From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:37:32 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Oct15122800@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.181945.28948@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>   Gee.  Have 2 dots at the extremes, connect the dots with a line and we
>   have a trend!  Just maybe there is a minima between those points?  I
>   don't argue that US productivity is low and it isn't part of the point 
>   I raised.  My point was that increasing productivity has not led to
>   increased leisure time for those who have work.  I am sure that that
>   did happen in the early part of the century, but not anymore.  Many
>   studies have shown that trends over the last decade in the US are for
>   longer work weeks  as companies try to have fewer employees.  Once
>   again, I am only commenting on the situation in the US.
>
>Hmm, as I noted before the trend has persisted in Europe, while in
>the US I do believe the working week increased slightly in the 80's,
>retirement age was coming down although I suspect age discrimination
>laws may slow or reverse that trend, old people are surprisingly
>healthy and active nowadays.
>	The 80s trend to longer working week per worker is probably
>in part due to the breaking if US unions by Reagan, focus on health
>and pension benefits as major issues by surviving unions (with longer
>workweeks a bargainable concession) and tax codes that discourage
>employers from adding more people. This is a trend that I'd bet will
>be reversed in the next two decades and US will head towards the 
>European norm.

That would require a resurgence of unions and a better tax code.
You are an optimist!
>
>   John McCarthy points out that many workers don't want a shorter week.
>   This may very well be true for many people.  However, the degree to
>   which it is true confirms my point.  I never said the original
>   speculation about more leisure time matched peoples desires.  I also
>   never said it should be forced on anyone.  However, if people work
>   more hours, whether they want to or not, and if productivity
>   continues to increase, then we _will_ have more people without
>   work to do, and this unemployment will be structural, not the
>   result of business cycles.  This assumes no major decreases
>   in population.  Such permanent employment bodes ill
>   for the stability of a society.  Furthermore, desires to work
>   more hours may be the result of a general decrease in income
>   levels in the US.
>
>Not quite that simple, for one thing society invents more pseudo-jobs
>to keep people occupied, "service" jobs, academia, sports and
>entertainment, lawyers all are luxury jobs supported by a small
>highly productive agriculture and indsutrial sector. The trick is
>to keep convincing the people actually doing things that the
>rest of us should be supplied with our necessities in exchange
>for our "services" ;-)

Or maybe the trick is to convince the people in the service economy
that they are actually doing something valuable so that they don't
get too disillusioned and alienated.

This places a greater stress of the "productive" sectors.  Since these
service jobs tend to be low paying, it also may lead to the same type
of divisiveness that I described.  I doubt the US can have a healthy
economy if it lets service dominate.  Furthermore, I don't think that
service fully replaces the industrial sector effectively.  The
unemployment figures underestimate total unemployment due to those
who have given up looking for a job.  Although this discrepency has
always existed, I think it larger now due to failed industry in
certain parts of the country.
>
>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
>*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
>*  Just because there's a reason          			*
>*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 
>


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment