Tags for This Article:

Global Warming (546)  Pollution (277)  Global Warming (123)  Energy Consumption US (91)  Environment Global Accords (80)  Energy Consumption Rest Of World (55)  toxic products (46) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
January 9, 2008 at 20:56:26

If productivity has tripled, why are we working ever longer hours?

by Richard Clark     Page 1 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 

Tell A Friend

(0.0 from 0 ratings) View Ratings | Rate It

 

More specifically, if worker productivity has tripled in the last 53 years, why are Americans working longer hours than any time since 1938?

 

Yes, it’s true:  U.S. labor productivity has tripled over the last 53 years.

Source: http://www.dallasfed.org/eyi/free/0406product.html

 

Even more remarkably, productivity in Denmark has tripled over the last 40 years:

http://www.ambnewdelhi.um.dk/en/servicemenu/News/Danishproductivityhastripledsince1966.htm

 

One might respond to the title question by simply answering that Americans have chosen to enjoy more consumer goods than ever before.  Most of our homes are considerably larger than they were in the mid-to-late 1950s, and our automobiles have much greater quality, durability and life expectancy.  In addition, the amount of home electronics and appliances most of us possess is many times larger than what we had access to back then.  So what’s the beef?

 

The ‘beef’ is that a growing majority of Americans have real incomes that purchase less housing, less college education, and less health care than they did 40 or 50 years ago.  Until very recently, the minimum wage purchased less, generally, than it did 30 years ago, and still purchases less in the way of basic goods and services like health care, college education, and housing.  Working class couples now work (both of them) so as to be able to make mortgage payments on houses that were once paid for by one person, the head of the family.  This was 40 years ago – back in the days when physicians would come to your home if you were sick, and college tuition was much less than today.

 

But in spite of their reduced buying power as regards basic goods and services, most Americans (and other members of the ‘first world’ including those in Europe and Japan) consume ever more.  Even though they comprise only 20% of the world’s population, they use up 80% of the world’s resources, and are responsible, along with rapidly developing countries like China and India, for producing 95% of the world’s noxious and climate-altering greenhouse gasses.

 

So what can we say to that small minority of environmentally conscientious, leisure loving people who want to consume less and work less – especially work less at the corporations and manufacturing companies that are largely responsible for this hyperproduction and hyperconsumption and all the pollution and greenhouse gasses thereby produced?  One thing we can say is that if these environmentally conscientious workers were ever given the opportunity to work no more hours than they wished, and were not penalized for cutting back, a great many of them would do precisely that. 

 

So why don’t they all just find part-time jobs, you might ask.  Obviously the reason they don’t is that their hourly pay would then be much less, as would be their chances for: advancement, ever higher hourly rates of pay, keeping their health care benefits, etc. 

 

But what if we could find a way to allow them to work shorter hours without losing their power to acquire good housing, health care and education?  Would most of them take advantage of such an opportunity?  Of course they would – at least the great majority of them would.  And they wouldn’t be the only ones – for there are millions of other Americans who, while not being especially conscientious re: the environment and global warming, do in fact hate the humdrum jobs that increasingly rob them of so much of their time – time they could be spending with their families and on their various other interests.  If these folks, too, could find an economic opportunity that would allow them to acquire much better housing, health care and education than is currently available to them by way of their relatively low-paid, long-hour jobs, most would jump at the chance.  And what an enormous benefit to the health of our environment and ourselves that could turn out to be!

 

So, specifically, what would such an economic opportunity program look like?  How would it be organized and administered, and by whom?

 

Before answering that question, let’s first look at somewhat similar programs from decades past.  Specifically let’s look at the major economic and employment opportunities that were created by the Roosevelt administration in the 1930s.  The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is still a federally-owned corporation in the United States, which was created by congressional charter in May 1933 to provide navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, and economic development in the Tennessee Valley, a region particularly impacted by the Great Depression.  The TVA was envisioned not only as an electricity provider, but also as a regional economic development agency that would use federal experts and electricity to rapidly modernize the region's economy and society.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

 

The TVA's jurisdiction covered, and still covers, most of Tennessee, parts of Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and small slices of Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia.  It is a political entity with a territory the size of a major state, and with some state powers (such as eminent domain), but unlike a state, it has no citizenry or elected officials.  It was the first large regional planning agency of the federal government and remains the largest.  

 

Most city and county governments in Tennessee formed not-for-profit electrical utilities which began buying power from TVA and selling it to consumers at a cost far below that of competitors.  As a result, the use of electrical power in Tennessee skyrocketed.  

 

In addition, the federal government developed an experimental community in Cumberland County known as the Cumberland Homesteads.  The structures are still there, and can be viewed by going to the link below.  At the same time, the Works Progress Adminstration (WPA) built roads and airports, and made many park improvements.  Finally, several parts of the state got new courthouses and post offices.

 1  |  2

 

http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=JCpLDBUAAAC

Several years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writing about that which interests me most.

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 comments

Several years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Richard ClarkSeveral years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

So what's the solution?

So if, by some miracle, there arose a popular movement to create and fund a government agency, not unlike the WPA and/or TVA, that would allow anyone who wanted, to work directly on the cooperative, efficient and well-organized production of housing, health care and education, and then share equally in the proceeds of what was produced, who here would not support (or even oppose) such a movement, and why?

by Richard Clark (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 12:12:30 PM
 


Several years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Richard ClarkSeveral years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Objections as to the practicality of this idea

<<< I don't think you can 'generate' such a movement. I think it has to happen on it's own. People have to want to do it. >>>

Perhaps it will take a great depression to create the conditions in which a critical mass of people will demand an opportunity like this. And also a president who has the vision and steely will of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his Brain Trust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_Trust

<<< But I'm not hopeful more will, especially when people say things like 'people weren't provided with a grand opportunity" to ... this that or the other. >>>

The TVA, WPA, and CCC were 'grand opportunities' for hundreds of thousands of people. Without these opportunities their bouts with poverty would have been far more severe than they were.

<<< Who is going to 'provide this opportunity'? >>>

The same kind of people who provided it last time.

<<< People have to want to live more simply and sustainably and they have to have the gumption to do it. >>>

Even now there is no shortage of people who would jump at the chance to work directly, cooperatively, efficiently and in some well- organized way, on the production (or refurbishing) of the kind of spacious and nicely located sweat-equity housing they would like to live in, and in which they will never, otherwise, be able to afford -- but it will require that the opportunity be brought into being.

<<< Waiting for someone else to 'provide the opportunity' is the biggest reason why it'll never happen. >>>

The Roosevelt administration provided the hundreds of thousands of job opportunities of the TVA, WPA and CCC.

by Richard Clark (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments) on Saturday, January 12, 2008 at 7:36:07 PM
 


Several years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Richard ClarkSeveral years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

More objections, more replies

<<< The Roosevelt administration provided the hundreds of thousands of job opportunities of the TVA, WPA and CCC. >>>

>> Yes, which propelled many people into the a larger middle class ...where they began the cycle of hyperconsumtion, etc ... where we are today. <<

It was quite awhile after the 1930s that any significant number of people climbed onto the hyperconsumption-hyperproduction treadmill. And with different gummint policies, and a totally different set of subsidies for (different kinds of) corporations, we, as a nation, certainly could have avoided trapping so many people on the hyper c- hp treadmill and also could have avoided the environmental catastrophy which then inevitably followed. Which is to say that we, as a nation, could have started subsidizing the manufacture of small hybrid/electric cars, wind turbines, solar electric generating stations in the early 60s. We also could have, in the 1950s, prevented GM and other corporations from buying up all our inter- urban rail lines and tearing up the track so as to be able to force the country into buying ever more millions of exhaust-belching busses and cars.

>> It's not the jobs, it's the wanting to live sustainably, simply, and within ones means. So we're back to square one. How do you get people on board with living simply, sustainably and within one's means (not crushed with debt to buy more 'stuff'). Government can't provide that desire. <<

The government could provide many hundreds of thousands of people with the kind of work that would enable them to acquire better and more spacious housing, better health care, and greater access to college education than those people ever could obtain by working at their currently crummy jobs, at their currently crummy wages.

by Richard Clark (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments) on Sunday, January 13, 2008 at 12:41:44 PM
 


Several years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Richard ClarkSeveral years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

My rejoinder to the critique of a former economics professor

<<< No, I didn't understand that those who chose to live the more frugal life would be somehow included beneath a government agency's umbrella. >>>

 

Yes, to some extent they would live “beneath a government agency's umbrella,” at least until the organization became self funding and self sufficient.  And how would they become self funding and self sufficient?  They would do it by eventually producing ecologically designed housing and communities that cost less than any of their competitors, and then selling such housing to those who had not opted out to work within the program.  Ditto with regard to health care and college education.

 

<<< The immediate question is therefore, would this operation be subsidized by those who did not choose this option?  >>>

 

Initially yes.  But would this be such a big price for ordinary taxpayers to shoulder?  And would it be worth the cost?  Consider:  If the program provided meaningful and well compensated work to tens and eventually hundreds of thousands of people who might otherwise turn to crime, drug abuse, drug peddling, spousal- and child-abuse (i.e. the common results of unemployment and underemployment), then the long run benefits to society might very well greatly outweigh the cost of the program.  After all, it costs us something like $40,000 a year to keep just one man in jail and we’ve now got 2 million of them in jail.  Which comes out to be an $80 billion annual cost.  Let’s say my program really got rolling and could eventually half the size of the prison population, so that it was only 3 times as many, percentage-wise, as in, say, Holland instead of the current 6 times.  That would be a $40 billion savings – more than enough to get the program off to a nice start.  And think of what it could do for the environment (and eventually for global warming) if we could get, say, 100,000 Americans involved in the construction of ecologically designed housing and communities, and possibly even in the construction of small electric vehicles.

 

<<< Second, would those in the new system somehow pay their "fair share" of the federal and state governments' costs of the services they receive from the general system, such as roads, defense (gotta deal with it), medical research, Aid to Israel (which "society" chooses to extend), etc. >>>

 

Initially they might well not pay their fair share, but I say eliminate the immense tax breaks on the top 1% so as to make up the difference!

 

<<< How would health benefits be provided, and where would they/you go for the serious stuff, such as heart bypass surgery, or would some of these very expensive procedures be foregone? >>>

 

The expensive procedures would be forgone.  Healthy living and eating would replace those procedures.  For basic health needs, the program participants would go to local health clinics, which they would build and staff as well.

 

<<< Would their "social security", of whatever form it might take, also be half of other peoples in the regular system.  >>>

 

Initially, yes.  Eventually, if they could start selling some of the extra housing and electric cars they would be producing, their social security savings would mount along with their growing incomes.

 

<<< What if the children didn't want to remain in the subsistence system?  Could they opt out, and at whose expense?  >>>

 

Yes certainly they could opt out just as soon as they no longer expected financial support from their parents.  This would be an entirely voluntary program.

 

<<< How would the education system work?  Would the schools only operate half-time as well?  If not, you would need twice as many teachers if each teacher only worked half time.  And I don't think, to date at least, the education system has shown much in the way of productivity increases.   >>>

 

Teachers would be paid in a special currency, just like all other members in the program, and could use that currency to pay for the basic things they needed (in the way of basics like housing, health care, education for their kids, utilities etc.).  The student-teacher ratio would depend on what the system could afford – just keep it as small as possible.

 

<<< One of the problems people face in areas such as where you live is that it is so desirable that land values have been bid sky high.  So if someone around there chooses to work half time, assuming a job is available, it is not economically feasible. >>>

 

I’m not talking about just any part time job, of course, but only those within the organizations I’m trying to describe and develop.  And since the land on which they would build housing in California would be so much more expensive, the workers would obviously get less housing per hour of work they contributed.

  

<<< Aren't there increasing options today to telecommute?  I mean, lots of jobs, which service Americans, are now offloaded to India or elsewhere.  So couldn't you live in Trinidad and perform one of these jobs?  >>>

 

Good points.

 

<<< Of course, you would be competing against the Indians, so you might still have to work full-time even to maintain 50% of your previous consumption level.  >>>

 

Once again, I’m talking about jobs within the federally managed housing and community development corporations I’ve been trying to describe.

 

<<< Would your low-level consumers have their own TV network, free of commercial advertisements?  >>>

 

Yes -- integrated with a satellite system that served the entire community.

 

<<< How would political campaigns work?  Low income people, competing against higher income people, have less political influence. >>>

 

Perhaps the larger federation of communities could have their own PAC?

 

<<< I don't know what the numbers are, but aren't a lot of medical problems self-imposed, by way of smoking, excessive drinking, over-eating? >>>

 

No doubt about it.

 

<<< Some say that obesity is a problem because food is so cheap.  >>>

 

That plus the mental-cultural sickness and mental/intellectual poverty of the culture in which they grow up.

 

<<< How little could you spend today and get a completely sufficient diet? >>>

 

Rice, beans, veggies, nuts, tofu and fruit don’t cost too much, even if grocery prices have generally been rising.  Plus, let’s hope that a lot of fruits and veggies could be locally grown.

 

<<< Remember that book Endgame?  I think it was the author's thesis that practically any "civilization" you could come up with uses excessive resources and is unsustainable in the long run. >>>

 

Some much more (unsustainable) than others, of course.  And wouldn’t it be great if one of the accomplishments of the organization I’m dreaming about would be to teach the entire world how people anywhere can come to have great housing, health care and educational systems – without having to climb on the hyperproduction-hyperconsumption treadmill?

  

by Richard Clark (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments) on Sunday, January 13, 2008 at 2:35:50 PM
 

 

4 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
(Most forwarded)

Are you ready for nuclear war? by Paul Craig Roberts

Loserville: Obama Is Channeling Kerry and Gore by Dave Lindorff

Fresh New Discovery - Can You Guess What This Photo Is? by Meryl Ann Butler

NSA MAY BE READING WINDOWS SOFTWARE IN YOUR COMPUTER by Sherwood Ross

"Caroline: Pull a Cheney!" An Open Letter to Caroline Kennedy (head of the Obama VP search team) by Michael Moore

Mr. Bill: "OH NO, Fix the coast you broke, Shell Oil!" by Georgianne Nienaber

The REAL John McCain by Mike Kuykendall

Pelosi Gets "Booked" & Confronts Her Own Past by Linda Milazzo

The Urgency of Impeachment by Jeeni Criscenzo

New Zogby/Reuters Poll: Obama Down 5, in an Almost Perfect Storm by Rob Kall

24 hrs 48 hrs
72 hrs 1 week
1 month 6 months
1 year All Time
Articles
Diaries Members
Products Events
Polls