Re: Re: Re: Fwd: BIG Ithaca HOUR News!

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> At 12:22 19-10-00, Martin wrote:
> > The thing that I might find distressing would be if a lawyer was needed -
> > and the same disparity in weighted value of hours exists. A lawyer could
> > get hundreds of hours of labor for a few hours of labored citations.

Joanna wrote:
> Those who get paid in Ithaca money are encouraged to think of one HOUR as
> being worth one hour's work, no matter what the work is.  Some people do
> charge more, though not by a lot, as far as I know; no one charges
> less.  Since you can exchange your HOURs at the local deli for what other
> people are paying ten dollars for, it's not a bad way for a minimum-wage
> worker to buy lunch.  (What's standard minimum wage in the US these days,
> under five dollars, I think?)

to throw in my two centi-HOURS, market forces (i.e., competition) would
encourage prices in dollars to equal prices in HOURS. The exception would
be is where community -- i.e., local traditions and democracy -- encourages
other standards to apply (or when there is some government or corporate
hierarchy that encourages yet others to apply). In the current situation in
the US, it is quite unlikely that community could do this except on a local
level.

> > I'll agree with Michael and Doug about "hours" not solving unemployment.
> > Unemployment is not a problem, just a tool of capital. It's only a
> > problem when there's no alternative system in evolution (like hours.) As
> > to the "margins of the economy" - they could/should become the borders.
>
> I don't suppose HOURS were ever meant to solve unemployment.

I think that HOURS can help _lower_ (but not abolish) unemployment, if the
problem of unemployment is due to an inadequate local supply of funds.
Within a local community, it might allow the unemployed auto mechanic to
get in touch with the unemployed psychotherapist and the unemployed
hair-stylist, so that they can give each other jobs without resorting to
complicated systems of barter.

The problem is that if this happens too much, the Federal Reserve would
interpret it as an increase in the "velocity of money" (the late 1970s &
early 1980s policy) or would see it as lowering interest rates below its
targets (the current policy), where the targets are aimed at preserving
profitability and the wealth of the rentiers. Either of these would
encourage the Fed to tighten monetary policy. In other words, the Fed wants
to keep the reserve army of labor large enough to protect profits and the
wealth of the _rentiers_. It the HOURS supply expands enough to lower
unemployment in a way is perceived as no longer doing these things, Alan G.
steps on the brake.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine