tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post4256674920408211310..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Some Questions about the Ten-Hour WeekUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-77639529820747640182018-11-04T07:26:48.012-05:002018-11-04T07:26:48.012-05:00One additional point- building the new 100% renewa...One additional point- building the new 100% renewable energy sector and infrastructure will require more work initially, so a 'green new deal' could generate full employment, with longer hours for the underemployed, and less work for the 'overworked' while reducing the production of 'crap', as in mobilization for WWII. <br /><br /> Also important to remember that some luck people, including many academics, like their work so much that they want to work long hours, even in retirement, but without using much material resources.Felix FitzRoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09527790430237204862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-82114052388551871062018-11-03T14:07:23.954-04:002018-11-03T14:07:23.954-04:00Thanks for mentioning Jacobson and Delucci, Felix....Thanks for mentioning Jacobson and Delucci, Felix. I had the pleasure of attending a lecture by Mark Jacobson the week before last. I am inclined to take their fine-grained research as persuasive with regard to technical feasibility of transition to water, wind and solar. I see the Ten-Hour Week as complementary to their analysis of technical feasibility. <br /><br />Andreas Malm stresses a caveat with regard to "social and political efforts" that J&D also acknowledge. The Ten-Hour Week is targeted specifically at those social and political obstacles. Paradoxically, the Ten-Hour Week would be a failure if it didn't induce and coerce such a massive transition to renewables that would make that much of a reduction of the work week unnecessary and impractical! In that respect it is a hypothetical "target" that we don't want to have to hit.<br /><br />The exit from the fossil fuel imperative will require both <i>more</i> work to provide necessities and basic comforts of life and <i>less</i> work to produce superfluous, intentionally obsolescent consumer crap that currently is a precondition for production of those necessities and basic comforts. The economists' trick of aggregating everything together indiscriminately makes evaluating BOTH more and less at the same time seem "impossible." We must have EITHER more OR less because our models can't handle changes in different directions at the same time. This unidirectional bias is a defect of the models -- of the bourgeois ideological myth of "supply and demand" -- and not a feature of reality.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-92224129640947581182018-11-03T06:20:05.624-04:002018-11-03T06:20:05.624-04:00Bill Rees seems to claim that a zero carbon econom...Bill Rees seems to claim that a zero carbon economy fueled by WWS, wind , water and solar is impossible. He should read Jacobson, Delucci et al who show in greta Felix FitzRoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09527790430237204862noreply@blogger.com