to management of resources. Writing in the English language (of which you obviously have a tenuous grasp), I was making the claim that, given Taylor's scheme, the worker could maximize his consumption of resources by 'train[ing] for a profession which he can expect to soon become obsolete'. I did not make the claim that Taylor thought that the economy as a whole would be better off if workers took such a course; what Taylor did was to fail to see that his scheme would lead to workers taking such a route. Once this realization is made, Taylor's scheme is exposed as foolishness. Irked, Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan