Lazy

(With a capital "L")

Greetings,

The subject of this email is fixing unemployment and the economy. Most of you should understand why this is being sent. I feel that you are interested in addressing problems with the economy, and are not afraid of unconventional actions or of promoting an ethical standard which might cause some people discomfort. Introductions for the most part aren't needed, but...

Paul Krugman is best known for being the most followed economist blogger and for recently having won a Nobel prize in economics.

Jared Bernstein has been referred to as the "architect of [the] Obama economy" and was previously the chief economic advisor to the Vice President.

Mike Konczal works for the Roosevelt Institute and has a useful blog.

Robert Reich is the former Secretary of Labor and also maintains a website.

I have also included Dean Baker for his suggestions on work sharing, although I only sent him an email last year which he didn't reply to and that was about it, as well as Nick Hanauer who has promoted the idea that it is the middle class, not the rich who are 'job creators', and Susan Wilson who was the first person who seemed to take the concept seriously.

I have been advised that people are less likely to listen to someone who does not state their name and has no apparent credentials, but I view this as an artifact of the current system and not important in this case.

So the basic idea is that the primary recipients of this email form a 'team' and sort of assure people that if they work less this will help the economy and reduce unemployment.

^ (the point of this email)

This is mainly because no single person, who is in the position to influence others, seems willing to take 'responsibility'. In an interview several months ago Paul Krugman mentioned the characters in Ender's Game influencing world politics using assumed names but it should be clear by now that this is unrealistic—people depend on experts or leaders to make important decisions unless it becomes clear that trust in the system was misplaced.

In this case, there are several reasons why people might be uncertain whether to support the idea of working less. One is people who think that Wall Street's profits are somehow direct evidence of government corruption and that we can make everything better, including unemployment, by identifying specific cases of abuse. Maybe they think that raising taxes to support spending on the poor/unemployed would be the next step after eliminating 'corruption'. A second reason is uncertainty over the amount of wealth the US has—people think that inequality is significantly lower than it actually is and people might think that by working harder we somehow extract wealth from other countries, like the idea that "China owns the US". A third reason is uncertainty over whether more education can fix the problem.

This last reason of education is what could have determined if we could encourage skilled workers to work less, but it has become clear that the US is not lacking educated workers. The evidence ranges from the lack of jobs for scientists to low recruitment intensity by employers to higher unemployment in all or most job categories.

The way to get people to work less, which everyone should be familiar with, is to pay a higher average rate when someone reduces their work hours. In the long run it's possible someone might get pay raises for consistently 'donating' time to the company at a lower wage rate, but there are plenty of reasons someone really would get a higher wage rate for working less. Among other things, doing this allows people to avoid having to make a choice between what helps society (working less) and what helps the individual (monetary and social rewards).

While I don't want to apologize for making this too long, I think this article has a good description of some of the challenges people face in the workplace:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-can-8217-t-have-it-all/9020/?single_page=true

Especially the section titled "Changing the Culture of Face Time", and the contrast between this quote in the first paragraph "And the previous spring I had received several urgent phone calls—invariably on the day of an important meeting—that required me to take the first train..." and the argument that employers should treat having a family as no different from running marathons.

The comments mention this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/educated-women-quit-work_n_1334629.html

Another recent article: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/1-percent-wives-are-helping-to-kill-feminism-and-make-the-war-on-women-possible/258431/

In this, as with other issues (global warming, race discrimination in employment, etc) people may express their opinions on issues they feel are important without necessarily being aware of the connection to economic problems that affect all of society. Fixing the economy would lead to progress on these other issues, but people who are interested in these other issues usually do not feel that confirming a solution to economic problems is their responsibility.

Therefore, a team! The primary recipients of this email should already be aware of the following site, which describes the major consequences of fixing unemployment: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/