Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: "Job creation" considered ridiculous
Message-ID: <1448@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 2-Jun-85 13:21:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1448
Posted: Sun Jun  2 13:21:52 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Jun-85 01:15:10 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 44

"If the ordinary wage-earner worked four hours a day, there would be
enough for everybody, and no unemployment -- assuming a certain very
moderate amount of sensible organisation."
	-- Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness (1932)

When Russell wrote the above quote, those who had jobs worked 8 hours
per day.  Since then, there has been a great deal of technological
progress, so that an hour of work can produce more now than it did
then.  The workforce has been made larger by the addition of a large
number of women.  And a larger proportion of the workforce is working,
now.  So, what's the result?  A larger number of people are working
more productively, but they are *still* working 8 hours a day.

Something is wrong here.

Much of the work being done in our society has nothing to do with
providing for our survival and comfort.  An example, from another of
Russell's essays, is the mining of gold buried underground, only to
bury it again, in bank vaults.  A more modern example is two large
countries (which will remain nameless), which each have sufficient
nuclear weapons to destroy the other several times, and yet continue to
produce more.  Or, consider the work that goes into producing dreck
like electric knives.  Or "paperwork".  Probably, most office work
(including computer work) is inessential.

With unemployment being the problem it is, "job creation" has become a
sacred cow.  It is a sacred cow in need of a kicking.  With the working
day fixed at 8 hours, "job creation" can be more accurately described
as "work creation", and perhaps in that form you can see more clearly
how perverted an idea it is.  The eight hour day is no longer
necessary.  In fact, if Russell is to be believed, it hasn't been
necessary in over 50 years.

Technological progress enables us to produce more.  Why is it that
so few people ever see the obvious implication, that technological
progress can also enable us to work less?  And why is it, whenever
shorter hours are suggested, usually by some university professor,
in a newspaper article, the idea is instantly forgotten by almost
everybody, while the concept of "job creation" refuses to go away?

-- 
David Canzi

			"Permission is not freedom."