From: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: Re: Vote for 3rd party/no-party candidates!!!
Reply-To: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:49:42 GMT


In a previous article, jw59+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jason Webb) says:

>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.  

The historical record indicates that a decrease in the number of hours 
worked results in a proportional or more than proportional increase in
productivity for several reasons.

1)workers are more rested and so they are able to produce better work.

2)morale is better.

3)employers then have the incentive to put in more advanced machinery 
because if they want to increase productivity they MUST invest in
new machinery since they can't just arbitrarily extend the hours worked.

4)the workplace is safer.

These are some of the reasons that come to mind. Judge Frankfurter
when he was a lawyer filed a brief that was several hundred pages
long documenting the positive social gains from shorter hours -
including the increase in productivity. His brief has become known
as the Frankfurter Brief and if you want more info about it, let 
me know and I can provide the reference.

>
>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!!  

History has shown that every decrease in number of mandated hours of 
work has resulted in an increase in productivity even when new machinery
is not installed, and most often the legislated decrease in hours
does result in the installation of new machinery thereby greatly
increasing productivity.

The demand for a 6 hour day and 30 hour week was raised in the U.S.
Congress in the 1930's and there were hearings conducted by Senator
Black over it where employers in the N.Y. garment industry tesitifed
that it would be beneficial to them as otherwise they had to follow
the lead of their most calcitrant competitor - so the hours are regulated
but by the longest hours in the absence of legislation. The result 
is an inefficient and backward industry.

Eventually 2 hours or 1 hour is the social goal - but for now the 
6 hour day is still on the agenda.

Recently I met someone working 120 hours a week. Lots of people are
now working 50 or 60 hours or more a week and we are supposed to have
an 8 hour day in the U.S.

>
>>  
>> 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.
>

I read an intersting book about the history of factory legislation in 
England. What it pointed out is there is a need for country wide legislation,
rather than industry wide legislation which was some of the norm in England
at the time the book was written at the turn of this century. (I'm not
sure of the situation now.) 

The Commonmarket effort to set standards for labor legislation seems
the helpful direction for things to go in.

But first it is helpful to have some govt set standards - in Germany
the high social and labor standards have resulted in more machinery
in the factories - so its surprising for you to point to a company
moving to Germany to get lower labor standards.

>>  
>> 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.

As workers produce the wealth - if they are well rested, are given the 
most advanced machnery to work on and are given high wages,
they are able to produce more wealth.

It's not entrepreneurs who produce wealth (as some of the candidates
try to make it seen) - it's workers who do the work that makes the 
production happen as any strike makes clear.

Also, the higher the wages, and the more stringent the labor legisaltion
mandating shorter hours, health and safety, etc. the more incentive there is for
the employer to put in a more advanced machine which will require less
labor to produce more.

The more advanced machine makes good available at lower prices because
each product requires less labor.

For example when mass production was introduced in the auto industry
it became possible to produce more cars with the same or fewer 
workers than before and thus the price of the cars could be lower and
so they were available to more people.

Thus the result of higher labor standards, higher wages, etc. is 
more wealth for the society.



>
>>  
>> 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.
>

The supposed debate is no real debate among the candidates. They all
stand for lowering the living standard of workers - who make up the 
great majority of the U.S. population. Their debate is only over how to do so.

But this will not make the economic conditions better - it will only make
everything even worse than it is at present.

For example, Perot's proposals to supposedly eliminate the deficit
doesn't look at where the deficit came from - it was Carter's and 
Reagan's anti worker activities that meant that employers could get
higher profits from speculation than from production that led
to the problems - then the loosening ofthe regulations on the S & L's

and now the loosening of all regulations.

So Perot is not looking at thesource of the problem - to attack social 
security or unemployment etc. only encourages more speculative
uses of moneys.

But this debate is not allowed so the discussion gets nowhere.

And the economic problems in the country grow deeper.

>
>
>-jason 
>    :)
>
Ronda
-- 
Ronda Hauben                    email address:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Amateur Computerist Newsletter              or
P.O. Box 4344                   rhauben@heartland.bradley.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126
Newsgroups: sci.econ