Talk Elections

General Politics => Economics => Topic started by: opebo on June 03, 2011, 07:54:06 AM



Title: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on June 03, 2011, 07:54:06 AM
I was thinking about this when I had to justify my employment recently, and I noticed that they expected a 'forty hour work week'.  I was quite frankly astonished, as I had forgotten about this horror, and assumed it didn't apply to me.

Why don't we have a 20 hour work week, given that it is both more reasonable from the standpoint of human nature and economically beneficial?  (the productivity rate is many times what it was when the 40 hour work week was instituted in the 1930s).


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Liberté on June 03, 2011, 08:08:01 AM
An employer would rather fire what he considers to be extraneous employs as productivity rises than give all of his employees fewer hours at the same pay, ostensibly for the purpose of remaining competitive. It's crap, but not a whole lot can be done about it.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on June 03, 2011, 08:11:00 AM
An employer would rather fire what he considers to be extraneous employs as productivity rises than give all of his employees fewer hours at the same pay, ostensibly for the purpose of remaining competitive. It's crap, but not a whole lot can be done about it.

Well, obviously eliminating the 'employer' or strictly controlling his actions (his power over workers) is the only way workers could ever hope to stop being exploited. 


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Liberté on June 03, 2011, 08:13:58 AM
An employer would rather fire what he considers to be extraneous employs as productivity rises than give all of his employees fewer hours at the same pay, ostensibly for the purpose of remaining competitive. It's crap, but not a whole lot can be done about it.

Well, obviously eliminating the 'employer' or strictly controlling his actions (his power over workers) is the only way workers could ever hope to stop being exploited. 

Right, because governments founded by the owning class and governing chiefly in the interests of the owning class have proven to be so good at controlling their power over their employees.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Ban my account ffs! on June 03, 2011, 08:18:29 AM
An employer would rather fire what he considers to be extraneous employs as productivity rises than give all of his employees fewer hours at the same pay, ostensibly for the purpose of remaining competitive. It's crap, but not a whole lot can be done about it.

And it only happens because the system makes most people desperate for employment.  The only way to remedy that would be through government regulations.

In a system where productivity rises and pay and leisure do not (or actually decline as it has for most Americans since 1980), staying "competitive" ultimately just hurts businesses in the long run because the increased productivity will create excess supply while demand remains largely the same.  This drives prices downward and further encourages employers to raise productivity and thin out their workforces in a race to the bottom.

When the capitalists at the top of the pyramid relied on human labor to produce the goods that they sold, it was easy to redistribute wealth.  Now an incredible amount of wealth is gleaned off of non-human labor (with computers/robotics/or simply making money off of money)... and that all concentrates at the tippy top.

Ideally, in a society where technology supplants human labor, people would be paid more and more for doing less and less work... thus enjoying the fruits of innovation and technological advances until eventually much of the economy is automated and we find better things to do with our time with all of the wealth we've helped create.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Liberté on June 03, 2011, 08:21:01 AM
The only way to remedy that would be through government regulations.

I have absolutely no faith in a capitalist State within a capitalist framework to actively work against the interests of industry. If the business of the American people is business, the business of the American State is to ensure that the business of the American people remains business. If there exists a solution at all for our economic problems, it lies far beyond the government.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on June 03, 2011, 08:34:59 AM
...If there exists a solution at all ... it lies far beyond the government.

I suppose you think that a 'State' is be nature inevitably capitalist, but I'm not so convinced.  It seems to me the State is exactly like a gun, and whoever has it (at present the capitalist class) points it at the others and makes them their slaves.  Whether this gun can only be utilized by the few to oppress the many, or whether there might be a way for the many to wield it is I agree questionable.  But to fantasize that the gun and the power to kill that ultimately delineates all human relationships within society will go away and be replaced by anything else is, I fear, unrealistic.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Liberté on June 03, 2011, 08:41:48 AM
...If there exists a solution at all ... it lies far beyond the government.

I suppose you think that a 'State' is be nature inevitably capitalist, but I'm not so convinced.  It seems to me the State is exactly like a gun, and whoever has it (at present the capitalist class) points it at the others and makes them their slaves.  Whether this gun can only be utilized by the few to oppress the many, or whether there might be a way for the many to wield it is I agree questionable.  But to fantasize that the gun and the power to kill that ultimately delineates all human relationships within society will go away and be replaced by anything else is, I fear, unrealistic.

That was Vladimir Lenin's philosophy: the vanguard could take over the apparatus of the State left behind by the old feudal order, usher it through capitalism into Communism, and dissolve it. Leaving aside the fact that Communism is not precisely what I'm after, that philosophy has been tried and it has failed. One day, long after I've departed this mortal vale, the fundamental social relationships of our society will change. Why I do not know, but I can tell you how: it will not come through a centralized government with a monopoly of force.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Ban my account ffs! on June 03, 2011, 09:34:25 AM
The only way to remedy that would be through government regulations.

I have absolutely no faith in a capitalist State within a capitalist framework to actively work against the interests of industry. If the business of the American people is business, the business of the American State is to ensure that the business of the American people remains business. If there exists a solution at all for our economic problems, it lies far beyond the government.
And that would be?  Magical fairy dust?  People acting alone as individuals?

What needs to be done is democratization of the workplace.  The big systemic problem with the U.S. is that we demand one man, one vote and a say in the political process... but are just fine going to work in an authoritarian totalitarian regime every day.  Corporations should be done away with in favor of employee owned businesses where every employee gets one vote on company policy.

If we did that, I think our nation would be much happier, less stressed out, and generally more prosperous.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Liberté on June 03, 2011, 09:40:48 AM
And that would be?  Magical fairy dust?  People acting alone as individuals?

Quite honestly? Yes. Self-sufficiency has got to be the principle upon which the Left founds itself. You are never going to eradicate these broad social problems constantly relying on other people from classes other than your own to do it for you, when they do it at all, that is to say half-assedly and haphazardly. 

Quote
What needs to be done is democratization of the workplace.  The big systemic problem with the U.S. is that we demand one man, one vote and a say in the political process... but are just fine going to work in an authoritarian totalitarian regime every day.  Corporations should be done away with in favor of employee owned businesses where every employee gets one vote on company policy.

I don't disagree with you. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation) is the model I endorse. But it's not going to come down from on high at the hand of any liberal legislation. It's going to come when workers in some industry or another, and probably at some small, barely-competitive business within that industry, are able to purchase that business and operate it co-operatively.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on June 03, 2011, 11:05:14 AM
That was Vladimir Lenin's philosophy: the vanguard could take over the apparatus of the State left behind by the old feudal order, usher it through capitalism into Communism, and dissolve it. Leaving aside the fact that Communism is not precisely what I'm after, that philosophy has been tried and it has failed. One day, long after I've departed this mortal vale, the fundamental social relationships of our society will change. Why I do not know, but I can tell you how: it will not come through a centralized government with a monopoly of force.

I don't think anything will change, though I don't rule it out.  But I also don't think that just because something was 'tried' once historically speaking that it means that idea is definitively a 'failure'.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on June 03, 2011, 11:34:04 AM
opebo's a lazy (he views it as a compliment, so relax).  If you want to work 20 hours, then 20 hours pay it shall be.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 03, 2011, 11:37:35 AM
There is in existence a thing called "Part-time".  Feel free to seek one of those positions out if you want those kind of hours.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: angus on June 03, 2011, 11:39:06 AM
There are plenty of 20-hour work schedules.  They just don't pay very well.

I have two folks working with me this summer.  I tell them that I expect them to be in about 9ish and to be here till around 4:30ish or later.  Except on Fridays.  I understand that folks like to cut out early on Fridays.  I'm usually gone by 3.  So, considering a 30- to 60-minute lunch break, this amounts to about a 33- to 35-hour workweek.  Unless there's a holiday, like Monday was, that's sort of the norm in my lab.  It's not that I consider 35 hours a magic number, but it's just that I'm here during those times, and I think that they would be most productive if their hours overlap with mine.  This way we can meet if necessary, or if they need my help I'm here, or if I have questions for them, they're here.  But I have colleagues that work 40 hours or more, and I assume they want their paid summer researchers doing that as well.  

Apparently your colleagues are working 40 hour weeks, maybe by tradition, maybe by necessity, or for any number of reasons, but presumably they have been doing this a long time and they have determined that this is the amount of time it takes for the average worker to perform what they consider to be a reasonable amount of work.'

And some folks work 60 or 70 hour weeks.  My neighbor is an attorney and he's working all the time.  He leaves before I wake up and returns long after we have eaten.  Even on Fridays.  then again, he also makes buckets of money.  Different priorities, I suppose.

but you can certainly have a 20-hour job if you want it.  I had quite of few of those in my younger years.  Be advised that they don't pay much.  


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on June 03, 2011, 11:41:37 AM
opebo's a lazy (he views it as a compliment, so relax).  If you want to work 20 hours, then 20 hours pay it shall be.

That's an absolutely destructive, unworkable, and irrational economic policy, Gramps.  The whole point of increasing wages through legislation and unionization, and reducing working hours by the same methods, is to deal with the continuous increase in productivity which will otherwise drown the economy in a disastrous dearth of demand.

Anyone who isn't a lazy is a conditioned rat in a wheel, by the way.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: angus on June 03, 2011, 11:53:36 AM
Anyone who isn't a lazy is a conditioned rat in a wheel, by the way.

No, there's a such thing as laziness.  And if you're too lazy, or retarded, you'll not survive.  I'll stipulate that your shock and dismay at what you consider to be an unreasonable demand by your employers doesn't mark you as truly lazy.  Then again, no one's forcing you to keep this job.

But man must build fire to provide warmth and cook foods.  Unless your gods will do that for you.  It's quite simple.  Work is the application of force through a distance.  (one joule is one newton times one meter)  And if you want to survive, you must work.  Even kings and emperors work, grasshopper.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on June 03, 2011, 12:00:00 PM
Anyone who isn't a lazy is a conditioned rat in a wheel, by the way.

Guilty.....and since I"m self employed I'm guilty of building the damn wheel.  :P


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on June 03, 2011, 02:19:21 PM
There is in existence a thing called "Part-time".  Feel free to seek one of those positions out if you want those kind of hours.

That should be illegal.  20 hours max, and no jobs should pay less than 'full time'.  In the interests of a stable and growing economy.

Apparently your colleagues are working 40 hour weeks, maybe by tradition, maybe by necessity,...

No, no, everyone in my office is never there.  Or rather, the office is often at least half empty.  That's the point - no one there really works a 40 hour work week (we're usually about half out of town, in Bangkok, etc), which is why I was surprised that I do have to pretend to have done so in my annual evaluation.

Quote
There are plenty of 20-hour work schedules.  They just don't pay very well.

but you can certainly have a 20-hour job if you want it.  I had quite of few of those in my younger years.  Be advised that they don't pay much. 

Yes, that is precisely the point - for economic health we need to stipulate full time as 20 hours, and make that pay the same as 40 hours pays now.  In other words we need to simply return things to the way they were years ago before the free-market deterioration was allowed to set in.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: angus on June 03, 2011, 02:48:23 PM
In the 1960s this idea was explored in The Jetsons.  Do you remember that show?  George Jetson worked for the slavedriving Mr. Spaceley.  "These nine-hour workweeks are killing me!"

Obviously that show was produced in the Great Society era when it was more popular to submit to the idea of government-mandated work schedules.  I'm not sure people are as eager to accept such government mandates now, even if they did encourage more leisure time.  The thinking may be that productivity per worker would fall so much that the living standard would fall as well.  Or maybe we're more ideologically driven than in the past, and are simply offended at the notion of such government mandates. 

I guess you could say that the owning class wealth would fall under such a system, so they don't support the 20-hour mandate and they dream up ways to convince the rank worker not to support it.

I wouldn't necessarily couch it in that language, or emphasize such aspects.  There is economic and social mobility, and leisure time is not viewed as important by some as by others.  And you are still free to change your employment situation if you find that it doesn't suit you.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on June 03, 2011, 02:52:35 PM
Obviously that show was produced in the Great Society era when it was more popular to submit to the idea of government-mandated work schedules.  I'm not sure people are as eager to accept such government mandates now, even if they did encourage more leisure time.

Which shows how ignorant people are, because they currently do submit to a government mandated work schedule - whatever the lords of industry, privileged by the State to control the populace, stipulate.  Work or die! 

Quote
The thinking may be that productivity per worker would fall so much that the living standard would fall as well.  Or maybe we're more ideologically driven than in the past, and are simply offended at the notion of such government mandates.

It is pure ignorance, fear, envy, power-worship and gullibility.  People are so vile nowadays you almost don't pity them, but then I suppose we tend not to pity the whipped cur that licks its torturers hand. 

Quote
There is economic and social mobility, and leisure time is not viewed as important by some as by others.  And you are still free to change your employment situation if you find that it doesn't suit you.

Well no, there is no economic or social mobility, and I am not free to change anything.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: rob in cal on August 13, 2011, 12:13:46 PM
Opebo,

There is of course the restaurant world.  At my restaurant (where I do deliveries and am 10% owner since last year btw, thus joining the ruling class) you can work full or part time.  Most tipped employees only work about 15 to 20 hours a week, as they make around 25 to 30 dollars an hour (minimum wage plus tips).  But, you could work more hours if you'd like.  I work about 30 hours a week, used to do 40 hours a week, far more than any other tipped employee.
      One thing is to manage expenses.  If you don't spend a huge amount of money on horse back lessons for the kids, don't drive an expensive car, and don't take expensive vacations, you don't need to work as many hours.  My wife works about 5 hours a week at our restaurant, so combined we work 35 hours for a family of four, and still save about 30% or our income( now supplemented by ownership income), yet we know lots of people who combined work maybe 70 hours a week (husband and wife) and are just getting by.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 13, 2011, 01:31:23 PM
There is of course the restaurant world.  At my restaurant (where I do deliveries and am 10% owner since last year btw, thus joining the ruling class) you can work full or part time.  Most tipped employees only work about 15 to 20 hours a week, as they make around 25 to 30 dollars an hour (minimum wage plus tips). 

$25-30/hour?  Wow, I have to believe that there are very few of this kind of restaurant left. I know when I was last in the Bad Place, a huge percentage of the medium-high end restaurants had gone under due to the depression. 

I think what remains are mostly places where there is no tipping, or very minimal tipping.


Nonsense, Link.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Hatman 🍁 on August 13, 2011, 03:40:07 PM
Would the democratization of the work place ensure workers decide to work 20 hrs per week for full wages? Perhaps if the employees are idiots, but in all likelihood, no.  You might not get a full 40 hours, but I think the workers will see the benefits of more productivity.

But that's the good thing about co-ops and such. The workers decide how many hours are good for them. Perhaps they can make a good wage at just 20 hrs. Perhaps it would require 60 hrs. It all depends on them.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Ban my account ffs! on August 13, 2011, 05:25:15 PM
Would the democratization of the work place ensure workers decide to work 20 hrs per week for full wages? Perhaps if the employees are idiots, but in all likelihood, no.  You might not get a full 40 hours, but I think the workers will see the benefits of more productivity.

But that's the good thing about co-ops and such. The workers decide how many hours are good for them. Perhaps they can make a good wage at just 20 hrs. Perhaps it would require 60 hrs. It all depends on them.

I agree wholeheartedly.  Why should we demand democracy and freedom at home but be expected to blindly accept fascist autocracy in the work place?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 14, 2011, 02:19:30 AM
READ my post.  If people start working only 20 hrs a week they would have to at LEAST double their work force.  It would increase their costs a lot... if they add another employee that doubles those costs for them before the employee has worked one hour.

Yes, I read it, Loink.  I want to increase costs - reflate the economy.  Productivity has increased tremendously since the 1930s when we last decreased the length of the work-week, and none of that benefit has gone to the workers.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Gustaf on August 14, 2011, 09:24:34 AM
There's obviously a reason why 40 hours is the norm in most workplaces - lower than that wouldn't be efficient and people don't want to work more than that, given how much money they earn nowadays.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 14, 2011, 09:29:27 AM
There's obviously a reason why 40 hours is the norm in most workplaces - lower than that wouldn't be efficient and people don't want to work more than that, given how much money they earn nowadays.

Actually more than 40 hours is the norm in the USA, Gustaf.  But being efficient is not an important criteria.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on August 14, 2011, 09:30:36 AM
If only we decided to lower our expectations... (Actually this sentence could be said about practically any major issue concerning 'the economy'). And I would add, not just expectations in regards to consumer goods but the lot...


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 14, 2011, 09:33:24 AM
If only we decided to lower our expectations... (Actually this sentence could be said about practically any major issue concerning 'the economy'). And I would add, not just expectations in regards to consumer goods but the lot...

Actually there is no need to lower expectations - the main point of the 20 hour work week would be the salubrious economic effects of increasing payment-for-labor.  The humane and enjoyable life one could lead with more time off is just a bonus.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on August 14, 2011, 09:44:19 AM
Opebo, I have to say I greatly admire the rather unique relationship you have with 'reality' (whatever it is. I'm using the common definion). I think it is quite special in a perverse way. Keep up the good work (or something to that effect).

Actually, I'd reckon if we went to a 20 hour week quite a few people would lose their minds with that spare time. But that's just me (I, who worries that should the economy (in Ireland) improve, certain people would begin to lose their minds due to not having anything to talk about any more except the weather).


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 14, 2011, 09:59:46 AM
Opebo, I have to say I greatly admire the rather unique relationship you have with 'reality' (whatever it is. I'm using the common definion). I think it is quite special in a perverse way. Keep up the good work (or something to that effect).

My friend, reality is that we have a dearth of demand, not a dearth of 'efficiency'.

Actually, I'd reckon if we went to a 20 hour week quite a few people would lose their minds with that spare time.

That is the most disturbing thing I've ever heard, and I've heard it before from others - I find work such a huge inconvenience -there are a million things I would do with every day if I didn't have to work.  That there are people with such sad, circumscribed lives that they couldn't fill a day with fun makes me physically ill to think about.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Gustaf on August 14, 2011, 12:15:57 PM
Opebo, I have to say I greatly admire the rather unique relationship you have with 'reality' (whatever it is. I'm using the common definion). I think it is quite special in a perverse way. Keep up the good work (or something to that effect).

My friend, reality is that we have a dearth of demand, not a dearth of 'efficiency'.

Actually, I'd reckon if we went to a 20 hour week quite a few people would lose their minds with that spare time.

That is the most disturbing thing I've ever heard, and I've heard it before from others - I find work such a huge inconvenience -there are a million things I would do with every day if I didn't have to work.  That there are people with such sad, circumscribed lives that they couldn't fill a day with fun makes me physically ill to think about.

Why all the bigotry? Does it really worry you so much that other people might find enjoyment in different ways than you do?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 14, 2011, 02:50:09 PM
Opebo, I have to say I greatly admire the rather unique relationship you have with 'reality' (whatever it is. I'm using the common definion). I think it is quite special in a perverse way. Keep up the good work (or something to that effect).

My friend, reality is that we have a dearth of demand, not a dearth of 'efficiency'.

Actually, I'd reckon if we went to a 20 hour week quite a few people would lose their minds with that spare time.

That is the most disturbing thing I've ever heard, and I've heard it before from others - I find work such a huge inconvenience -there are a million things I would do with every day if I didn't have to work.  That there are people with such sad, circumscribed lives that they couldn't fill a day with fun makes me physically ill to think about.

Why all the bigotry? Does it really worry you so much that other people might find enjoyment in different ways than you do?

Not at all Gusaf, the point was that they apparently can't find anything else to do.  I'm pretty sure Mikado wasn't saying that they 'enjoy their work' - after all very few do - but rather that they have no idea how to enjoy themselves.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: © tweed on August 14, 2011, 03:22:47 PM
many subsistence economies long before our industrial or even civilized age(s) began had "work weeks" much shorter than 40 hours.  of course back then "work" and "life" were not separate spheres.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 14, 2011, 04:11:06 PM
many subsistence economies long before our industrial or even civilized age(s) began had "work weeks" much shorter than 40 hours.  of course back then "work" and "life" were not separate spheres.

A worthwhile observation, Tweed, and a clue as to why everyone (except of course the rich) is so terribly miserable in the modern world.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 14, 2011, 05:27:51 PM
Yeah, and they spent as much of the winter as they could asleep, and with good reason.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on August 14, 2011, 07:03:29 PM
I would go completely out of my brain with boredom...


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Gustaf on August 15, 2011, 08:05:20 AM
many subsistence economies long before our industrial or even civilized age(s) began had "work weeks" much shorter than 40 hours.  of course back then "work" and "life" were not separate spheres.

A worthwhile observation, Tweed, and a clue as to why everyone (except of course the rich) is so terribly miserable in the modern world.

It is rare to see someone seriously advocate a return to stone age. Anyway, there's nothing stopping you guys from living out in the jungle munching roots and reverting to an expected life-span of 30 years or something if you really want to.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on August 15, 2011, 09:19:17 AM
many subsistence economies long before our industrial or even civilized age(s) began had "work weeks" much shorter than 40 hours.  of course back then "work" and "life" were not separate spheres.

That is of course true. But what is to be done about it?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 15, 2011, 11:45:49 AM
Well that makes no sense.  None of my friends would sit on their asses at home for 20 hrs a week.  They would all get second jobs and make twice the amount of money.  I don't think you've thought this through.

I've thought it through Link, and your objection has no bearing whatsoever on the economic or societal effects I stipulated.  Whether the serf uses the extra time (as a rational would do), or as a way to 'make more money' as your friends might do, the effect is improvement in the lives of workers and more importantly an increase in demand.

Yeah, and they spent as much of the winter as they could asleep, and with good reason.

Drafts?

I would go completely out of my brain with boredom...

See, Polnut illustrates my case - he is a tragic figure.  He cannot imagine living.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 15, 2011, 11:50:54 AM
It is rare to see someone seriously advocate a return to stone age. Anyway, there's nothing stopping you guys from living out in the jungle munching roots and reverting to an expected life-span of 30 years or something if you really want to.

I understand that you cannot read English well, but no one advocated a return to the stone age, gustaf.  He merely noted that people have had shorter work periods in the past.   What was the legal mandate of 40 hours then?  A return to the 16th century?  Your arguments are so irrational and specious one hardly knows how to communicate with you.  There is nothing that precludes both a high-technology economy and a shorter working week.



many subsistence economies long before our industrial or even civilized age(s) began had "work weeks" much shorter than 40 hours.  of course back then "work" and "life" were not separate spheres.

That is of course true. But what is to be done about it?

Obviously legally mandating a shorter work week is what should be done about it.  The work week should always be gradually shrinking, just as wages should always be gradually increasing, and in this way we redistribute productivity increases in a sustainable way.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 15, 2011, 12:12:56 PM
many subsistence economies long before our industrial or even civilized age(s) began had "work weeks" much shorter than 40 hours.  of course back then "work" and "life" were not separate spheres.

That is of course true. But what is to be done about it?

Thing is, no one actually wants to spend their winters shacked up with their relatives in a state of semi-hibernation. As was common in some places as recently as the first half of the nineteenth century, of course. Because that's the sort of thing that's the trade-off for hardly working most of the year (with brief periods of extreme activity). So even if you could do anything about, who would actually want to?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Torie on August 15, 2011, 12:13:58 PM
Is this just for hourly workers or everyone?  If you work more than 20 hours a week, do you go to jail, or get overtime?  I mean if you are going to do a brain fart, at least give it a robust finish - otherwise it's just noisome opebo.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on August 15, 2011, 12:17:38 PM
many subsistence economies long before our industrial or even civilized age(s) began had "work weeks" much shorter than 40 hours.  of course back then "work" and "life" were not separate spheres.

That is of course true. But what is to be done about it?

Thing is, no one actually wants to spend their winters shacked up with their relatives in a state of semi-hibernation. As was common in some places as recently as the first half of the nineteenth century, of course. Because that's the sort of thing that's the trade-off for hardly working most of the year (with brief periods of extreme activity). So even if you could do anything about, who would actually want to?

That was sort-of my point. If a 20-hr work week was a totally desirable thing then don't we still have it? (Waiting for the next Opebonomics lecture).


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 15, 2011, 12:23:47 PM
That was sort-of my point. If a 20-hr work week was a totally desirable thing then don't we still have it? (Waiting for the next Opebonomics lecture).

I thought as much, but 'what is to be done about it?' in that sort of context can be interpreted in different ways.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on August 15, 2011, 12:28:48 PM
That was sort-of my point. If a 20-hr work week was a totally desirable thing then don't we still have it? (Waiting for the next Opebonomics lecture).

I thought as much, but 'what is to be done about it?' in that sort of context can be interpreted in different ways.

I was aiming for a quick one-liner.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 15, 2011, 12:34:19 PM
Is this just for hourly workers or everyone?  If you work more than 20 hours a week, do you go to jail, or get overtime?  I mean if you are going to do a brain fart, at least give it a robust finish - otherwise it's just noisome opebo.

I'll ignore the offensive tone of your post and answer you in good spirit.

Obviously there is no reason to accept distinctions between 'hourly workers' and others, Torie.  
As for working more than 20 hours, I would find it quite dangerous to allow this, since there would be huge potential for coercion (in other words it would be hard to know if the toiler actually 'wanted' to toil in excess, though I suppose that the threat involved - firing - would be impossible in my ideal world anyway, so the point is moot).  Since outright banning could be problematic, probably the best deterrent would be to make the 'overtime' at least double or triple the normal rate, and also exact a large tax - more of a fine really - upon same.

That was sort-of my point. If a 20-hr work week was a totally desirable thing then don't we still have it? (Waiting for the next Opebonomics lecture).

No need for a lecture, GF - obviously the owners wanted to work their serfs more.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 15, 2011, 12:39:49 PM
Define 'serf'.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Torie on August 15, 2011, 12:41:49 PM
IC.  Well, the solution of course, is to just ship your jobs overseas that are hourly, and for salary earners, well they won't keep time sheets. I assume it would be illegal of course to hold two jobs as well. Probably most corporate headquarters and E suite folks, will have to move to England or Canada or something. Hollyweird will have to leave too. Those folks work crazy hours.

And I will have to sell my real estate. Quickly.

Sensitive chap aren't you opebo?  


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 15, 2011, 12:43:52 PM

It was obviously a rhetorical flourish, Al, but the essential point is I think valid - that the modern wage-slave has a rough equivalency in terms of 'freedom' to the medieval serf, and that the claims to the contrary we constantly hear from the Right are mostly deceptive and blatantly self-serving.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 15, 2011, 12:49:29 PM
IC.  Well, the solution of course, is to just ship your jobs overseas that are hourly, and for salary earners, well they won't keep time sheets. I assume it would be illegal of course to hold two jobs as well. Probably most corporate headquarters and E suite folks, will have to move to England or Canada or something. Hollyweird will have to leave too. Those folks work crazy hours. 

'Solution'?  No, your confused - the problem for which we are seeking a solution is a depression caused by lack of demand, excessive inequality, and inadequate leisure.  If you just want to break the law, that's hardly an argument against the law.  We'll just have to find a way to stop you. 

In the first place, no more 'free trade' in my world, so 'shipping jobs overseas' is right out.  As for your white-collar crimes - we'll just have to keep investigating you in great detail every step of the way.  It is good economics and creates employment anyway. 


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 15, 2011, 12:55:29 PM

It was obviously a rhetorical flourish, Al, but the essential point is I think valid - that the modern wage-slave has a rough equivalency in terms of 'freedom' to the medieval serf, and that the claims to the contrary we constantly hear from the Right are mostly deceptive and blatantly self-serving.

What do you know about Mediaeval serfdom?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Torie on August 15, 2011, 12:55:42 PM
Do you remember that movie about climate change, The Day After or something, where hordes of folks were trying to cross the Rio Grande going south due to the US becoming a "bad place" Opebo?

 I am going to assume that your wet kiss of totalitarianism immediately above was just performance art on your part.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 15, 2011, 01:08:06 PM
What do you know about Mediaeval serfdom?

Apparently more than you know about making an argument.  You can't expect people to chat with you, Al, if you're too lazy to actually post anything.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 15, 2011, 01:48:41 PM
I am going to assume that your wet kiss of totalitarianism immediately above was just performance art on your part.

Not at all.  Tory, your class is currently in charge of a totalitarianism - naturally you dread being removed from power.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Torie on August 15, 2011, 01:55:20 PM
I am going to assume that your wet kiss of totalitarianism immediately above was just performance art on your part.

Not at all.  Tory, your class is currently in charge of a totalitarianism - naturally you dread being removed from power.

Tory, Torrie, Torry, and so forth. Is my "name" that hard for you to spell opebo?  I mean, you claim to be sober most of the time, so what is your excuse?  Use "Steve" if my screen name is too much of a challenge for you.

I don't dread anything opebo, not even death. Have a nice day.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Link on August 15, 2011, 02:01:40 PM
many subsistence economies long before our industrial or even civilized age(s) began had "work weeks" much shorter than 40 hours.  of course back then "work" and "life" were not separate spheres.

That is of course true. But what is to be done about it?

Thing is, no one actually wants to spend their winters shacked up with their relatives in a state of semi-hibernation. As was common in some places as recently as the first half of the nineteenth century, of course. Because that's the sort of thing that's the trade-off for hardly working most of the year (with brief periods of extreme activity). So even if you could do anything about, who would actually want to?

I'm not married but if I ever do get married I can see how work would be a great place to hang out for about 8 hrs a day.  Cooped up in a suburban McMansion with a woman and children for days on end?!  Errr... no thanks.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 15, 2011, 04:50:56 PM
Not at all.  Tory, your class is currently in charge of a totalitarianism - naturally you dread being removed from power.

Tory, Torrie, Torry, and so forth. Is my "name" that hard for you to spell opebo?  I mean, you claim to be sober most of the time, so what is your excuse?  Use "Steve" if my screen name is too much of a challenge for you.

I don't dread anything opebo, not even death. Have a nice day.

I honestly didn't mean to be 'personal' - I didn't mean you literally dread, but rather that the right-wing argument that socialism is a totalitarianism fails to recognize the same when it is on the other foot (capitalism).  Thus, the right-wing 'dreads' this reversal and calls it totalitarianism, while closing their eyes to the fact that for the poor capitalism is a prison.

I often use rhetoric meant to be interesting and communicative, and forget that it might be offensive or irritating.  As for the misspelling, well as you know I'm very prone to that - even more so with other poster's names than yours.



Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Gustaf on August 16, 2011, 07:38:27 AM
I'm confused - if you have cut supply in half, how will you increase demand? In fact, in general, how will the overall welfare of society not be drastically reduced if we only produce half as much?

And will your favourite prostitutes also have the choice of working only 20 hours a week? Or are these rights not for those damn women?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 16, 2011, 12:07:02 PM
I'm confused - if you have cut supply in half, how will you increase demand? In fact, in general, how will the overall welfare of society not be drastically reduced if we only produce half as much?

Production would increase, Gustaf, and unemployment be eliminated.

And will your favourite prostitutes also have the choice of working only 20 hours a week? Or are these rights not for those damn women?

Oh good lord man, they obviously work far less than 20 hours a week. 


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Gustaf on August 16, 2011, 05:14:53 PM
I'm confused - if you have cut supply in half, how will you increase demand? In fact, in general, how will the overall welfare of society not be drastically reduced if we only produce half as much?

Production would increase, Gustaf, and unemployment be eliminated.

And will your favourite prostitutes also have the choice of working only 20 hours a week? Or are these rights not for those damn women?

Oh good lord man, they obviously work far less than 20 hours a week. 

So...you think everyone working half as much as before will not lead to half as much being produced. That's interesting. How is that to come about exactly? (And of course unemployment would not be eliminated, but that's another issue)

And I apologize for the bit about prostitutes. What you say might be true for those high-end prostitutes rich colonialists like you employ. I forgot that you don't really mix with the lower classes that much. 


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 17, 2011, 11:57:24 AM
So...you think everyone working half as much as before will not lead to half as much being produced. That's interesting. How is that to come about exactly? (And of course unemployment would not be eliminated, but that's another issue)

Gustaf, our problem at present is far, far too much productive capacity and far too little consumption - hence unemployment and deflation.  Most work that people do is 'busy work' which could easily be eliminated anyway - and increasing the cost of labor is the way that we incentivize 'business' to invest.  For example by using robots, more machinery, etc.

I do hope you understand that my critique is of the fact that the work-week has not been decreased from 40 weeks (in the 1930s) to 20 weeks (at present) by gradual increments, to reflect and deal with the concurrent productivity increases (as well as encourage even greate such increases).  I have never proposed that in one day it be altered so drastically. 


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Gustaf on August 18, 2011, 05:40:00 AM
So...you think everyone working half as much as before will not lead to half as much being produced. That's interesting. How is that to come about exactly? (And of course unemployment would not be eliminated, but that's another issue)

Gustaf, our problem at present is far, far too much productive capacity and far too little consumption - hence unemployment and deflation.  Most work that people do is 'busy work' which could easily be eliminated anyway - and increasing the cost of labor is the way that we incentivize 'business' to invest.  For example by using robots, more machinery, etc.

I do hope you understand that my critique is of the fact that the work-week has not been decreased from 40 weeks (in the 1930s) to 20 weeks (at present) by gradual increments, to reflect and deal with the concurrent productivity increases (as well as encourage even greate such increases).  I have never proposed that in one day it be altered so drastically. 

How could I know the details of your craziness? That's like expecting me to understand which castle in France a mental patient thinking she is Marie Antionette claims to be currently residing in.

So, if I read you correctly you think that half of the current work has 0 productivity? Why then is it even done? There seems to be no clear gain for either employers or employees from people hanging around the office without getting anything done.

And it's nice that you want to further hurt the working-class by making their work redundant.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 18, 2011, 06:55:21 AM

Gustaf, there's no need to be so rude.  The concept of gradualism in economic reform is so universal as to almost go without saying.  We all assume some basic common sense or simple economic background in our interlocutors, and I've done the same in your case.  Please try to make good arguments and cease with the lazy straw-manning.

So, if I read you correctly you think that half of the current work has 0 productivity? Why then is it even done? There seems to be no clear gain for either employers or employees from people hanging around the office without getting anything done.

In practice of course your first sentence is an exaggeration, but there is a great deal of truth there as well.  I can confirm, as I think most of us can, that in our offices, about half of the time actually spent there is on face-book, playing computer games, etc.  A good deal of the 'inefficient' behavior in offices comes from the fact that our weekends are far too short (absurdly short really - what's the point of just two days off?  You can't really go on a proper holiday).

You have to remember that had we had a proper diminishment of the working-week over the last 60 years from 40 hours to 20 hours, productivity would be far higher due to greater incentivization of investment in measures and technologies to increase same.

And it's nice that you want to further hurt the working-class by making their work redundant.

Another straw man!  I want to mandate for them a gradually ever-shorter working week while maintaining (or if possible gradually increasing) their income.  This doesn't 'make their work redundant'.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Gustaf on August 18, 2011, 07:08:51 AM

Gustaf, there's no need to be so rude.  The concept of gradualism in economic reform is so universal as to almost go without saying.  We all assume some basic common sense or simple economic background in our interlocutors, and I've done the same in your case.  Please try to make good arguments and cease with the lazy straw-manning.

So, if I read you correctly you think that half of the current work has 0 productivity? Why then is it even done? There seems to be no clear gain for either employers or employees from people hanging around the office without getting anything done.

In practice of course your first sentence is an exaggeration, but there is a great deal of truth there as well.  I can confirm, as I think most of us can, that in our offices, about half of the time actually spent there is on face-book, playing computer games, etc.  A good deal of the 'inefficient' behavior in offices comes from the fact that our weekends are far too short (absurdly short really - what's the point of just two days off?  You can't really go on a proper holiday).

You have to remember that had we had a proper diminishment of the working-week over the last 60 years from 40 hours to 20 hours, productivity would be far higher due to greater incentivization of investment in measures and technologies to increase same.

And it's nice that you want to further hurt the working-class by making their work redundant.

Another straw man!  I want to mandate for them a gradually ever-shorter working week while maintaining (or if possible gradually increasing) their income.  This doesn't 'make their work redundant'.

It's amusing how you assume that everyone works in an office. Of course, plenty of workers don't have the kind of job where they can surf away at Facebook. If you're driving a truck or operating a fork-lift or performing brain surgery there will be a lot less time wasted. And of course your assertion about office workers, yet to be backed by any evidence, is certainly not true for a great many office workers as well (say phone salesmen).

Furthermore, the incentive to increase productivity would be rather strong regardless. In fact, possibly more so - a given increase in productivity would only generate half as much production and revenue under a 20 hour workweek.

Also, you ignore fixed time costs involved in working. Or the costs in education and training involved in having to keep multiple staff. Then you have informational costs involved in having to coordinate people. And, finally, human capital loss that follows from working too little.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 18, 2011, 07:15:10 AM
Also, you ignore fixed time costs involved in working. Or the costs in education and training involved in having to keep multiple staff. Then you have informational costs involved in having to coordinate people. And, finally, human capital loss that follows from working too little.

But all of your arguments militate for a 60 or 80 hour work week just as much as they do for not decreasing it from 40 to 20, Gustaf.  Why not increase it?  (and of course we have in practice been increasing it ruthlessly since the advent of the neo-liberal era).


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Gustaf on August 18, 2011, 07:18:57 AM
Also, you ignore fixed time costs involved in working. Or the costs in education and training involved in having to keep multiple staff. Then you have informational costs involved in having to coordinate people. And, finally, human capital loss that follows from working too little.

But all of your arguments militate for a 60 or 80 hour work week just as much as they do for not decreasing it from 40 to 20, Gustaf.  Why not increase it?  (and of course we have in practice been increasing it ruthlessly since the advent of the neo-liberal era).

Eh...no. There is also fatigue that sets in if the week is too long as well as a simple decrease in marginal utility from leisure which makes it less worthwhile for people to give up another 10 hours of leisure if they are already having preciously little of it.

This also varies from profession to profession. Consultants and bankers for instance have to work 60-80 hours per week, largely because so much of their work requires human capital specific to the individual.

All of the above is why my first post said there was a reason we have a 40 hour week. It is the week that strikes the roughly correct balance between these different effects.

And, of course, I do not want the week to be a certain length. I want people to decide on the market how much they want to work, instead of forcing them to abide by some arbitrary rule set by you.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 18, 2011, 09:30:17 AM
Eh...no. There is also fatigue that sets in if the week is too long as well as a simple decrease in marginal utility from leisure which makes it less worthwhile for people to give up another 10 hours of leisure if they are already having preciously little of it.

So it is merely a matter of preference and degree.  I find that for myself, 20 hours is the maximum I can toil without experiencing the sufferings of the damned, and given the profound and pervasive dissatisfaction in modern society, and the near universal hatred of 'ones job' (not to mention many a pop song which idealizes and longs for 'the weekend'), I can way with confidence that I am not alone in abhorring the 40 hour week.

All of the above is why my first post said there was a reason we have a 40 hour week. It is the week that strikes the roughly correct balance between these different effects.

Perhaps, but only for the purpose of maximizing the amount of production which can be extracted from the worker (a dubious purpose to say the least, and one which serves only the interests of the empowered, namely the owner, and, after all, completely neglects the equally important demand side of the economic equation).

And, of course, I do not want the week to be a certain length. I want people to decide on the market how much they want to work, instead of forcing them to abide by some arbitrary rule set by you.

Obviously the 'choice' you imagine is unrealistic - they must work however long the employer forces them to work for the subsistence level wage.  The only way for powerless people  (workers) to alter their working week would be through political change which removes some of the power from their employers and relocates it to the worker.

Nothing about my proposal 'forces' workers to do anything - it would merely abolish the current system, which forces workers in most jobs to work at least 40 hours.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Gustaf on August 18, 2011, 09:57:03 AM
Eh...no. There is also fatigue that sets in if the week is too long as well as a simple decrease in marginal utility from leisure which makes it less worthwhile for people to give up another 10 hours of leisure if they are already having preciously little of it.

So it is merely a matter of preference and degree.  I find that for myself, 20 hours is the maximum I can toil without experiencing the sufferings of the damned, and given the profound and pervasive dissatisfaction in modern society, and the near universal hatred of 'ones job' (not to mention many a pop song which idealizes and longs for 'the weekend'), I can way with confidence that I am not alone in abhorring the 40 hour week.

All of the above is why my first post said there was a reason we have a 40 hour week. It is the week that strikes the roughly correct balance between these different effects.

Perhaps, but only for the purpose of maximizing the amount of production which can be extracted from the worker (a dubious purpose to say the least, and one which serves only the interests of the empowered, namely the owner, and, after all, completely neglects the equally important demand side of the economic equation).

And, of course, I do not want the week to be a certain length. I want people to decide on the market how much they want to work, instead of forcing them to abide by some arbitrary rule set by you.

Obviously the 'choice' you imagine is unrealistic - they must work however long the employer forces them to work for the subsistence level wage.  The only way for powerless people  (workers) to alter their working week would be through political change which removes some of the power from their employers and relocates it to the worker.

Nothing about my proposal 'forces' workers to do anything - it would merely abolish the current system, which forces workers in most jobs to work at least 40 hours.

All this job hatred and dissatisfaction you're talking about is just a sad projection. Most people I know are quite happy and enjoy their work.

And, of course, it's not about maximizing the production. Since workers tend to be paid their marginal productivity it's about where they think the value of an hour of leisure is equal to the value of what they could produce in that hour (=to what they would be able to buy with it). Subject to the above constraints that I mentioned.

And you seem to have no idea how real work-life functions. People aren't forced to do much of anything (excepting people like prostitutes of course).

I'm still unclear on where the resources come from in this society. You want half as much to be produced and yet expect demand to sky-rocket? How will that work exactly?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 18, 2011, 10:11:46 AM
And you seem to have no idea how real work-life functions. People aren't forced to do much of anything (excepting people like prostitutes of course).

Everyone must toil or starve to death, Gustaf, except for the rich.

I'm still unclear on where the resources come from in this society. You want half as much to be produced and yet expect demand to sky-rocket? How will that work exactly?

Its called a good economy, Gustaf.  I understand at your age you've never seen real economic growth, but I can tell you it once existed, back in the seventies.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Gustaf on August 18, 2011, 02:43:43 PM
And you seem to have no idea how real work-life functions. People aren't forced to do much of anything (excepting people like prostitutes of course).

Everyone must toil or starve to death, Gustaf, except for the rich.

I'm still unclear on where the resources come from in this society. You want half as much to be produced and yet expect demand to sky-rocket? How will that work exactly?

Its called a good economy, Gustaf.  I understand at your age you've never seen real economic growth, but I can tell you it once existed, back in the seventies.
[/quote]

Sweden has had very good GDP growth during most of my life time, so that's not correct. I see you have to resort to vague mumbo-jumbo so I take it you've given up this silly debate.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 25, 2011, 02:26:54 AM
"The purpose of production is consumption."

- Adam Smith

Guess what: If you produce half as much stuff, you can only consume half as much stuff (in the long-run).

A much better proposition is switching the standard work week from five days of eight hour shifts to four days of ten hour shifts. That could potentially boost productivity among individuals (people may be more productive doing forty hours spread over four days with three days of leisure at the end of the week being a huge motivation) while cutting unproductive costs for all involved (e.g., less space required in office due to staggering of shifts which implies lower energy costs, less driving to and from work for individual workers, and many, many more examples I am sure).


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 25, 2011, 02:35:36 AM
By the way, some folks on here are espousing socialist/communist ideas. My questions to them:
 
When did you last visit a DMV?
How about a public toilet?
Do you think public toilets are better than the private toilet you access on a daily basis?

Do you really want most everything to be publicly owned with politicians and bureaucrats in charge?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 25, 2011, 08:47:12 AM
By the way, some folks on here are espousing socialist/communist ideas.

My pearls! My pearls! I must clutch my pearls!
 
Quote
When did you last visit a DMV?

I don't have a car (or a driving licence) and am not an American, so... never.

Quote
How about a public toilet?

Don't you think that's a bit of an odd question to ask random strangers? Are you from the 1950s and on hunt for cottagers in order to prosecute them? In which case I'm going to have to disappoint you; I'm not really into that type of thing.

Quote
Do you think public toilets are better than the private toilet you access on a daily basis?

That may just be an even stranger question. So strange, actually, that I have no sneering come-back line ready to throw at it. Bizarre. Are you on ketamine?

Quote
Do you really want most everything to be publicly owned with politicians and bureaucrats in charge?

Absolutely!


Title: Pooey Manna
Post by: opebo on August 25, 2011, 12:08:26 PM
By the way, some folks on here are espousing socialist/communist ideas. My questions to them:
 
When did you last visit a DMV?

I've visited them here in Thailand within the last year, and at the USA within the last three years.  In both cases I received prompt, brisk, friendly service.
 
How about a public toilet?
Do you think public toilets are better than the private toilet you access on a daily basis?

Buddy, I thank the good lord for public toilets every day!  What do I care if they are slightly less clean than my toilet at home? (in fact in my case it is probably the converse as I've never cleaned a toilet and don't intend to start now)  The point is when you need to go, there they are - the public toilets.  And if you have even a hint of IBS, as I believe I may, such edifices are manna, however pooey.

Do you really want most everything to be publicly owned with politicians and bureaucrats in charge?

Heck yes!  Politicians and bureaucrats are infinitely more responsive when you're broke than are the capitalists.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Foucaulf on August 25, 2011, 12:44:56 PM
Since the second post has been adequately replied to, I'll take the first one.

Guess what: If you produce half as much stuff, you can only consume half as much stuff (in the long-run).
Americans these days would benefit from consuming half of the junk food they eat, among other things. Demand is not a means in itself unless you subscribe to 19th-century theories of rationality.

A much better proposition is switching the standard work week from five days of eight hour shifts to four days of ten hour shifts. That could potentially boost productivity among individuals (people may be more productive doing forty hours spread over four days with three days of leisure at the end of the week being a huge motivation) while cutting unproductive costs for all involved (e.g., less space required in office due to staggering of shifts which implies lower energy costs, less driving to and from work for individual workers, and many, many more examples I am sure).

-As if people are forced to stop working after fourty hours. Now that leisure is freely available, the work week is a signal between work that is demanded and work that is appreciated...
-Not to mention how overtime is harder to manage when there is less time left during weekdays...
-Also, wouldn't someone drive longer during a weekend getaway than during a commute?
Never mind, people also pay for something called "urban planning".

I'll refrain from pasting the Keynes quote on the long run because I'm not that pretentious. Could you at least pretend humans don't exist in a ceteris paribus vacuum, though?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 25, 2011, 02:38:56 PM
Quote
Do you really want most everything to be publicly owned with politicians and bureaucrats in charge?

Absolutely!

So let's see Britain go back to the days of subsidizing bottomless money pits such as paying hundreds of thousands of miners to dig holes in the ground looking for minerals that are no longer there because they have already been dug up? Do you really think it makes sense to take from productive sectors of the economy in the form of taxation and give it in the form of subsidization to numerous people so they can dig pointless holes, a job that produces nothing?

1970s Britain is a great case study on the failures of socialism.

An experiment for all of you socialists/communists: Name a great invention that came out of the Soviet Union. Heck, name any invention created by a government bureaucrat...


Title: Re: Pooey Manna
Post by: Politico on August 25, 2011, 02:43:21 PM
By the way, some folks on here are espousing socialist/communist ideas. My questions to them:
 
When did you last visit a DMV?

I've visited them here in Thailand within the last year, and at the USA within the last three years.  In both cases I received prompt, brisk, friendly service.

In rural areas I have had pleasurable experiences at the DMV, but I cannot say the same about urban areas. The custom there is queuing, queuing, and more queuing without even an option of paying a bit more to save myself time.
 
Quote
Buddy, I thank the good lord for public toilets every day!  What do I care if they are slightly less clean than my toilet at home?

The point of the question is this: Usually nobody takes care of something when it belongs to everybody, and this is more true the more urban an area is. Nobody takes care of something when it is just "given" to them either (e.g., project housing). In comparison, at least you have a large degree of control over your life and what you own in the free market. It ultimately provides a better standard of living for you if that is what you want.

Quote
Heck yes!  Politicians and bureaucrats are infinitely more responsive when you're broke than are the capitalists.

Did you come to this conclusion from comparing North Korea to South Korea? Same people with the same history, but dramatically different standards of living...Why do you suppose that is?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 25, 2011, 02:55:49 PM
Since the second post has been adequately replied to, I'll take the first one.

Guess what: If you produce half as much stuff, you can only consume half as much stuff (in the long-run).
Americans these days would benefit from consuming half of the junk food they eat, among other things. Demand is not a means in itself unless you subscribe to 19th-century theories of rationality.

Americans are not in the business of being told what they would or would not benefit from by anybody, American or otherwise. They would rather be free to choose how to live their own life. And, when you get down to it, as bad as the economy in America is right now one of the biggest problems in America is obesity among its poorest. Now, call me crazy, but I would think this is much preferable than starvation among its poorest, no?

Getting back to the point: The only purpose of producing more is to acquire more money. Otherwise, it is irrational to produce more if there is no reward where the marginal benefits of producing more outweigh the marginal costs. What does acquiring more money really mean? It really just means acquiring more goods/services at some point either in the present or future.

When it comes down to it, the twenty hour work week is not the norm because the vast majority of economic agents pursuing their own self-interest have decided that to do so would incur higher marginal costs than marginal benefits.
 
Quote
-As if people are forced to stop working after fourty hours.

Really? This happens all of the time even among full-time workers whose job falls under regulations that require OT for hours worked beyond forty hours. In their case, some employers refuse to pay them OT so they are forced to stop working after forty hours. In fact, people are forced to stop working altogether all of the time. For one obvious example, when they are laid off. For another example, there are millions more who only have part-time jobs where by definition they work fewer than forty hours. Many of these people would like to work even more hours (i.e., they are classified as underemployed seeking full-time employment). The list goes on and on. Why do you suppose most people want to work more than twenty hours per week, anyway?
 
Quote
Could you at least pretend humans don't exist in a ceteris paribus vacuum, though?

I am not going to pretend humans are irrational, or that I know what is best for anybody other than myself.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 25, 2011, 03:16:04 PM
Oh dear. I'm afraid that... well... I think you just fell into what is technically called a...

()

...and a fairly easy one to avoid as well. Alas.

So let's see Britain go back to the days of subsidizing bottomless money pits such as paying hundreds of thousands of miners to dig holes in the ground looking for minerals that are no longer there because they have already been dug up? Do you really think it makes sense to take from productive sectors of the economy in the form of taxation and give it in the form of subsidization to numerous people so they can dig pointless holes, a job that produces nothing?

I'm not aware of that ever actually happening. The only thing that would seem to fit - and even then only vaguely - would be the Williamson Tunnels in Liverpool, but they were hardly the product of any kind of socialism and certainly didn't involve hundreds of thousands of miners.

Quote
An experiment for all of you socialists/communists: Name a great invention that came out of the Soviet Union. Heck, name any invention created by a government bureaucrat...

I suppose this should have been dealt with earlier (I think we were too busy laughing at you) but 'socialists/communists' is kind of inaccurate as a sweeping term of any sort and you should probably avoid using it if you want to be taken at all seriously.

As for the bizarre business of 'inventions', then some things certainly were invented in the Soviet Union and I'm a little surprised that you'd think otherwise. You must have heard of the AK-47; quite the international success story, or so I am told.

Bureaucrats, of course, are not paid to 'invent' things, so I'm not sure why their apparent collective failure to do so ought to be held against them.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 25, 2011, 06:27:59 PM
I'm not aware of that ever actually happening. The only thing that would seem to fit - and even then only vaguely - would be the Williamson Tunnels in Liverpool, but they were hardly the product of any kind of socialism and certainly didn't involve hundreds of thousands of miners.

You are not familiar with the history of the coal miners in Britain? If memory serves, over 200,000 miners were employed by the state in the late 1970s (And I believe only something like 10,000 were still around after privatization). It was no longer a profitable endeavor by the end of the 1970s. In fact, there was not a lot of coal leftover by the early 1980s, so basically the state was subsidizing the act of digging holes by hundreds of thousands of miners. In other words, the state was engaging in massive subsidization of an industry that was mostly producing nothing. Is this the type of future you want to see? Tax the productive to subsidize the pointless?

Quote
I suppose this should have been dealt with earlier (I think we were too busy laughing at you) but 'socialists/communists' is kind of inaccurate as a sweeping term of any sort and you should probably avoid using it if you want to be taken at all seriously.

What do you propose calling yourself? I mean, do you or do you not believe that most economic activity should be planned by the government? Somebody who holds that opinion is, by definition, a socialist at the very least and a communist at worst.

Quote
As for the bizarre business of 'inventions', then some things certainly were invented in the Soviet Union and I'm a little surprised that you'd think otherwise. You must have heard of the AK-47; quite the international success story, or so I am told.

My question was to name a GREAT invention that came out of the Soviet Union. I would not put the AK-47 in the category of greatness. Perhaps some would. In either case, it is not like it was the first assault rifle of all-time. If you care to share some better inventions than the AK-47, please do so. I cannot think of anything else, can you?

Another exercise for you: Please argue why you support North Korea over South Korea. And please list the wonders that have come out of North Korea, which clearly trump the goods/services from South Korea, right?

Quote
Bureaucrats, of course, are not paid to 'invent' things, so I'm not sure why their apparent collective failure to do so ought to be held against them.

Once again, it was you, not I, who said that bureaucrats/politicians should be largely in charge of economic activity. If that is true, and bureaucrats do not invent anything, then how in the world are we going to progress if nobody is inventing anything in your world of supposed government utopia?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 25, 2011, 07:39:15 PM

If we can be sure of nothing else, we can be sure of this, Politico..  though in fairness the 99% in our society who are slaves are operating under severe conditioning and in ignorance, which makes rationality generally beyond them (even aside from the fact that they don't have the power to do the rational thing - kill the rich - even if they were fully sentient).


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 25, 2011, 07:51:58 PM
You are not familiar with the history of the coal miners in Britain? If memory serves, over 200,000 miners were employed by the state in the late 1970s (And I believe only something like 10,000 were still around after privatization). It was no longer a profitable endeavor by the end of the 1970s. In fact, there was not a lot of coal leftover by the early 1980s, so basically the state was subsidizing the act of digging holes by hundreds of thousands of miners. In other words, the state was engaging in massive subsidization of an industry that was mostly producing nothing. Is this the type of future you want to see? Tax the productive to subsidize the pointless?

Oh, I think it's probably fair to say that I know a reasonable amount about the history of coal miners in Britain. Ask anyone here.

I'm going to avoid getting embroiled in a debate about the economics of the coal industry in the 1970s and 1980s because I'd need to dig through a couple of boxfiles worth of notes and photocopies and I'm not going to do that just to argue with some prick on the internet, but I think I should correct you on a couple of points. The first - and most important - is that you are completely wrong to suggest that coal had mostly run out by the early 1980s; the British coal industry was one of the most efficient and productive in Europe (the most, I think) and was at the time essential to the British economy as most power stations were still coal fired (the switch to natural gas didn't happen until the early 1990s and nuclear power was never as popular with policy makers as it was in, say, France), and most estimates in the early 1980s put Britain's provable coal reserves at about three hundred years or so (almost all of which is still down there). So... actually the state was subsidising keeping the lights on.

Quote
What do you propose calling yourself? I mean, do you or do you not believe that most economic activity should be planned by the government? Somebody who holds that opinion is, by definition, a socialist at the very least and a communist at worst.

I'm proud to call myself a Socialist, but I'm not a Communist. This should really not be an issue in 2011.

Quote
My question was to name a GREAT invention that came out of the Soviet Union.

Look, I am really not here to defend the U.S.S.R, an awful regime that I am not (and have never been) an admirer of. I'm also no expert when it comes to technology so it isn't as though I could rattle off lists of 'great inventions' even if I wanted to. Of course there were many cultural achievements within the Soviet Union, if that counts.

Quote
Another exercise for you: Please argue why you support North Korea over South Korea

I'm afraid that I don't, me duck. Sorry.

Quote
Once again, it was you, not I, who said that bureaucrats/politicians should be largely in charge of economic activity.

And once again, and with all the regret that I can muster, I must post this picture:

()

Anyways, lay off the ketamine. It's not good for you.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 25, 2011, 08:21:17 PM

If we can be sure of nothing else, we can be sure of this, Politico..  though in fairness the 99% in our society who are slaves are operating under severe conditioning and in ignorance, which makes rationality generally beyond them (even aside from the fact that they don't have the power to do the rational thing - kill the rich - even if they were fully sentient).

Kill the rich? What, like they did in the Soviet Union and North Korea? How did that work out? If I may, why do you want to cut down the tall trees in the forest to the size of the short trees instead of having policies that promote growing the short trees?

Correct me if I am wrong, but your ideology appears to be that command economies are better and more "fair" than free enterprise. If you can name a single historical example where standard of living improved after moving from free enterprise to command and control, please do share. After you are done doing that, then you can explain to me why North Korea and South Korea are so dramatically different by most every way possible (By the way, people are more "equal" in North Korea if your idea of being equal is everybody "enjoying" the lowest common denominator; even the poorest in free enterprise South Korea enjoy a considerably better life than everybody in North Korea other than the upper echelon of the Communist Party).


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 25, 2011, 08:30:50 PM

I'm going to avoid getting embroiled in a debate about the economics of the coal industry in the 1970s and 1980s because I'd need to dig through a couple of boxfiles worth of notes and photocopies and I'm not going to do that just to argue with some prick on the internet, but I think I should correct you on a couple of points. The first - and most important - is that you are completely wrong to suggest that coal had mostly run out by the early 1980s;

The low hanging fruit was clearly gone by the early 1980s. I do not know what the reserves are like today, but surely they are not nearly as large as you think considering the fact we have not seen massive investment in getting it out like have seen, for example, in the Alberta Tar Sands of Canada or the level of investment in mining in Australia.

Quote
the British coal industry was one of the most efficient and productive in Europe (the most, I think)

Oh really? Then how do you explain the fact that nobody in Europe, or anywhere else in the world, threw gobs of capital at the industry when it was privatized? Gee, maybe because it was the exact opposite of what you describe: inefficient and unprofitable?

Quote
and was at the time essential to the British economy as most power stations were still coal fired (the switch to natural gas didn't happen until the early 1990s and nuclear power was never as popular with policy makers as it was in, say, France), and most estimates in the early 1980s put Britain's provable coal reserves at about three hundred years or so (almost all of which is still down there). So... actually the state was subsidising keeping the lights on.

The state was subsidizing "keeping the lights on"? Then how do you explain the fact that the lights were still on even after all of the numerous strikes, and even after the workforce went from approximately 200,000 to less than 10,000?

Quote
I'm proud to call myself a Socialist, but I'm not a Communist. This should really not be an issue in 2011.

And I am proud to point out to you that socialism was a failure in the United Kingdom. But you are more than welcome to cling to a silly belief that going back to socialism will somehow be different this time around. One would not expect that in 1981, let alone 2011, but here we are.

Quote
Look, I am really not here to defend the U.S.S.R, an awful regime that I am not (and have never been) an admirer of. I'm also no expert when it comes to technology so it isn't as though I could rattle off lists of 'great inventions' even if I wanted to.

Fair enough. With that said, I think it is safe to say that you, since anybody else can, would be able to rattle off a list of great inventions, amazing goods/services, that have come from free enterprise countries over the past decade, no? I mean, what has brought us together in this conversation right now as we speak?

Quote
Of course there were many cultural achievements within the Soviet Union, if that counts.

Oh, please humor me with a listing. Does the list of great cultural achievements include the Gulag/NKVD?

Quote
Quote
Another exercise for you: Please argue why you support North Korea over South Korea

I'm afraid that I don't, me duck. Sorry.

A socialist who admits that the free enterprise of South Korea blows the command and control economy of North Korea out of the water? We are talking about the same people with the same history, but dramatically different economies. The socialist way you support leads to North Korea sooner or later no matter where it is implemented. The sooner you can come to this realization, the better.



Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: ag on August 25, 2011, 08:50:23 PM

There is no law that prohibits you from working 20 hours a week or less, if you'd so like. For that matter, nobody forces you to work at all. What, exactly, is your problem?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 25, 2011, 10:05:21 PM

There is no law that prohibits you from working 20 hours a week or less, if you'd so like. For that matter, nobody forces you to work at all. What, exactly, is your problem?

Thank you! I have been thinking the same thing since stumbling upon this thread. However, I did not feel like I had enough stature, such as the great reputation you possess, to ask something like that.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 25, 2011, 10:37:46 PM
The low hanging fruit was clearly gone by the early 1980s.

1880s, actually. In some places probably the 1780s. Most reserves were still quite easy to get to, even in the older coalfields (and would have been easier had the NCB actually invested money in modernising those pits, but that's a different debate).

Quote
I do not know what the reserves are like today, but surely they are not nearly as large as you think

Those figures were commonly accepted at the time, so it isn't really a question of what I think. Of course much of the coal would be harder to get at now because of the pit closures and the inevitably flooding underground.

Quote
considering the fact we have not seen massive investment in getting it out like have seen, for example, in the Alberta Tar Sands of Canada or the level of investment in mining in Australia.

Domestic demand for coal collapsed following (amongst other things) the 'dash for gas' in the early 1990s. But, for what it's worth, there are quite a few opencast pits around these days (they don't last for long and they don't employ many people, of course), and a new drift mine was opened near Neath a few years ago, and vague plans for larger projects elsewhere are proposed every now and again.

Quote
Oh really? Then how do you explain the fact that nobody in Europe, or anywhere else in the world, threw gobs of capital at the industry when it was privatized? Gee, maybe because it was the exact opposite of what you describe: inefficient and unprofitable?

I never said it was profitable, though some areas certainly were. But that it was an unusually efficient and productive coal industry is an established fact. The reason why no one 'threw gobs of capital' at the industry when it was privatised was because the market for coal had collapsed by that point.

Quote
The state was subsidizing "keeping the lights on"? Then how do you explain the fact that the lights were still on even after all of the numerous strikes, and even after the workforce went from approximately 200,000 to less than 10,000?

Numerous strikes? Bollocks.

During the strikes in the early 1970s the lights (rather famously!) did not stay on. During the strike in 1984/5 the lights stayed on because the government was prepared (massive stockpiles of coal outside every power station, months in advance of industrial action) and because Scargill was an idiot (the strike started in summer).

Quote
And I am proud to point out to you that socialism was a failure in the United Kingdom. But you are more than welcome to cling to a silly belief that going back to socialism will somehow be different this time around. One would not expect that in 1981, let alone 2011, but here we are.

This is a very strange discussion.

I still wonder why you've not actually responded to this image...

()

...and it's associated accusation. Despite it being used twice.

Odd.

Trolling? Or dense?

Quote
Fair enough. With that said, I think it is safe to say that you, since anybody else can, would be able to rattle off a list of great inventions, amazing goods/services, that have come from free enterprise countries over the past decade, no? I mean, what has brought us together in this conversation right now as we speak?

Actually what started this bizarre conversation (such as is) was your failure to understand that my mocking response to your idiotic contribution to the thread (even more idiotic than opebo's, and that's saying something. Want a medal?) was... mocking and sarcastic. And it's continued because, well, this is the internet.

Quote
Oh, please humor me with a listing. Does the list of great cultural achievements include the Gulag/NKVD?

Ah, I think you are trolling, yes? Maybe your contributions - such as they are - to this thread make sense now. Because I've already mentioned my distaste of the Soviet Union (how retro!) and I was careful to use the word 'within'... all of which means that I'm hardly saying that Shostakovich's eighth quartet (or whatever) is proof of the brilliance of the U.S.S.R. and why we should all miss it greatly.

Quote
A socialist who admits that the free enterprise of South Korea blows the command and control economy of North Korea out of the water?

Think you'll find that the number of people who have a high opinion of North Korea can be counted on the fingers of one hard, so I don't think the surprise (or even mock surprise, if that's what it is) is at all warranted. So, probably, you're just trolling. Kind of pathetic as trolling goes though. Must try harder, as school report cards hardly ever actually said.

Quote
The socialist way you support leads to North Korea sooner or later no matter where it is implemented. The sooner you can come to this realization, the better.

lol


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: patrick1 on August 25, 2011, 11:10:28 PM
My question was to name a GREAT invention that came out of the Soviet Union. I would not put the AK-47 in the category of greatness. Perhaps some would. In either case, it is not like it was the first assault rifle of all-time. If you care to share some better inventions than the AK-47, please do so. I cannot think of anything else, can you?

()

()

As for the rest of the thread, Stop the fight!!!


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 25, 2011, 11:41:11 PM
Those figures were commonly accepted at the time, so it isn't really a question of what I think. Of course much of the coal would be harder to get at now because of the pit closures and the inevitably flooding underground.

Or, perhaps even more likely, the estimates of reserves were blown out of proportion in the 1980s in a desperate attempt to continue pushing for the policy of mass subsidization of an industry that should have never been subsidized to begin with?

Quote
Quote
considering the fact we have not seen massive investment in getting it out like have seen, for example, in the Alberta Tar Sands of Canada or the level of investment in mining in Australia.

Domestic demand for coal collapsed following (amongst other things) the 'dash for gas' in the early 1990s. But, for what it's worth, there are quite a few opencast pits around these days (they don't last for long and they don't employ many people, of course), and a new drift mine was opened near Neath a few years ago, and vague plans for larger projects elsewhere are proposed every now and again.

Let's stick to the 2010s, not the early 1990s. Demand for coal is on the rise. Why are we not seeing the type of investment in coal mining in Britain as we are seeing elsewhere in the world, including the USA? Could it be that there is not much coal left in Britain, and has not been for a long time?

Quote
I never said it was profitable, though some areas certainly were. But that it was an unusually efficient and productive coal industry is an established fact.

Efficient and productive yet not profitable? Do you not realize what you are saying?

Look: The British mines, or at least most of them, had reached the end of their useful life by the end of the 1970s. This is why the free market has not brought about a re-emergence of mining in Britain despite the rise in demand for coal recently, and the anticipated high levels of demand for coal moving forward through the 21st Century. In the late 1970s, there was a policy in place of subsidizing hundreds of thousands of miners to basically do work that could have been done by ten thousand miners. In other words, the policy can be best summed up as: tax productive activities to subsidize a pointless activity. Your failure to appreciate this fact is mind-boggling.

Quote
The reason why no one 'threw gobs of capital' at the industry when it was privatised was because the market for coal had collapsed by that point.

And how do you explain the shape of coal mining in West Virginia during the same time period?

Quote
Quote
The state was subsidizing "keeping the lights on"? Then how do you explain the fact that the lights were still on even after all of the numerous strikes, and even after the workforce went from approximately 200,000 to less than 10,000?

Numerous strikes? Bollocks.

There were more than just one or two strikes, right? Hence numerous.

Quote
During the strikes in the early 1970s the lights (rather famously!) did not stay on.

I am admittedly more familiar with the strike of the mid-80s.

Quote
During the strike in 1984/5 the lights stayed on because the government was prepared (massive stockpiles of coal outside every power station, months in advance of industrial action) and because Scargill was an idiot (the strike started in summer).

Even you have to admit, or should learn, that Scargill and the union's inept leadership ought to give you pause when considering whether or not to espouse central control of an entire industry, let alone an entire economy.

Quote
Quote
The socialist way you support leads to North Korea sooner or later no matter where it is implemented. The sooner you can come to this realization, the better.

lol
[/quote]

Let me rephrase: Wherever the socialist way is implemented, it leads to North Korea eventually if, despite all continued failures, the state continues to push the socialist agenda with greater and greater degrees of coercion. History has displayed this time and time again. The socialist way will either lead that way, or eventually lead to a situation such as the "Winter of Discontent" and what ensued following that calamity. In either case, it is a road I would rather not see America ever go down.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 25, 2011, 11:44:39 PM
My question was to name a GREAT invention that came out of the Soviet Union. I would not put the AK-47 in the category of greatness. Perhaps some would. In either case, it is not like it was the first assault rifle of all-time. If you care to share some better inventions than the AK-47, please do so. I cannot think of anything else, can you?

()

()

As for the rest of the thread, Stop the fight!!!


Stealing research and technology from Nazi Germany, probably only successfully enabled by the good fortune of the German rocket center being located in the Soviet occupation zone following WW II, does not count.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: patrick1 on August 25, 2011, 11:52:23 PM

Stealing research and technology from Nazi Germany does not count.

()

()

()


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 25, 2011, 11:55:46 PM

Stealing research and technology from Nazi Germany does not count.

()

()

()

We were talking about the Soviet Union, not America. I am not going to argue with where you are going. Both sides clearly benefited from German scientists following WW II. With that said, we are getting away from the main point: the fact that command and control economies have an atrocious record on innovation, especially compared to nations that largely utilize free enterprise. For example, I can assure you that the list of inventions that have come out of America the past one hundred years as a result of free enterprise, well, that list absolutely destroys the record you will find in any socialist country (including all of them combined). Do you really want to play that game? The list for America is inexhaustible (hell, it is as self-evident as the fact the sun will come up tomorrow), yet not a single person on here can name even a single great invention that came about under the command and control economy of the Soviet Union.

Perhaps an even better game: Compare the inventions of Britain before it adopted socialism with the inventions of Britain during its socialist experimentation. After that, compare the worldwide status of Britain before it adopted socialism with its status during its socialist experimentation.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: patrick1 on August 26, 2011, 12:19:47 AM
I happen to support regulated free enterprise. 

However, you can't make groundless arguments to support your cause and not expected to be called on it. The claim that there were no inventions is simply wrong.  There is also a connotative difference between invention and science- Edison would probably be able to expound on this.  Manned space flight, the first satellite and amazing advances across the sciences warrants praise that cannot be ignored.  And it was not all the work of Nazi tech, no more than the Apollo program was the sole work of Von Braun. The Soviets simply did not monetize their advances.  You and Al have a running discourse on some of your claims so I'll let you continue that on your own.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 26, 2011, 12:29:52 AM
I happen to support regulated free enterprise.  

However, you can't make groundless arguments to support your cause and not expected to be called on it. The claim that there were no inventions is simply wrong.

I never said there were no great inventions, just that nobody has listed one yet. It really says something about their system.

Quote
There is also a connotative difference between invention and science- Edison would probably be able to expound on this.  Manned space flight, the first satellite and amazing advances across the sciences warrants praise that cannot be ignored.

I am not going to argue with that, but I am also not going to ignore the "piggy-backing" on Nazi research and resources. Ultimately, it is the only reason the manned space flight and first satellite happened in the Soviet Union. As such, they really cannot be labelled solely as inventions or scientific advances brought about due to the command and control policies of the Soviet Union. You can, of course, list the other "amazing advances across the sciences," if you so wish, but I can assure you that those achievements came at a great cost to their society.

Quote
And it was not all the work of Nazi tech, no more than the Apollo program was the sole work of Von Braun. The Soviets simply did not monetize their advances.

Ultimately, their advances were always the result of coercion. Any benefits came at a great cost to their society, and I think it is a safe bet that none of it was worth the Gulag, all of the paranoia, all of the disappearances, etc. I have a big problem with the coercion that dominates that system, as should anybody who supports freedom. On top of that, all things considered, I am absolutely one hundred percent confident that the advancements of Russia in the 20th century would have been much greater under free enterprise than the command and control hierarchy they adopted. One just needs to look at the great contributions to American society by Russian-Americans in the 20th century through today.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: The Mikado on August 26, 2011, 12:34:03 AM

An experiment for all of you socialists/communists: Name a great invention that came out of the Soviet Union. Heck, name any invention created by a government bureaucrat...

Tetris.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 26, 2011, 12:37:27 AM

An experiment for all of you socialists/communists: Name a great invention that came out of the Soviet Union. Heck, name any invention created by a government bureaucrat...

Tetris.

I love Tetris as much as the next guy, but is it really so much an invention as a great video game? If the first video game was an invention, is Tetris really an invention or just another variant? And does Tetris ever exist if video games are not invented? Plus, can you name any other great video games from the Soviet Union? I can name quite a few from Japan and America. What would video gaming be like if people only had Tetris to choose from?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 26, 2011, 12:50:19 AM
By the way, the Russians involved in advancing science and mathematics, along with Pajitnov for creating Tetris, should be proud of their accomplishments. However, I suspect that most, if not all, of them believe they would have accomplished even greater things in a free enterprise system like America compared to the command and control hierarchy they were forced to put up with.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Lief 🗽 on August 26, 2011, 01:00:39 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_inventions#.C2.A0Soviet_Union

Not to mention Soviet visual art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_art) and film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_film) which were largely terrific and couldn't have existed if their creators had been thrown to the wolves of the free market.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 26, 2011, 01:31:33 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_inventions#.C2.A0Soviet_Union

Not to mention Soviet visual art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_art) and film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_film) which were largely terrific and couldn't have existed if their creators had been thrown to the wolves of the free market.

And which of these films, let alone the aforementioned inventions, provide benefits to mankind that outweigh the costs of 25-62 million deaths (men, women and children) by mass executions, death camps, and state-caused famine?

Source for 25 million deaths: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674076082
Source for 62 million deaths: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

By the way, what you call the "wolves of the free market" are just the consumers of the free market (i.e., those who buy goods/services). In a free market, led by an invisible hand powered by the human characteristic of pursuing one's own self-interest (ultimately providing cooperation without coercion), the consumers ultimately decide what is consumed and therefore what is produced (those who produce good/services that consumers are unwilling to buy eventually end up failing without government intervention).

By the way, here is the American counterpart to your Wiki link (four links rather than one, and none of them brought to the world by mass executions, death camps and state-caused famines of women and children):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_inventions_%28before_1890%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_inventions_%281890%E2%80%931945%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_inventions_(1946–1991)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_inventions_%28after_1991%29

And for a database containing details on great American films (and some pretty awful stuff, too), go to www.imdb.com


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Lief 🗽 on August 26, 2011, 01:55:30 AM
blah blah blah

You said:

Quote
An experiment for all of you socialists/communists: Name a great invention that came out of the Soviet Union.

So I did. Also 2 of those four links are from periods when the Soviet Union didn't even exist (and one is 1890-1945 so only about two decades of that...), so of course there would be more United States inventions links.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 26, 2011, 02:33:48 AM

25-62 million killings is "blah, blah, blah"?

Quote
So I did. Also 2 of those four links are from periods when the Soviet Union didn't even exist (and one is 1890-1945 so only about two decades of that...), so of course there would be more United States inventions links.

Are you a defender of the mass execution of millions in the name of "fairness"? It is a fair question given your above quote.

If you are such a fan of Soviet-style government, why are you in Washington instead of Pyongyang?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Lief 🗽 on August 26, 2011, 02:57:27 AM
you're clearly either a dumb or a drug-addled so I'm going to reply to you with pictures of hamsters

()

()

()


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 26, 2011, 03:09:55 AM
You did the experiment, so you will have to excuse me for concluding that you are a socialist or a communist. If you are neither, please say so. In that case, the paragraphs below are for those who do believe in widespread government intervention in the economy.

If you are a communist, can you explain why the adoption of communism has always led to widespread killings such as the aforementioned figures in Russia?

If you are a socialist, can you explain why all historical examples of moving from free enterprise to widespread nationalization have been met with declines in overall GDP growth in the long-run? Can you also explain why you think South Korea is so different from North Korea?

Whether you are only in favor of nationalization of most industries or favor government planning of all economic activity, why in the world do you think the results of socialism or communism will be any different the next time it is tried?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 26, 2011, 03:28:29 AM
And here is some food for thought to chew on in the meantime:

Source: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?oe=UTF-8&hl=en&q=cache:8yoxqaDI2PUJ:www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2301525/posts

"An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that if enacted, no one would be poor and no one would be rich. It would be a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."

The Professor decided that all grades would be averaged together and everyone would receive the same grade. No one would fail, but no one would receive an A either.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone received a B.

The students who studied hard were upset, but the students who studied little were happy.

As a result of the averaged grade, both the students who studied hard as well as the students who studied little decided to study even less for the second exam.

The average score this time was a D and no one was happy.

When the 3rd exam rolled around, the average score was an F.

The scores never increased and students blamed each other for the overall poor performance of the class. No one wanted to study hard for the benefit of another student.

To their great surprise, all students failed the course. The professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when the government takes all of the reward away, no one will try hard or want to succeed.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Joe Republic on August 26, 2011, 03:46:12 AM
Did you seriously just link to and quote from freerepublic.com?  You do know that's an infractable offense, right?  Or if I'm mistaken, it's at least worthy of severe ridicule, and also whatever the internet equivalent of a swift kick to the nuts is.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Lief 🗽 on August 26, 2011, 03:52:17 AM
You did the experiment, so you will have to excuse me for concluding that you are a socialist or a communist. If you are neither, please say so.

Well my ideal form of government (ignoring a good enlightened monarch) is anarcho-syndicalism, but otherwise social democracy is fine by me.

()


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Beet on August 26, 2011, 03:54:58 AM
Politico, the problem is that all the stuff you've been spouting off on this thread was known for the past 20 years. You say you're closer to Friedman than Keynes... Bernanke apologized to Friedman with Friedman in the audience in 2002 and said because of Friedman, the the Fed would never screw up again. Friedman's great accomplishment was inflation targeting and that is still the regime being followed today.

Besides that, you asked a question, had it answered, dismissed the answer, had it answered again, and then accused the person who answered you of supporting genocide. You're clearly off your rocker.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Gustaf on August 26, 2011, 03:58:31 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_inventions#.C2.A0Soviet_Union

Not to mention Soviet visual art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_art) and film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_film) which were largely terrific and couldn't have existed if their creators had been thrown to the wolves of the free market.

It is really sad that there have been no great films produced in the Western world. Ever.

I was going to come into the thread and tell Politco he's being stupid because no one in their right mind would disagree with him and claim that dictatorships slaughtering millions of people are superior to capitalist democracies. Then I saw Lief decided to chime in, so I'm not going to make that post.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Lief 🗽 on August 26, 2011, 04:11:22 AM
Aw, you and politico can be buddies and build strawmen together! Hooray! :D


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Beet on August 26, 2011, 04:13:04 AM
Is Lief actually pro-Soviet or did he just post that article in response to Politico's query? I thought the later.

I really wonder if this Politico guy came out of a 1991 time warp. The ironic thing is that the Cold War arguably helped capitalism be extra careful and avoid a major depression because if one had happened, it could have been exploited by the communists. Once that spectre was gone, capitalism went crazy.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 26, 2011, 04:30:27 AM
Did you seriously just link to and quote from freerepublic.com?  You do know that's an infractable offense, right?  

No, I did not or I would not have done so. I actually linked a Google cache. I did not even check the source before doing so (I was on a portable device at the time). I simply wanted to find a brief version of the story. It is a legend that has been passed along through e-mails and such for a long time. Snopes is unable to verify the author. Of course, it is not copyrighted.

Source: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

Quote
Or if I'm mistaken, it's at least worthy of severe ridicule, and also whatever the internet equivalent of a swift kick to the nuts is.

Shall we discuss the story or not? Do you think it has no point, or is unrealistic? Do you think if a professor had such a grading scale that the results would be any different than described?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 26, 2011, 04:36:34 AM
Bernanke apologized to Friedman with Friedman in the audience in 2002 and said because of Friedman, the the Fed would never screw up again. Friedman's great accomplishment was inflation targeting and that is still the regime being followed today.

What does the contraction of the money supply by the Fed in the early 1930s have to do with any part of this thread? I have tried to stir discussion about fiscal policy, not monetary policy. Considering the widespread support for socialism on this forum, I think it would be good to have an exchange of ideas about free enterprise compared to socialism. Nothing is really accomplished when we resort to name calling, or try to divert attention away from inconvenient truths that do not support a viewpoint that favors socialism/communism.

Quote
Besides that, you asked a question, had it answered, dismissed the answer, had it answered again, and then accused the person who answered you of supporting genocide.

I have done no such thing. I simply pointed out that mass genocide was committed in the Soviet Union in order to create the inventions listed. I followed that up with questions after the killing of 25-62 million people was brushed aside, as if those deaths were no big deal because they gave us the great achievements of Soviet film and visual art.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Gustaf on August 26, 2011, 04:37:28 AM
Is Lief actually pro-Soviet or did he just post that article in response to Politico's query? I thought the later.

I really wonder if this Politico guy came out of a 1991 time warp. The ironic thing is that the Cold War arguably helped capitalism be extra careful and avoid a major depression because if one had happened, it could have been exploited by the communists. Once that spectre was gone, capitalism went crazy.

Lief is on record as pro-dictatorship in general and also in favour of killing innocent civilians if they're on the wrong side. If one thinks Cuba and Venezuela are awesome it seems like the step to the Soviet Union would hardly be that big.

I was merely noting the bizarre claim that the good movies produced in the Soviet Union could not have been made in the West. I wasn't implying I know Lief is pro-Soviet, just that I don't feel safe making my original post without letting him post first. I suspect he might prove me wrong and argue that Russians, like Chinese, aren't cut out for democracy, freedom of enterprise and other such oppressive mechanisms of the capitalist society.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 26, 2011, 04:41:02 AM
Well my ideal form of government (ignoring a good enlightened monarch) is anarcho-syndicalism,

And how do you suppose you achieve the aim of full ownership of the means of production by the public at large? Do you think it just happens by itself? Of course it does not. It requires a level of command by an authoritative body (i.e., the government). Otherwise, it cannot work. In other words, you are supporting massive government intervention in the economy. So you are now more than welcome to answer the questions posted at the top of this page, prior to the College Professor story.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 26, 2011, 04:44:19 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_inventions#.C2.A0Soviet_Union

Not to mention Soviet visual art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_art) and film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_film) which were largely terrific and couldn't have existed if their creators had been thrown to the wolves of the free market.

It is really sad that there have been no great films produced in the Western world. Ever.

Including The Godfather Parts I and II? Wow...

Quote
I was going to come into the thread and tell Politco he's being stupid because no one in their right mind would disagree with him and claim that dictatorships slaughtering millions of people are superior to capitalist democracies.

I would love to agree, but you would be surprised. All empirical evidence shows that mass genocide is what happens every time that communism is attempted yet people still continue to support communist ideas and believe that the next time it is attempted the results will be different.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 26, 2011, 04:48:02 AM
Is Lief actually pro-Soviet or did he just post that article in response to Politico's query? I thought the later.

I did start my query with "an experiment for all of the socialists/communists." In other words, the experiment was a challenge for socialists/communists. Couple that with the fact he did not respond to the query with a disclaimer of something along the lines of, "well, I am not a socialist/communist, but here:" and I had no choice but to conclude he lumps himself in with socialists/communists when it comes to economics.

Quote
I really wonder if this Politico guy came out of a 1991 time warp.

It is the other way around: I am shocked that people continue to support socialist ideas that I thought were thrown into the dustbin of history altogether by 1991. Apparently I was wrong. Those people really ought to check out North Korea if they really do believe everything would be better if only the government ran everything, or at least most things, in the economy. If you compare North Korea to South Korea, you have evidence that putting the government in charge of everything is NOT necessarily going to lead to better results than free enterprise. Unfortunately for those who cling to the idea of government running everything, there is not a single real-life example like North Korea/South Korea or West Germany/East Germany that supports their argument with real, tangible evidence.

Quote
The ironic thing is that the Cold War arguably helped capitalism be extra careful and avoid a major depression because if one had happened, it could have been exploited by the communists. Once that spectre was gone, capitalism went crazy.

Well put.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 26, 2011, 04:51:35 AM
Lief is on record as pro-dictatorship in general and also in favour of killing innocent civilians if they're on the wrong side.

I sincerely hope this is sarcasm.

Quote
If one thinks Cuba and Venezuela are awesome it seems like the step to the Soviet Union would hardly be that big.

Absolutely, and I cannot even count how many people I have encountered over the past decade who believe that "Cuba and Venezuela are awesome," as you put it. Hence my provocative approaches in this thread. I am really just being provocative to stir a greater exchange of ideas.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Joe Republic on August 26, 2011, 05:02:35 AM
Guys, you're not meant to actually take Lief seriously.  He's just here for the "lulz" as he would say.  The half-baked 'middle class white kid'-style Marxism is just a phase, and I'm sure he knows that too.  A few other posters went through it as well, and they usually soon get bored and try a new hobby instead.  Or they just leave.  Not everyone is able to mimic the 'Opebo' cartoon character that effectively.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 26, 2011, 05:35:17 AM
Guys, you're not meant to actually take Lief seriously. 

His post count sent the exact opposite signal to me. I mean, the dude has nearly 20,000 posts.

Thanks!


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Gustaf on August 26, 2011, 07:08:34 AM
Guys, you're not meant to actually take Lief seriously.  He's just here for the "lulz" as he would say.  The half-baked 'middle class white kid'-style Marxism is just a phase, and I'm sure he knows that too.  A few other posters went through it as well, and they usually soon get bored and try a new hobby instead.  Or they just leave.  Not everyone is able to mimic the 'Opebo' cartoon character that effectively.

I've met my fair share of "Liefs" in real life, so I'm well aware. The problem is that they're not non-serious in the right way. The entire thing is, inevitably, based on not caring about the plight of oppressed people (be they Jews, Chinese farmers, poor Cubans, etc) and instead exploiting them for the purpose of building a personal image. I can't respect that, even if it's done for that abominable word that I won't repeat. :P


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 26, 2011, 08:19:00 AM
...I can't respect that, even if it's done for that abominable word that I won't repeat. :P

Pussy?

To Politico - the point isn't whether or not 'socialism works', the point is that capitalism doesn't work as evidenced by our current depression.  (and even if it did there is no reason for most people to accept it).

For myself I've always proposed moderate Keynesian solutions, however much more satisfying and appealing simply slaughtering the oppressors would be.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Gustaf on August 26, 2011, 08:47:55 AM
...I can't respect that, even if it's done for that abominable word that I won't repeat. :P

Pussy?

To Politico - the point isn't whether or not 'socialism works', the point is that capitalism doesn't work as evidenced by our current depression.  (and even if it did there is no reason for most people to accept it).

For myself I've always proposed moderate Keynesian solutions, however much more satisfying and appealing simply slaughtering the oppressors would be.

Nope, I'm not a prude.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 26, 2011, 10:20:17 AM
Or, perhaps even more likely, the estimates of reserves were blown out of proportion in the 1980s in a desperate attempt to continue pushing for the policy of mass subsidization of an industry that should have never been subsidized to begin with?

That, I'm afraid, is the logic of the conspiracy theorist. The estimates were reached at by standard scientific means and were universally accepted at the time. It is quite possible that the figures were an overestimate (especially as many of the 'reserves' were extremely deep) and they certainly don't count as 'reserves' now, but that's not really the point. Coal was not running out in the 1980s; the industry was shut down for other reasons.

Quote
Let's stick to the 2010s, not the early 1990s.

Well that can't be done because it was in the 1990s that the bulk of what was left of the coal industry was destroyed.

Quote
Demand for coal is on the rise. Why are we not seeing the type of investment in coal mining in Britain as we are seeing elsewhere in the world, including the USA? Could it be that there is not much coal left in Britain, and has not been for a long time?

In the first place it must be pointed out that while demand for coal has been rising of late generally, domestic demand for coal in Britain is still a small fraction of what it was before the 'dash for gas'. There are relatively few coal fired power stations in Britain these days (nothing compared to what there used to be) and other industries use coal less than was once the case.

Secondly, I have already pointed out to you that there are now a large number of opencast works in Britain, many of which are very new and very large. A new drift mine was also opened near Neath recently and its owners reckon it should last for about twenty years. There are proposals to open a new deep pit at Margam to supply the Port Talbot steelworks (whether it'll actually get off the ground isn't the point; the point is that the coal is certainly there). There are also issues with cheaper imports, often from coal industries that are often (if not always directly) heavily subsidised. And then there's also the fact that much of the coal in Britain is far harder to access now (after the pit closures and the inevitable flooding and other issues underground) than it was during the 1980s - and that's actually a hilarious understatement.

Quote
Efficient and productive yet not profitable? Do you not realize what you are saying?

Yes, but I don't think you are listening. It was one of the most efficient and productive coal industries in Europe but, of course, it wasn't really profitable overall. Because that wasn't the point. I don't have the figures in front of me at the moment, but some areas certainly were consistently profitable (the ones with newer reserves, newer pits and modern machinery; Nottinghamshire for one).

Quote
Look: The British mines, or at least most of them, had reached the end of their useful life by the end of the 1970s.

Untrue, as the case of the Tower Colliery at Hirwaun proves. Almost all collieries were closed long before they had to be, because hardly any collieries were closed because they had reached the end of their useful life. They were closed for other reasons; political in some cases (if we're being absolutely honest), economic in others.

Quote
In the late 1970s, there was a policy in place of subsidizing hundreds of thousands of miners to basically do work that could have been done by ten thousand miners.

That is a really remarkable thing for someone to write. Do you want people to take you at all seriously?

Quote
In other words, the policy can be best summed up as: tax productive activities to subsidize a pointless activity. Your failure to appreciate this fact is mind-boggling.

How is keeping the lights on a pointless activity? I hate to have to keep repeating myself, but... in Britain in the 1970s almost all electricity was produced at coal-fired power stations and they were dependent on the nationalised British coal industry. The coal industry was an essential part of the economy because of what it produced, not because of the amount of money that it made (or, rather, lost). It was only possible to destroy the coal industry - as the Thatcher and Major governments did - after setting up alternatives to coal (and alternatives to British coal at that). Why do you think that miners strikes were always so important back then? Because if there was no coal mined, then the lights would go out: which is what happened when Heath took on the NUM in the early 1970s.

Quote
And how do you explain the shape of coal mining in West Virginia during the same time period?

I'm not sure how that's relevant as almost all British coal was consumed domestically. Although the structure of the coal industry in WV changed a great deal during the same period, actually. Most of the big underground mines were shut and were replaced by opencast works, resulting in similar social catastrophe in parts of WV as in the British coalfields during the same period.

Quote
There were more than just one or two strikes, right? Hence numerous.

Numerous implies that strikes were a regular occurrence. They weren't.

Quote
Even you have to admit, or should learn, that Scargill and the union's inept leadership ought to give you pause when considering whether or not to espouse central control of an entire industry, let alone an entire economy.

What? Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. In any case, I don't actually support central control of the economy. I merely pretended to in order to mock thee.

Quote
Let me rephrase: Wherever the socialist way is implemented, it leads to North Korea eventually if, despite all continued failures, the state continues to push the socialist agenda with greater and greater degrees of coercion. History has displayed this time and time again. The socialist way will either lead that way, or eventually lead to a situation such as the "Winter of Discontent" and what ensued following that calamity. In either case, it is a road I would rather not see America ever go down.

You really are a prize buffoon.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 26, 2011, 10:22:32 AM
My God, but there's a lot of Fail in this thread. Not had a chance to read through the rest of the recent developments 'till now. Lord.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: afleitch on August 26, 2011, 10:46:03 AM
That, I'm afraid, is the logic of the conspiracy theorist. The estimates were reached at by standard scientific means and were universally accepted at the time. It is quite possible that the figures were an overestimate (especially as many of the 'reserves' were extremely deep) and they certainly don't count as 'reserves' now, but that's not really the point. Coal was not running out in the 1980s; the industry was shut down for other reasons.

Basically yes; and if 1980's assessments are not proof enough, recent assessments of the West Fife coalfield (where open cast mining still takes place despite the flooding of Longannet) for example suggest that there significantlymore coal that they had assumed even 10-15 years ago.

Coal 'rests' while it waits for technology to catch up (clean coal and carbon capture) to make it economically viable in the UK once again.

Worth pointing out that had '1984' not happened, coal would have been a casualty of the turn of the decade 'environment' boom at any rate (and closures probably met with more public sympathy), however the rate of decline would have been far less severe.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: minionofmidas on August 26, 2011, 11:23:13 AM
The British coal industry might have been relatively efficient by European standards (I don't know about that)... but that's not exactly helping much, is it? Seeing as that was a fairly low standard compared to places where you could pay workers sh!t and/or mines were newer and needed less manpower... outside of Europe.
Of course, the union demanded that mines not be closed for any reasons except for safety reasons or when coal ran out... which wasn't happening anytime soon, of course. Ie, not for being insufficiently profitable. And that's not exactly an economically viable proposition, is it?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Gustaf on August 26, 2011, 02:09:20 PM
My God, but there's a lot of Fail in this thread. Not had a chance to read through the rest of the recent developments 'till now. Lord.

It's an Opebo thread on economics - it's to be expected, is it not?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Lief 🗽 on August 26, 2011, 03:14:02 PM
Is Lief actually pro-Soviet or did he just post that article in response to Politico's query? I thought the later.

I really wonder if this Politico guy came out of a 1991 time warp. The ironic thing is that the Cold War arguably helped capitalism be extra careful and avoid a major depression because if one had happened, it could have been exploited by the communists. Once that spectre was gone, capitalism went crazy.

Lief is on record as pro-dictatorship in general and also in favour of killing innocent civilians if they're on the wrong side. If one thinks Cuba and Venezuela are awesome it seems like the step to the Soviet Union would hardly be that big.

I was merely noting the bizarre claim that the good movies produced in the Soviet Union could not have been made in the West. I wasn't implying I know Lief is pro-Soviet, just that I don't feel safe making my original post without letting him post first. I suspect he might prove me wrong and argue that Russians, like Chinese, aren't cut out for democracy, freedom of enterprise and other such oppressive mechanisms of the capitalist society.

You're very good at reading things into my posts that I never said. Not in favor of killing innocent civilians, nor am I "pro-dictatorship in general." In fact I don't know that I've come out in favor of any dictatorships? Unless you think Chavez is a dictator, which is false. I don't know that I've ever said that Venezuela or Cuba are awesome either, just better than their right-wing detractors make them out to be. Obviously I'd love those countries to have Sweden's political economy, but we can't all be lucky enough to live in one of the best countries on earth, can we?

Regarding your second paragraph, my point was that in the communist film "market", because it was not focused on profits and ticket sales (and in fact the film authorities didn't care at all if films were successful), film-makers could focus more on the art of the films. They didn't have to water down their works for mass consumption or to gain the funding of profit-focused producers, as they were funded by the government instead of ticket sales and merchandising. And indeed Eastern European film has suffered since the fall of communism (http://kinema.uwaterloo.ca/article.php?id=238&feature):

Quote
With the end of the Cold War, almost overnight, films from Eastern Europe have lost their special aura of dissidence and found themselves struggling on a par with other foreign-language productions for the meagre attention of Western distributors. The global standards of film as entertainment, set by Hollywood, have not been very helpful either. Pace, special effects and glamour seem to relegate artistic quality, psychological depths and moral contemplations -- the stuff Central and Eastern European films are traditionally concerned with -- to the museum of film history...

Eastern European cinema was the first industry to suffer a tremendous economic blow immediately after the fall of Communism. The powers-to be reached an amazingly swift consensus with most of the filmmakers that the state-subsidised centralised structure of Eastern European cinema should be dismantled and reorganised into many small, entrepreneurial, market-oriented film companies. The result is more than distressing: thus the national production of fiction films in Bulgaria fell from 21 in 1989 to 4 in 1994, in Hungary from 21 to 6 in 1993, in Slovakia from 10 to 3 in 1993, in the Czech Republic from 22 to 6 in 1993, etc. While the film production in Poland and Romania, and last year in the Czech Republic, has returned to its pre-1989 figures(2) thanks to the financial support, provided by the national television, the theatrical network in these countries shares the same sorrowful fate as in the others: in Poland the number of cinema theatres has fallen from 1792 for 1989 to below 500 in 1994; in Romania from 612 to 300; in the Czech Republic from 1326 to 850; in Slovakia from 774 to 300; and in Bulgaria from 3069 to 148 and in Hungary from 3069 to 114.(3)

With the inflation rate and constantly rising costs of labour and services, a local film could never turn a profit under these circumstances even if it plays for several months around the clock before packed houses. The progressively less affordable tickets (in Bulgaria, for example, a film ticket costs twice as much as a ticket for live theatre performance) challenge even this wild assumption. At the same time, the number of imported films, especially American, has jumped between 8 to 10 times (without taking into consideration films on video).

This massive and unchecked influx of American films after 1989, held for so long beyond the ideological pale, has been quoted as one of the major reasons for the current crisis. The simultaneous withdrawal of state subsidies and lack of private investment, are cited as another. There is however a third reason for this crisis, dating back to the times of Communist censorship. Eastern European filmmakers, being preoccupied with the game of hide-and-seek with the Communist authorities, have forgotten or chosen to ignore the so-called "mass viewer" and the popular film genres. And now they are paying a dear price for this negligence.

Now obviously this doesn't excuse the Holodomor or gulags or anything. But the idea that innovation is only possible in capitalism is wrong, and the idea that creative production can only happen when there is the incentive of a great financial reward is wrong. And indeed sometimes free market capitalism stands in the way of both of these things.

And lastly I've never said that any people aren't cut out for democracy and actually find that view pretty repellent and racist, and remember arguing against it during the Egyptian and Libyan protests earlier in the year. You should take Joe's advice and stop reading the most terrible possible things into my posts. Being so outraged about nothing constantly must be exhausting.

Also this is all very off-topic (I think, I don't really know what this thread is about), so I apologize.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 27, 2011, 12:02:29 AM
That, I'm afraid, is the logic of the conspiracy theorist. The estimates were reached at by standard scientific means and were universally accepted at the time. It is quite possible that the figures were an overestimate (especially as many of the 'reserves' were extremely deep) and they certainly don't count as 'reserves' now, but that's not really the point. Coal was not running out in the 1980s; the industry was shut down for other reasons.

The figures were clearly an overestimate otherwise people would be exploiting the opportunity to get that coal out right now as we speak. Or perhaps you are right. In that case, I strongly suggest getting a group  of investors together, convincing them that you are right, and then exploiting the opportunity yourself.

Quote
In the first place it must be pointed out that while demand for coal has been rising of late generally, domestic demand for coal in Britain is still a small fraction of what it was before the 'dash for gas'. There are relatively few coal fired power stations in Britain these days (nothing compared to what there used to be) and other industries use coal less than was once the case.

So what? In the age of globalization, any coal taken out of the ground can be exported. If the coal is really there and it is cost-effective to get it out, somebody will eventually do so unless government intervention stands in the way. It says quite a bit that this has yet to happen on a large scale.

Quote
Yes, but I don't think you are listening. It was one of the most efficient and productive coal industries in Europe but, of course, it wasn't really profitable overall. Because that wasn't the point.

What was the point? Indefinitely subsidize an industry, and therefore a public union, that should have never existed to begin with? Continue to subsidize the industry so the nation could be indefinitely held hostage by them? The subsidization created the environment where it was necessary to get out coal to keep electricity running.

Look: I have a great deal of respect for miners. It is an incredibly dangerous occupation and safety should always come first IMHO. I fully support union rights for miners in the private sector who decide to collectively bargain. With that said, I am vehemently opposed to the idea of a public union (along with subsidizing something such as coal). The key functions of a union are to protect its members and ensure that they receive a fair stake in the profits of the organization. What does a public worker need to be protected from? To serve the public and yet be protected from it at the same time? Does that not seem like quite the paradox? And what profits are created in the public sector? Absolutely none (Take away the illusions incurred by accounting/labeling, and all public expenditures are eventually paid for by taxation on the private sector and/or inflation).

This is getting dull (I wrote a previous post that was much more detailed, but timed out when I hit post). Obviously you have extensive knowledge of mining in Britain. However, we have gotten completely away from the original point. Getting back to my original point many, many posts ago, do you really want a return to the madness of subsidizing industries that should not be subsidized, allowing public unions to basically run the political machine of your entire country, and creating a situation where the subsidization of one industry ensures the whole infrastructure of the economy is dependent upon it? That is precisely what a return to socialism will do, among other things.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 27, 2011, 12:03:41 AM
That, I'm afraid, is the logic of the conspiracy theorist. The estimates were reached at by standard scientific means and were universally accepted at the time. It is quite possible that the figures were an overestimate (especially as many of the 'reserves' were extremely deep) and they certainly don't count as 'reserves' now, but that's not really the point. Coal was not running out in the 1980s; the industry was shut down for other reasons.

Basically yes; and if 1980's assessments are not proof enough, recent assessments of the West Fife coalfield (where open cast mining still takes place despite the flooding of Longannet) for example suggest that there significantlymore coal that they had assumed even 10-15 years ago.

Coal 'rests' while it waits for technology to catch up (clean coal and carbon capture) to make it economically viable in the UK once again.

This is another possibility. What is your source, by the way?


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 27, 2011, 12:11:39 AM
Regarding your second paragraph, my point was that in the communist film "market", because it was not focused on profits and ticket sales (and in fact the film authorities didn't care at all if films were successful), film-makers could focus more on the art of the films. They didn't have to water down their works for mass consumption or to gain the funding of profit-focused producers, as they were funded by the government instead of ticket sales and merchandising.

So we should tax productive people in the private sector to force the funding of the creation of products that the vast majority of the aforementioned productive people, by definition, are not interested in paying for freely?

Some may say there is a word for that: Theft.

What is your problem with people getting what they want? Why do you want to force upon people the funding of undesired products?

Quote
Now obviously this doesn't excuse the Holodomor or gulags or anything. But the idea that innovation is only possible in capitalism is wrong,

The idea was never that innovation is only possible in a free enterprise nation. The idea is this: Any benefits that come out of a socialist, or communist apparatus, have costs associated with them that usually outweigh the benefits enjoyed (and by quite a large margin). In the case of the Soviet Union, clearly the art that came out of Russia during that time period was not worth the cost of 25-62 million murders, not to mention the other ills, in order to ensure the growth and continuation of the nation and therefore creation of the aforementioned art. And even with these excessive costs, the level of innovation in a socialist nation still pales in comparison to the innovations found in free enterprise nations (e.g., compare innovations in Britain before socialism with innovations in Britain during socialism).


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 27, 2011, 12:16:08 AM
By the way, all of the name calling in this thread is the result of cognitive dissonance. You know who you are, and you are excused for being human.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Gustaf on August 27, 2011, 04:05:21 AM


You're very good at reading things into my posts that I never said. Not in favor of killing innocent civilians, nor am I "pro-dictatorship in general." In fact I don't know that I've come out in favor of any dictatorships? Unless you think Chavez is a dictator, which is false. I don't know that I've ever said that Venezuela or Cuba are awesome either, just better than their right-wing detractors make them out to be. Obviously I'd love those countries to have Sweden's political economy, but we can't all be lucky enough to live in one of the best countries on earth, can we?

Regarding your second paragraph, my point was that in the communist film "market", because it was not focused on profits and ticket sales (and in fact the film authorities didn't care at all if films were successful), film-makers could focus more on the art of the films. They didn't have to water down their works for mass consumption or to gain the funding of profit-focused producers, as they were funded by the government instead of ticket sales and merchandising. And indeed Eastern European film has suffered since the fall of communism (http://kinema.uwaterloo.ca/article.php?id=238&feature):

Quote
With the end of the Cold War, almost overnight, films from Eastern Europe have lost their special aura of dissidence and found themselves struggling on a par with other foreign-language productions for the meagre attention of Western distributors. The global standards of film as entertainment, set by Hollywood, have not been very helpful either. Pace, special effects and glamour seem to relegate artistic quality, psychological depths and moral contemplations -- the stuff Central and Eastern European films are traditionally concerned with -- to the museum of film history...

Eastern European cinema was the first industry to suffer a tremendous economic blow immediately after the fall of Communism. The powers-to be reached an amazingly swift consensus with most of the filmmakers that the state-subsidised centralised structure of Eastern European cinema should be dismantled and reorganised into many small, entrepreneurial, market-oriented film companies. The result is more than distressing: thus the national production of fiction films in Bulgaria fell from 21 in 1989 to 4 in 1994, in Hungary from 21 to 6 in 1993, in Slovakia from 10 to 3 in 1993, in the Czech Republic from 22 to 6 in 1993, etc. While the film production in Poland and Romania, and last year in the Czech Republic, has returned to its pre-1989 figures(2) thanks to the financial support, provided by the national television, the theatrical network in these countries shares the same sorrowful fate as in the others: in Poland the number of cinema theatres has fallen from 1792 for 1989 to below 500 in 1994; in Romania from 612 to 300; in the Czech Republic from 1326 to 850; in Slovakia from 774 to 300; and in Bulgaria from 3069 to 148 and in Hungary from 3069 to 114.(3)

With the inflation rate and constantly rising costs of labour and services, a local film could never turn a profit under these circumstances even if it plays for several months around the clock before packed houses. The progressively less affordable tickets (in Bulgaria, for example, a film ticket costs twice as much as a ticket for live theatre performance) challenge even this wild assumption. At the same time, the number of imported films, especially American, has jumped between 8 to 10 times (without taking into consideration films on video).

This massive and unchecked influx of American films after 1989, held for so long beyond the ideological pale, has been quoted as one of the major reasons for the current crisis. The simultaneous withdrawal of state subsidies and lack of private investment, are cited as another. There is however a third reason for this crisis, dating back to the times of Communist censorship. Eastern European filmmakers, being preoccupied with the game of hide-and-seek with the Communist authorities, have forgotten or chosen to ignore the so-called "mass viewer" and the popular film genres. And now they are paying a dear price for this negligence.

Now obviously this doesn't excuse the Holodomor or gulags or anything. But the idea that innovation is only possible in capitalism is wrong, and the idea that creative production can only happen when there is the incentive of a great financial reward is wrong. And indeed sometimes free market capitalism stands in the way of both of these things.

And lastly I've never said that any people aren't cut out for democracy and actually find that view pretty repellent and racist, and remember arguing against it during the Egyptian and Libyan protests earlier in the year. You should take Joe's advice and stop reading the most terrible possible things into my posts. Being so outraged about nothing constantly must be exhausting.

Also this is all very off-topic (I think, I don't really know what this thread is about), so I apologize.

Well, it seems like I finally managed to provoke you out of that hip pose and into a more dull mainstream position. I've obviously been hoping all along that you wouldn't seriously think those things.

1. If you haven't actually voiced support for Cuba, I apologize. Sometimes I go on memory and sometimes my memory fails. I'll trust you on that one.

2. My national pride is soaring. I think you might be overestimating the socialistness of Sweden though - I'd say we're a lot closer to the US as a society than we are to Cuba or Venezuela. On Freedom Heritage's index of economic freedom we're 22nd (71.9 score), the US is 9th (77.8) and Venezuela is 175th (37.6). In fact, one of my main beefs with leftists like you is that you conflate the success of regulated and partly redistributive market economy in Northern Europe with the oppressive, failed systems of countries like the Soviet Union or Venezuela.

3. I'm not familiar with the source of your claim regading Eastern European film. I'd make a number of points here.

Firstly, while it's true that the Soviet Union produced a number of great films (directors like Tarkovsky or Eisenstein) Eastern Europe filmmaking is hardly dead today. The Romanian new wave is one example (as I recall, that Romanian film on abortion won Cannes a couple of years ago) and Russian films like The Return or Burnt by the Sun have been great successes after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Secondly, while it's true that commercialization often hurts quality (we all know Michael Bay, sadly enough) Western Society undoubtedly produce loads and loads of high-quality movies! Keep in mind that the Soviet Union had the same population (roughly) as the US. Tarkovsky may be one of the greatest directors of all time, but still? Has not the US during the Cold War era produced Coppola, Scoresese, Kubrick (sort of), etc, etc?

Thirdly, while one can argue that freedom from commercial pressure might be good for quality, surely freedom for censorship must be even more important? It's hardly a coincidence that some of the greatest Eastern European directors (Forman, Polanski) moved away from the East and to the US (Forman as I understand largely for political reasons in wake of the Prague Spring).

I honestly think there is a bit of a myth concerning the Soviet strength when it comes to culture and I think that myth is largely based on the fact that they simply were not as far behind the West in that field as they were in fields like the economy or technological advance. Regardless, it always struck me as odd that any left-winger would find it more important to produce high-class films for the intellectual elite than to actually feed the poor - Western capitalism obviously achieved the left's prime concerns of justice and eradication of poverty much better than the Soviets did.

As regards the final paragraph there, great to hear. You certainly gave a different impression when it came to China. I'm glad you find that view as repellent and racist as I do. I don't remember any advice from Joe on this subject so I can't really adhere to it unless you link me.

I'm about as often accused of being too literalistic (like when I challenged you on your support for killing Jews) as I am of reading things into peoples' posts (Opebo hilariously accuses me of both all the time). Of course, "reading things into posts" is what we all do all the time. Stark never said "I'm racist" yet people called him that all the time. It's common place for people to interpret Carl's opposition to illegal immigration as "hating browns" even though he has never said anything directly indicating such a position. I do my best to make reasonable deductions about peoples' opinions. Sometimes I exaggerate a little bit to see where they actually stand, but in most cases I think people just become uncomfortable with the implications of their own words rather than me making up those implications.

PS: I'm never outraged. I find debating quite amusing, especially when the opponent is taking an absurd position. I don't take politics in general very seriously, but I do think there is a bit of a moral obligation to stand up for democracy and human rights, at least when it costs nothing to do so, like on the internet. But maybe you should bring that point up with people who viciously hate the Republicans or the Democrats. Or who thinks Obama or Sarah Palin are fascists who should be shot. That's outrage that I think is quite unhealthy. I reserve that level of emotion for actual fascists who actually shoot people (say the Chinese or Soviet dictatorships).


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 27, 2011, 04:24:24 AM
My God, but there's a lot of Fail in this thread. Not had a chance to read through the rest of the recent developments 'till now. Lord.

It's an Opebo thread on economics - it's to be expected, is it not?

You find it a 'failure' to suggest that some other amount of working hours per week than 40 might be preferrable as a political choice or policy?  My goodness but you are a bit dogmatic!


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 27, 2011, 06:55:54 AM
The figures were clearly an overestimate otherwise people would be exploiting the opportunity to get that coal out right now as we speak. Or perhaps you are right. In that case, I strongly suggest getting a group  of investors together, convincing them that you are right, and then exploiting the opportunity yourself.

I'm not sure if any of that has anything to do with the potential health of the coal industry in 1984.

Quote
So what? In the age of globalization, any coal taken out of the ground can be exported. If the coal is really there and it is cost-effective to get it out, somebody will eventually do so unless government intervention stands in the way. It says quite a bit that this has yet to happen on a large scale.

There are laws and other procedures in Britain that make mines relatively safe (though not, disgracefully, as relatively safe as they used to be under nationalisation). There is also the reality that workers in Britain expect to be paid more than a pittance, especially for skilled and dangerous work. These things make coal mined in Britain rather more expensive than coal mined in certain other places.

Most of the additional issues have been mentioned by me in other posts in this thread, and I don't see the point in repeating myself that often.

Quote
What was the point? Indefinitely subsidize an industry, and therefore a public union, that should have never existed to begin with? Continue to subsidize the industry so the nation could be indefinitely held hostage by them? The subsidization created the environment where it was necessary to get out coal to keep electricity running.

Absurd and untrue. The British economy was dependent on coal long before the Attlee government nationalised the pits (which it did as a practical response to the failures of private ownership as much as for ideological and - hey it's the Labour Party - emotional reasons) as any fool knows. For most of the subsequent decades the only alternative in terms of electricity generation (especially given longstanding British preferences for energy independence) to British coal was nuclear power, and that was always controversial for obvious reasons.

The national miners union, by the way, was formed in the 1880s (as the MFGB), although it was remodeled along slightly less decentralised lines (as the NUM) in 1945.

Quote
Look: I have a great deal of respect for miners. It is an incredibly dangerous occupation and safety should always come first IMHO. I fully support union rights for miners in the private sector who decide to collectively bargain. With that said, I am vehemently opposed to the idea of a public union (along with subsidizing something such as coal). The key functions of a union are to protect its members and ensure that they receive a fair stake in the profits of the organization. What does a public worker need to be protected from? To serve the public and yet be protected from it at the same time? Does that not seem like quite the paradox? And what profits are created in the public sector? Absolutely none (Take away the illusions incurred by accounting/labeling, and all public expenditures are eventually paid for by taxation on the private sector and/or inflation).

Managers, darling. They need to be protected from managers and management, not 'the public'. They have managers in the public sector just as much as in the private sector. In any case you should never find yourself asking 'why do miners need a union' because even in the public sector the fairly obvious needs for union representation in that particular occupation don't go away.

Quote
This is getting dull (I wrote a previous post that was much more detailed, but timed out when I hit post). Obviously you have extensive knowledge of mining in Britain. However, we have gotten completely away from the original point.


()

Quote
Getting back to my original point many, many posts ago, do you really want a return to the madness of subsidizing industries that should not be subsidized, allowing public unions to basically run the political machine of your entire country, and creating a situation where the subsidization of one industry ensures the whole infrastructure of the economy is dependent upon it? That is precisely what a return to socialism will do, among other things.

lol


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 27, 2011, 07:54:48 AM
Managers, darling. They need to be protected from managers and management, not 'the public'. They have managers in the public sector just as much as in the private sector.

Ultimately, both salaried and non-salaried public employees work for the taxpayers since their services are paid for by the taxpayers. If management in the public sector is exploiting public workers, there are channels (i.e., the media) to bring this to the attention of the public so that necessary changes in management can be made through the proper political channels. In other words, there is no need for public unions on the grounds of "protection from management." Do you care to take another stab at defending the indefensible, though? This is fun!

If you think I am off my rocker, well, I am in the same company as FDR on the issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions

Quote
In any case you should never find yourself asking 'why do miners need a union' because even in the public sector the fairly obvious needs for union representation in that particular occupation don't go away.

I would never ask, "why do miners need a union?" because I have already voiced my support for miners who wish to organize. But, again, I do not feel like mining is something taxpayers should be paying for.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 27, 2011, 10:21:14 AM
Ultimately, both salaried and non-salaried public employees work for the taxpayers since their services are paid for by the taxpayers. If management in the public sector is exploiting public workers, there are channels (i.e., the media) to bring this to the attention of the public so that necessary changes in management can be made through the proper political channels. In other words, there is no need for public unions on the grounds of "protection from management." Do you care to take another stab at defending the indefensible, though? This is fun!

You really are remarkably naive, me duck. But I get the impression that trying to enlighten you on this point would be a fruitless endeavour, so I don't think I'll bother.

Quote
If you think I am off my rocker, well, I am in the same company as FDR on the issue

FDR had laughably patrician views on a wide range of subjects, so, you know. So what?

Quote
I would never ask, "why do miners need a union?" because I have already voiced my support for miners who wish to organize. But, again, I do not feel like mining is something taxpayers should be paying for.

So you acknowledge that they were actually mining rather than randomly digging tunnels for no good reason?

Excellent.

()


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 29, 2011, 02:21:38 PM
You really are remarkably naive, me duck. But I get the impression that trying to enlighten you on this point would be a fruitless endeavour, so I don't think I'll bother.

What is your next line of argument in defense of public unions? That they need a greater stake in the profits they help create? Oh wait - they are paid by taxpayers and do not create any profits, so there goes that argument.

If somebody employed in the public sector does not like the way they are paid or treated, they should go find a job in the private sector, perhaps even by joining a union in the private sector that actually has a justifiable reason for existing.

Quote
So you acknowledge that they were actually mining rather than randomly digging tunnels for no good reason?

Other than the 10,000 or so miners who are still employed in mining, the vast majority of the 200,000 or so miners who were employed by the state should not have been employed by the state to do what they were doing, so I stand my statement of it being a pointless activity when you consider that did not create growth for the economy as a whole. It was just a bottomless money pit that taxpayers were forced to pay for, for far too long.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 29, 2011, 06:26:23 PM
As I thought, no point even bothering.

Other than the 10,000 or so miners who are still employed in mining, the vast majority of the 200,000 or so miners who were employed by the state should not have been employed by the state to do what they were doing

Where do you get these figures from, exactly? Saying that only about 5% of miners in the early 1980s were actually employed in the mining industry is quite a claim, and not one that I've ever seen before. I am reasonably sure that everyone employed as a miner worked in the mining industry. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps they were all actually employed in call centres or spent their time in dole queues, just like their children would have to and still do.

Moreover, everyone employed by the NCB was employed by the state because the NCB was (of course) a nationalised concern. There were a couple of tiny private mines usually a long way from the main coalfields, but they employed hardly anyone. So the distinction that you make is not, in fact, any kind of distinction whatsoever.

I would strongly recommend that you drop this particular line of argument because you are beginning to embarrass yourself now.

Quote
so I stand my statement of it being a pointless activity when you consider that did not create growth for the economy as a whole. It was just a bottomless money pit that taxpayers were forced to pay for, for far too long.

Once again, the point of the coal industry at that time was to produce fuel to be used by other sectors of the economy (especially electricity generation) rather than to produce a profit (even if doing so was, from the 1960s anyway, considered as something worth considering by the NCB). At the time there were no serious alternatives to the use of British coal in the power industry because energy independence was then the major plank of British energy policy (and had been for decades) which ruled out the heavy use of imported fuels, while cheap gas from the North Sea had yet to come fully on board (so to speak). Nuclear power, meanwhile, was always politically controversial and also lacked the enthusiastic support from the civil service that it had in (for example) France. So, as you can see, the coal industry was one of the most important parts of the economy, even if it tended to be less than entirely profitable because keeping the lights on and the factories operating is probably fairly important in a vaguely modern economy. The fact that the strike was lost in part because the government had been stockpiling coal for months tells its own story, don't you think?

Things are different now, of course. But that's not really relevant.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: Politico on August 30, 2011, 05:48:33 AM
You win. Now can we get back to the original point of the thread? I feel like we have destroyed this thread.


Title: Re: 20 Hour Work Week
Post by: opebo on August 30, 2011, 12:11:50 PM
You win. Now can we get back to the original point of the thread? I feel like we have destroyed this thread.

Or perhaps the thread destroyed you.  Get back to work!