From: jw59+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jason Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Vote for 3rd party/no-party candidates!!!
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:50:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.EeotDYC00iUyM7k34I
Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Just to reply to some of your comments...

Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 7-Oct-92 Re: Vote for 3rd party/no-p..
by Ronda Hauben@yfn.ysu.edu 
> >> In a previous article, markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (Mark T. Schmidt) says:
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >   Clinton? I saw three speaches by Bill in the last 4 days. I think his
> >> >   strategy is promise the world to everyone. --> Health care for 
> >
> >> BUT Clinton leaves out WHO produces the WEALTH i.e. the worker
> >
> >> Clinton has no program for shortening hours of work and raising
> >> wages,
> >>  giving workers more say in their unions so they can deal
> >>   with the trade union officials who act like overlords 
> >
> >So, you're dissappointed that Clinton won't promise to make America even
> >less productive and competitive by lowering total work hours and
> >increasing labor costs.  And your also upset that the government won't
> >> regulate unions so that their leadership has even less power.
> >
> America industry will become *more* productive, not less
> if tthere are shorter hours of work mandated by the govt in the U.S.

I find this claim incredible.  Is it that you think that if workers are
less tired they will produce more per/hour?  Even if this is true it
matters entirely on how much they are working now and whether a decrease
in the workweek will be met by a more than proportional increase in
productivity.  

For example, suppose that a worker works 80/hrs a week and you reduce
their workweek to 70.  The change in their efficiency will likely be
very different from a change from 40 hours to 30 hours.  Suppose they
are producing at a rate of 10 units/hr under the 80 hr workweek and
decreasing the workweek to 70 results in an increase in efficiency to 13
units/hr.  So the total product for the 80 hr week is 80*10=800 compared
to the 70*13=810 for the 70 hour.  But suppose you then decrease the
workweek a further 10 hours to 60.  Do you expect a that the rate of
increase in production efficiency will always outstrip the rate of
decrease in workweek?  Very unlikely.  If the elasticity were >1 always
we could reduce the workweek to 1 hr a week (or even a second) and
produce in excess of 800 units!!  

>  
> That was the expereince in England when the shorter hours legislation
> was passed. Workers can be more productive if they work fewer hours.

Evidence?  When I was in England, Ford relocated to Germany because the
workers were demanding higher wages.  The strong labor unions have been
the source of tremendous problems for their economy.

>  
> Higher wages function the same way. Its the workers who produce the
> wealth in the U.S. By their having better working conditions, there
> is more weazlth produced.

Please relay the thought process that led you to this conclusion.  I'm
sure others are interested.

>  
> Both Clinton and Bush and Perot as well stand against this historical
> lesson - that's why the campaign is useless -there is no VOICE
> allowed to speak for the truth.



-jason 
    :)
Newsgroups: sci.econ