> Gar: "A work week
> much below 40 hours gives workers too much energy and too much freedom -
> too well rested to be good little consumers."
>
> [WS:] I think it is much simpler than that. Reducing down the 40 hour
> week creates more demand for labor (they have to hire more bodies to stay
> open for a fixed number of hours), and high demand for labor gives labor
> more bargaining power vis a vis employers, higher wages, better working
> conditions etc.
>
I think you're all wet, both of you.
In concert with a decent wage, a shorter work-week would give workers more time - and ability - to consume.
Does anyone here doubt that had salaries and wages properly kept pace with cost-of-living and other expenses since say, the 1960s, we might all have more leisure time and larger leisure budgets? Provided jobs had not been exported wholesale and market protections had not been systematically dismantled of course, but that's all part and parcel with keeping pay where it should be (for some definition of "should").
--ma