COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (10/10/86)
> [cowan@xx] Take toothpaste. (I admit, a rather unusual > example.) A dependency on toothpaste in a pump is being created > (by subsidy at first) so that consumers will ultimately pay for > the added cost of the pump, and in order to better regulate (and > speed up) their toothpaste use. When toothpaste in a tube is > removed from the market because most consumers have been > indoctrinated (progress!) to buy it in a pump, what happens to > my "free choice" to buy toothpaste in a tube? The free market, > using the technical apparatus of the media, has infringed on > my freedom. >Gimmie a break! You raise a picture of a secret cabal of two dozen >men deciding to squeeze out [:-)] the tube. If n-1 companies do get >rid of the tube, and consumers still want it, don't you think Company >N will clean up? >-dick You are right. I didn't fully explain the point. The point is that the free market makes choices for us. But I admit, that's not so "bad" -- the consequences are slow and subtle, and would we be better off otherwise? What's wrong with spending our resources on marketing, packaging, and advertising? I was talking to an Indian friend, and back in India a fairly well-off family only generates one bag of garbage per week. We, on the other hand, are practically a "throwaway society." But perhaps this is the price (and certainly not a high price) of affluence? What I should have said: The real waste is not the packaging of toothpaste. It is the waste of the work that goes into it. I say why not go to a 30-hour week. Ten hours more free time to be creative beats the advantages of the wasteful products that work would create any day. Perhaps this is going out to the wrong audience, because we are members of a privileged elite that is allowed to be creative. But consider the vast majority of the population that is not. -------
king@KESTREL.ARPA (10/10/86)
Date: Thu 25 Sep 86 19:27:33-EDT From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU> > [cowan@xx] Take toothpaste. [We're getting pumps rather than > tubes because the toothpaste company wants more bucks, and son > I won't have a choice.] >Gimmie a break! You raise a picture of a secret cabal of two >dozen men deciding to squeeze out [:-)] the tube. If n-1 >companies do get rid of the tube, and consumers still want it, >don't you think Company N will clean up? >-dick You are right. I didn't fully explain the point. The point is that the free market makes choices for us. But I admit, that's not so "bad" -- the consequences are slow and subtle, and would we be better off otherwise? What's wrong with spending our resources on marketing, packaging, and advertising? I was talking to an Indian friend, and back in India a fairly well-off family only generates one bag of garbage per week. We, on the other hand, are practically a "throwaway society." But perhaps this is the price (and certainly not a high price) of affluence? What I should have said: The real waste is not the packaging of toothpaste. It is the waste of the work that goes into it. I say why not go to a 30-hour week. Ten hours more free time to be creative beats the advantages of the wasteful products that work would create any day. Perhaps this is going out to the wrong audience, because we are members of a privileged elite that is allowed to be creative. But consider the vast majority of the population that is not. Most people in noncreative jobs take overtime when they can get it. My statement is empirical; it is an observation at Con Ed, New York's power company (where the typical job is a lineman's, meter reader's, or equipment maintainer's), at Pacific Telephone where similar jobs exist, and at RCA Globcom where the days tasks typically consist of sitting in front of a CRT, reading the address fields of outgoing telegrams, and fixing the misspellings so the computer can route them. In each of these three companies there is no mandatory overtime. There is a quota - if you have more seniority you can get more (it's a complex formula so even the newest hire gets some, typically about half what the most senior people get.) I concede that the overtime is paid at time-and-a-half at each of these three companies, but I see no evidence that either party to the agreement want a shorter workweek, despite the noncreative nature of (most of) the jobs involved. Who would impose a 30 hour week? By what justification? I may be elitist to say this, but I conjecture that there won't be too much effective creativity by people in noncreative jobs. After all, if a person wanted to spend his time being creative, and had "what it takes", he would probably not be in a noncreative job! ------- -dick -------