From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Fri Jul 29 2005 - 17:13:05 EDT
Michael, there was no leisure for the early 19 Century worker, bar Sundays which was neceessary to prevent the complete destruction of masses of labour... which after all didn't live much longer than 40 years on average in eg Liverpool or Manchester. Marginal utilities is charmingly Benthamite, but semi starvation, the workhouse, etc etc were the real social forces at work. The question is resolved in class struggle, what has to be fought for by each side, it is a broad historical question...itself made possible by the development of the productive forces. After all there was a material set of circumsatnces over which to 'bargain'.... 10 hours, 8 hours ( 6 days), 45 hours, 40 hours, ... 35hrs if you are a labour aristocrat...... Of course if you work in one of the many labour compounds in Asia then its still the 8, 9,10 hour day for 6 days....maybe we could ask them about the marginal utlity of leisure? Cheers Paul Bullock ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Perelman" <michael@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:28 PM Subject: [OPE-L] length of the working day > At the time when the eight-hour day was a matter of public debate, that any economists ever > offer theory as to how the length of the working day was determined, other than to say that > it was a matter of a bargain between individual workers and their employer. I realize that > you can explain an individual transaction in terms of the marginal utility of leisure > compared to the marginal utility of wages, but beyond that was there anything? > > -- > Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 30 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT