[Pen-l] work less -- consume MORE!

[Sandwichman <lumpoflabor@xxxxxxxxx>]

"'Well,' says a workingman, 'I should certainly be very glad to work
less hours, but I can scarcely earn enough by working ten to make
myself and family comfortable.'

"Sir, as strange as it may seem to you at first blush, it is a fact
that your wages will never be permanently increased until the hours of
labor are reduced."

I would like to open a can of worms and call into question the assumed
divergence between environmentalism and consumerism. I am as guilty as
anyone of promoting the idea that economic growth is somehow bad or
obsolete. But I have been reading extensively in the 19th century
literature of the eight-hour movement. The first shock I got was
discovering that "keeping up with the Joneses" was an invention of
eight-hour movement pioneer, Ira Steward.

I've been reading Steward, George Gunton, their critics and defenders
through the prism of a century's worth of disparagement of the "old,
old fallacy that eight hours a day will mean more men to be employed."
I'm beginning to realize that the opponents of the eight-hour movement
not only suppressed an astonishingly advanced economic theory, they
also usurped and defiled the accomplishments and the aspirations of
the movement. This is not to say that Steward and Gunton got
everything right but there is an immense amount to learn from their
writings and legacy.

Getting back to the argument about higher pay, at first glance it
wouldn't seem to be in accord with the admonition of my friends in the
Work Less Party to "work less, consume less, enjoy more." I propose
that the solution to this riddle is that we don't need to consume
less. We actually need to spend more.

Our culture's unsustainable environmental footprint doesn't come from
consuming "too much" but from consuming the wrong things -- cheap
crap. Ironically, the reason we're consuming the wrong things is
because wages are too low. WE CAN'T AFFORD the good life. What Juliet
Schor identifies as "overspending" could better be viewed as throwing
money away on disposable stuff because we don't have sufficient time
or income to indulge in uplifting AND MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE social
activities such as, say, taking five years off work to write a book,
paint, sing in the opera, or play soccer.

One of the things that struck me as I was comparing Cambridge
Professor Alfred Marshall's writing to that of Boston mechanic, Ira
Steward, is that the truly innovative thinking usually comes from
outside the academy. An inordinate amount of the output of
professional intellectuals consists of obscurantist rationalizations
and repetition of the obsolete or the obvious. How many people would
like to have the time and financial security to really develop their
artistic talent, athletic ability or scholarly interest without it
having to be a perilous and constricting career track?

So I'm tempted to say, "Sir, as strange as it may seem to you at first
blush, it is a fact that your way of life will never become
environmentally sustainable until your wages are increased as a result
of the hours of labor being reduced."

-- 
Sandwichman
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l