[The Pack Knight]

Okay, I broke down and did read the whole article, where I came across this gem:

The NEF argues we need to achieve truly happy lives, we need to challenge social norms and reset the industrial clock ticking in our heads. It sees the 21-hour week as integral to this for two reasons: it will redistribute paid work, offering the hope of a more equal society (right now too many are overworked, or underemployed).

On what does he base the assumption that the "underemployed" is even capable of doing the work of the "overworked"? Does he really think that an "underemployed" literature major can take work off the hands of an "overworked" neurosurgeon? Who is "commodifying" now?

The very idea that all work is the same and that you can essentially plug any work, with a little training, into any job is a relic of the very Industrial Age the author claims to be moving past. It was a key concept of that other relic of the Industrial Age, communism. We saw it in the Soviet Union, where the labor of doctors was valued the same as the labor of unskilled factory workers - with predictable results. The fact that this author seems to harbor the same assumption says a lot.

[SargeK]

Same BS they tried in France - reduce the work week to 35 hours so that more people have to be hired to cover the schedule, if not the actual production.

I’d put it in the same category as laying off the bulldozer operator and hiring a hundred people with shovels. More people are working, right?

Why not give them spoons?

It takes an Ivy-League education to be this stupid.