Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ratex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ratex!mck
From: mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Wage Rates -- Reply to Sevener
Message-ID: <824@ratex.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Feb-85 00:33:57 EST
Article-I.D.: ratex.824
Posted: Sat Feb  2 00:33:57 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 14:32:30 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Terran Mystery Poodles
Lines: 39


>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