Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646
From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: "Job creation" considered ridiculous
Message-ID: <1340158@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 11:46:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: acf4.1340158
Posted: Wed Jun  5 11:46:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Jun-85 01:11:11 EDT
References: <1448@watdcsu.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 47

>/* watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) /  1:21 pm  Jun  2, 1985 */

>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.

Don't forget that the material quality of life has increased tremendously.

>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.

If many people value gold, then of course people are going to spend
time mining it.  While this may seem wasteful, the alternative is
to let some government decide what we should want.

>Or "paperwork".  Probably, most office work
>(including computer work) is inessential.

Nonsense.  Much office work is probably wasteful, but some waste is
unavoidable in managing an organization (for profit or otherwise).
Perfection is unattainable.

> . . .  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.

Personally, I would love to believe you.  However, you need to present
more evidence.

>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

I suspect this has much to do with the work ethic.

						Mike Sykora