No, in fact what your example seems to indicate is that all other things being equal demand is self-restraining and what needs to be socially constrained is the amount of labour. In other words, the 35 hour week. And when productivity increases by another 14%, the 30 hour week, and so on.
Full employment with constant demand and increasing productivity requires decreasing amount of labour (and resource use).
The system we have, by trying to squeeze as much profit as possible from labour and resources, runs into overproduction crises and demand shortfalls, and requieres constant stimulus to demand, either in the form of Keynesian spending or "supply creating its own demand" through advertising. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
If only people could provide more creative services than working at a call-centre... Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
And that is, some at CoFFEE would argue, one of the opportunities implicit in the Job Guarantee program ... that since the entitlement is to an opportunity to work at the specified wage, the material inputs per labor hour for JG jobs can be designed to be substantially below the average in private sector employment. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
And let people work as much or as little as they like? Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I didn't know you were a fan of Manchester Capitalism. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
Why do you think most people would prefer 60 hour work weeks? Most people I know would prefer to work less than 40 hours, and a few work 80 hours and like that.
Why don't let people decide for themselves? Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
What I'm trying to say is that the gains of the labour movement over the past 200 years are the "social engineering" you're talking about. And so is the Swedish Model. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
Sweden needs no minimum wage because wages in Sweden aren't determined by the market. They're determined by associational bargaining. I think that this is highly superior to having either the state or the market determine wages.
And it all worked fairly well until you had skilled workers break with solidaristic wage policies in the early 90's. And when that happened you lost much of the wage restraint that made the system work, and the macro coordination to ensure economic stability between the blue collar and white collar unions.
I guess for me the interesting thing is that Sweden is one of those countries where the logic of the market is highly constrained within social institions and rules. Which is why you don't need nearly as much state intervention. Sweden is imperfect, but the ability of associational systems like in Sweden and Germany to achieve social justice by social organizations rather than state intervention is something that deserves to be looked at much more closely. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
I do not agree with this description. There has always been tensions among different unions about how to split the pie. There was governmental efforts during the crisis years in the early 90's to limit all unions wage demands but that was in my opinion more related to the general transition from high inflation - low unemployment to low inflation - high unemployment (moving on the Phillips curve). The unions system of internal negotiations is quite unchanged.
The reasons for the general crisis was a mixture. Ingredients included increased governmental borrowing and spending during the roaring years of the late 80's and an overheated housing market that when it crashed wiped out fortunes and a lot of savings. Construction came to an abrupt halt. Housing companies turned out to have more loans then assets. If banks were allowed to go bankcrupt some would have, Nordea (Nordbanken) that was in the worst shape was taken over and run by the government.
Which role inflation and the transition to low inflation (in the middle of crisis) played is less clear to me. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
http://www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/June2007/08/c2877.html
Supreme Court of Canada says collective bargaining protected by Charter of Rights and Freedoms OTTAWA, June 8 CNW Telbec - Canada's largest union is hailing today's landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada as the Court's most important decision in support of free collective bargaining in Canada. Referring to the Supreme Court of Canada's previous refusal to recognize collective bargaining as protected by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Paul Moist, national president of CUPE, stated "In overruling its own decisions from 20 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada has removed tremendous hurdles faced by the trade union movement in this country ." "The Supreme Court of Canada has now opened a door that was closed twenty years ago ," says Moist. He notes that the possibility for today's ruling was opened by the 1995 judgment in Dunmore http://www.sgmlaw.com/PageFactory.aspx?PageID=228. "Today the Supreme Court has followed this opening and determined that the right of workers to bargain collectively is so important to society as a whole that it is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The Court held that collective agreement provisions dealing with contracting out, layoffs and bumping are central to the freedom of association. Substantial interference with collective bargaining over these essential rights violates the freedom of association. Moist added, "CUPE is particularly pleased that the Court found that the Charter gives the same protection for collective bargaining as contained in international labour conventions that Canada has ratified." For Claude Généreux, CUPE's national secretary treasurer, "Collective bargaining is the fundamental reason that trade unions exist. The Court has recognized that collective bargaining is constitutionally protected. CUPE is ecstatic with this." "From now on, governments that interfere with freely negotiated collective agreements and the collective bargaining rights of employees must justify their actions against the protection provided by the Charter of Rights."
OTTAWA, June 8 CNW Telbec - Canada's largest union is hailing today's landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada as the Court's most important decision in support of free collective bargaining in Canada. Referring to the Supreme Court of Canada's previous refusal to recognize collective bargaining as protected by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Paul Moist, national president of CUPE, stated "In overruling its own decisions from 20 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada has removed tremendous hurdles faced by the trade union movement in this country ." "The Supreme Court of Canada has now opened a door that was closed twenty years ago ," says Moist. He notes that the possibility for today's ruling was opened by the 1995 judgment in Dunmore http://www.sgmlaw.com/PageFactory.aspx?PageID=228. "Today the Supreme Court has followed this opening and determined that the right of workers to bargain collectively is so important to society as a whole that it is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The Court held that collective agreement provisions dealing with contracting out, layoffs and bumping are central to the freedom of association. Substantial interference with collective bargaining over these essential rights violates the freedom of association. Moist added, "CUPE is particularly pleased that the Court found that the Charter gives the same protection for collective bargaining as contained in international labour conventions that Canada has ratified." For Claude Généreux, CUPE's national secretary treasurer, "Collective bargaining is the fundamental reason that trade unions exist. The Court has recognized that collective bargaining is constitutionally protected. CUPE is ecstatic with this." "From now on, governments that interfere with freely negotiated collective agreements and the collective bargaining rights of employees must justify their actions against the protection provided by the Charter of Rights."
If you want to work 60 hours a week at the minimum wage to (eventually) afford a BMW, please do! I'd rather work 30 hours and ride my bike.
But who am I to say you are doing the wrong thing and I am doing the right? It's a matter of preferences. Some people value income over leisure, and some do the opposite. Let people decide this for themselves. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
If you want to work 60 hours a week at the minimum wage to (eventually) afford a BMW, please do! I'd rather work 30 hours and ride my bike. But who am I to say you are doing the wrong thing and I am doing the right? It's a matter of preferences. Some people value income over leisure, and some do the opposite. Let people decide this for themselves.
But who am I to say you are doing the wrong thing and I am doing the right? It's a matter of preferences. Some people value income over leisure, and some do the opposite. Let people decide this for themselves.
The ironic thing here is that I think that you've misinterpreted the social conditioning of preferences with individual choice.
In one word.
Lagom
Is your preference for leisure over seeking further material gains the result of the rational calculation of utitilies to choose the option providing the greatest utility, or is this socially conditioned, such that the formal organization of work by law is unneccesary because social norms condtion preferences to an extent that it's unneccesary? And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
It's just that you can't be an employee of some corporation if you want to work more than 48 hours per week (or some other limit depending on the country).
Just offer your work as a contractor on a per job basis and there is no regulation in the total hours worked.
So you can get your BMW, even in France.
Freedom to work more exists only if there is a balance between the demand and the supply of labor. With structural underemployment (whether via unemployment, part time employment or other schemes), the threat of using illegal immigrants or offshoring activity, there is no balance. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Engineering is good! Social engineering is great! As an engineer, I have never understood why 'social engineering' is supposed to be a bad thing... It means we think about what we want and try to achieve it, rather than let the terms be dictated by whomever happens to have a ridiculous idea and the money to back it up. As if flailing around with no plan is better than a good design.
If I need the money or love my job, I would have no problems with 60 hours a week. If I feel I have better things to do I'll switch to half time and tell my employer I have other things to do and that he only have to pay me half my old wage. How nice for him, he'll save loads of money.
Maybe it's utopian, I don't know... Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
If we have pure technological progress, we should indeed increase the baseline wage represented by the JG wage ... and if that means people choose to request fewer shifts and time worked goes down, great. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Of course, much of that is a matter of design, and since commerical corporate design horizons are governed by compound interest on interest rates in financial markets, and commercial corporations are constructed to be antagonistic to labor income, placing so many of our fundamental technology design decisions in the hands of commercial corporations is something that we have to think through. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
