Even Samuel Gompers saw it:
"The answer to all opponents to the reduction of the hours of labor could well be given in these words: 'That so long as there is one man who seeks employment and cannot obtain it, the hours of labor are too long.'"
Mary Steward also had the answer: "Whether you work by the piece or work by the day; decreasing the hours increases the pay."
Mate, it all sounds too good to be true. It's counter-intuitive! Like the theory the earth revolves around the sun rather than the other way 'round?
Contemporary economists have conveniently repressed the notion of shorter work time in favour of mathematcal model building. Bourgeois economists make a lot of assumptions that just aren't so and that aren't even backed up by coherent arguments. A lot of what passes for untheoretical "common sense" makes those same assumptions without actually saying so.
Do you want to fight unemployment? Don't bother with polytricksters' stimulus hocus-pocus. Reduce the hours of work. LOTS. NOW.
How do you do that? One good way is to line up with the IWW and start organising your mates to do same. Together we can change the world. There is no reason why we have to suffer the fools we have in control of the wealth we create now. And, if we want a future, we'd better get organised now. If nothing else, the prospects of climate change make that a necessity.
