Yates quotes himself from his book The Great Inequality, which I have not read. Here is his quote:
> The advantage capitalists have vis-à-vis their employees is as obvious as it is neglected by mainstream economists. Workers do not have the wealth to withstand periods without employment, and while they might quit a particular job, they cannot quit all jobs. In addition, the ownership of businesses gives capitalists the legal right to structure their workplaces (through detailed division of labor, mechanization, close monitoring to ensure maximum intensity, and so forth) so that the amount of labor used is always a good deal less than the supply of workers. This pool of surplus labor, Marx's "reserve army," serves to keep the employed in line, from making excessive wage and hour demands on the bosses. Employers also create artificial job hierarchies to split workers and keep them from seeing their common interests. In larger firms, seemingly impersonal bureaucracies make rules that come to be accepted as inevitable and even fair. All of these things allow employers to extract a surplus of work from their hired hands, a surplus that the employers get to keep. Power always involves a "taking" by the powerful from those without it. What is taken is the fruits of the exercise of their labor time. The control of the labor power of others over a definite period of time, in other words, is the principal basis of economic profit and power under capitalism.
Perhaps in his book Yates addresses what I will mention. Of course I agree with what he says in this paragraph, especially the sentence beginning “This pool of surplus labor … “. That gives the capitalists power but can be confronted directly, and has been in the United States. Despite the widely held belief that there is “competition” in the markets under capitalism, it is very rare that it can be observed, EXCEPT in the market for labor. Anything being sold in the market is kept in short supply by the suppliers, except for labor. In my view, the key to getting serious about inequality and socialism is to start there, actively cutting that surplus. Reducing the work week reduces the surplus of labor and reduces capitalist power. Cutting to, for example, a four day week, nominally removes 20% of the labor on offer. Offset, of course, by items Yates mentions — mechanization, robots and digitization, and worker self-introduced productivity gains. Let me assert as quickly as I can that the cut in hours should be WITH NO CUT IN PAY. (I’ll come back to that.) But these employer offsets can be fought by a following reduction in working time. The policy is scalable. The policy, moreover, is exportable. France, and China, for that matter, will be more able to reduce the work week if the US does. Scalable and exportable and, furthermore, the most powerful tool to fight global warming.
Of course workers oppose cutting the work week, seeing their own income dependent on the hours of work they can get, not understanding that wages will remain stagnant (or worse) if hours overall are not cut. So pay is going to be cut, we can be sure, if hours are not cut. If hours are cut, there will be a battle at each individual workplace against a pay cut. And most of these battles will lose, more or less. But in the end, cutting the work week will address the decline in the share of national income going to workers, taken from owners. But the hours will have to be cut again, and again, and the struggle over income fought again and again.
Yates correctly distinguishes between income inequality and wealth inequality. While a first glance cutting hours seems a struggle over income, a successful cut will also impact wealth inequality. Cutting hours will, imo, slow growth in GDP, and for individual businesses. The value of (almost) all businesses will fall as a result, for the rate of growth plays a significant role in the valuation of the business. (Its value on the stock market.) See the work of the good lefty finance professor Myron Gordon. So there will be a wealth impact on shareholders.
The struggle at the job site will be an ongoing one, to be now seen by workers as a collective one. And workers will remain in the struggle, unlike, for example, college students involved in an issue who on graduation disperse into a different world. (I don’t think labor unions can make much of a comeback until after the surplus is substantially reduced.)
Much more to be said but let me end by adding that I don’t have much hope for a sudden revolutionary change. I think that shorter hours can be won, as it has repeatedly in the past in the US, and that may be self-energizing as the Millennials realize there is more to life than the 40 hour week. Perhaps most of them already do.
Gene
> On May 1, 2016, at 11:09 AM, Michael Yates <mikedjyates at msn.com> wrote:
>
> An essay I wrote for Truthout. Comments welcomed.
> http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35841-let-s-get-serious-about-inequality-and-socialism
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk