Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Wage Rates -- Reply to Sevener
Message-ID: <1348@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Feb-85 22:54:12 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.1348
Posted: Sat Feb  2 22:54:12 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Feb-85 01:08:30 EST
References: <ratex.824>
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Distribution: net
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 31
Summary: 


>     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