Suppose we do assume thatthe right number of additional workers of each skill isavailable, and that the new workers do not raise produc-tion costs.. What will be the result of reducing t
Trang 1en-Let us take the first case We assume that the workingWeek is cut from forty hours to thirty, with no change inhourly pay If there is substantial unemployment whenthis plan is put into effect, the plan will no doubt provideadditional jobs We cannot assume that it will providesufficient additional jobs, however, to maintain the samepayrolls and the same number of man-hours as before,unless we make the unlikely assumptions that in each in-dustry there has been exactly the same percentage of un-employment and that the new men and women employedare no less efficient at their special tasks on the averagethan those who had already been employed But suppose
we do make these assumptions Suppose we do assume thatthe right number of additional workers of each skill isavailable, and that the new workers do not raise produc-tion costs What will be the result of reducing the work-ing week from forty hours to thirty ¢without any increase inhourly pay)?
Trang 2ÓO E C O N O M I C S I N ONE L E S S O N
Though more workers will be employed, each will heworking fewer hours, and there will, therefore, be no netincrease in man-hours It is unlikely that there will beany significant increase in production Total payrolls and
"purchasing power" will be no larger All that will havehappened, even under the most favorable assumptions(which would seldom be realized) is that the workers pre-viously employed will subsidize, in effect, the workerspreviously unemployed For in order that the new work-ers will individually receive three-fourths as many dollars
a week as the old workers used to receive, the old workerswill themselves now individually receive only three-fourths
as many dollars a week as previously It is true that the oldworkers will now work fewer hours; but this purchase ofmore leisure at a high price is presumably not a decisionthey have made for its own sake: it is a sacrifice made to
provide others with jobs.
The labor union leaders who demand shorter weeks to
"spread the work" usually recognize this, and thereforethey put the proposal forward in a form in which everyone
is supposed to eat his cake and have it too Reduce theworking week from forty hours to thirty, they tell us, toprovide more jobs; but compensate for the shorter week
by increasing the hourly rate of pay by 33 ¾ per cent The
workers employed, say, were previously getting an average
of $40 a week for forty hours work; in order that they maystill get $40 for only thirty hours work, the hourly rate ofpay must be advanced to an average of $i.33¾
What would be the consequences of such a plan? The
Trang 3SPREAD-THE-WORK SCHEMES 6 l
first and most obvious consequence would be to raise costs
of production If we assume that the workers, when ously employed for forty hours, were getting less thanthe level of production costs, prices and profits made pos-
previ-sible, then they could have got the hourly increase without
reducing the length of the working week They could, inother words, have worked the same number of hours and
got their total weekly incomes increased l·y one-third,
in-stead of merely getting, as they are under the new hour week, the same weekly income as before But if,under the forty-hour week, the workers were already get-ting as high a wage as the level of production costs andprices made possible (and the very unemployment theyare trying to cure may be a sign that they were alreadygetting even more than this), then the increase in produc-tion costs as a result of the 33¾ per cent increase inhourly wage rates will be much greater than the existingstate of prices, production and costs can stand
thirty-The result of the higher wage rate, therefore, will be amuch greater unemployment than before The least effi-cient firms will be thrown out of business, and the leastefficient workers will be thrown out of jobs Productionwill be reduced all around the circle Higher productioncosts and scarcer supplies will tend to raise prices, so thatworkers can buy less with the same dollar wages; on theother hand, the increased unemployment will shrink de-mand and hence tend to lower prices What ultimatelyhappens to the prices of goods will depend upon whatmonetary policies are then followed But if a policy of
Trang 4Ó2 ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON
monetary inflation is pursued, to enable prices to rise sothat the increased hourly wages can be paid, this will
merely be a disguised way of reducing real wage rates, so
that these will return, in terms of the amount of goodsthey can purchase, to the same real rate as before The re-sult would then be the same as if the working week had
been reduced without an increase in hourly wage rates.
And the results of that have already been discussed.The spread-the-work schemes, in brief, rest on the samesort of illusion that we have been considering The peoplewho support such schemes think only of the employmentthey would provide for particular persons or groups; they
do not stop to consider what their whole effect would be
on everybody
The spread-the-work schemes rest also, as we began bypointing out, on the false assumption that there is just afixed amount of work to be done There could be nogreater fallacy There is no limit to the amount of work
to be done as long as any human need or wish that workcould fill remains unsatisfied In a modern exchange econ-omy, the most work will be done when prices, costs andwages are in the best relations to each other What theserelations are we shall later consider
Trang 5de-They see soldiers being turned loose on the labor ket Where is the "purchasing power" going to come from
mar-to employ them? If we assume that the public budget isbeing balanced, the answer is simple The government willcease to support the soldiers But the taxpayers will beallowed to retain the funds that were previously takenfrom them in order to support the soldiers And the tax-payers will then have additional funds to buy additionalgoods Civilian demand, in other words, will be increased,and will give employment to the added labor force repre-sented by the soldiers
63
Trang 664 ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON
If the soldiers have been supported by an unbalancedbudget—that is, by government borrowing and other forms
of deficit financing—the case is somewhat different Butthat raises a different question: we shall consider the effects
of deficit financing in a later chapter It is enough to nize that deficit financing is irrelevant to the point that hasjust been made; for if we assume that there is any advan-tage in a budget deficit, then precisely the same budgetdeficit could be maintained as before by simply reducingtaxes by the amount previously spent in supporting thewartime army
recog-But the demobilization will not leave us economicallyjust where we were before it started The soldiers previ-ously supported by civilians will not become merely civil-ians supported by other civilians They will become self-supporting civilians If we assume that the men who wouldotherwise have been retained in the armed forces are nolonger needed for defense, then their retention would havebeen sheer waste They would have been unproductive.The taxpayers, in return for supporting them, would havegot nothing But now the taxpayers turn over this part oftheir funds to them as fellow civilians in return for equiva-lent goods or services Total national production, thewealth of everybody, is higher
2
The same reasoning applies to civilian government cials whenever they are retained in excessive numbers and
Trang 7offi-DISBANDING TROOPS AND BUREAUCRATS 6 5
do not perform services for the community reasonablyequivalent to the remuneration they receive Yet wheneverany effort is made to cut down the number of unnecessaryofficeholders the cry is certain to be raised that this action
is "deflationary." Would you remove the "purchasingpower" from these officials? Would you injure the land-lords and tradesmen who depend on that purchasingpower? You are simply cutting down "the national income"and helping to bring about or intensify a depression.Once again the fallacy comes from looking at the effects
of this action only on the dismissed officeholders selves and on the particular tradesmen who depend uponthem Once again it is forgotten that, if these bureaucratsare not retained in office, the taxpayers will be permitted
them-to keep the money that was formerly taken from them forthe support of the bureaucrats Once again it is forgottenthat the taxpayers' income and purchasing power go up
by at least as much as the income and purchasing power
of the former officeholders go down If the particular keepers who formerly got the business of these bureaucratslose trade, other shopkeepers elsewhere gain at least asmuch Washington is less prosperous, and can, perhaps,support fewer stores; but other towns can support more.Once again, however, the matter does not end there.The country is not merely as well off without the super-fluous officeholders as it would have been had it retained
shop-them It is much better off For the officeholders must now seek private jobs or set up private businesses And the added purchasing power of the taxpayers, as we noted in
Trang 86 6 ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON
the case of the soldiers, will encourage this But the officeholders can take private jobs only by supplying equivalentservices to those who provide the jobs—or, rather, to thecustomers of the employers who provide the jobs Instead
of being parasites, they become productive men andwomen
I must insist again that in all this I am not talking ofpublic officeholders whose services are really needed Nec-essary policemen, firemen, street cleaners, health officers,judges, legislators and executives perform productive serv-ices as important as those of anyone in private industry.They make it possible for private industry to function in
an atmosphere of law, order, freedom and peace But theirjustification consists in the utility of their services It doesnot consist in the "purchasing power" they possess by virtue
of being on the public payroll
This "purchasing power" argument is, when one siders it seriously, fantastic It could just as well apply to
con-a rcon-acketeer or con-a thief who robs you After he tcon-akes yourmoney he has more purchasing power He supports with
it bars, restaurants, night clubs, tailors, perhaps automobileworkers But for every job his spending provides, your ownspending must provide one less, because you have thatmuch less to spend Just so the taxpayers provide one lessjob for every job supplied by the spending of officeholders.When your money is taken by a thief, you get nothing inreturn When your money is taken through taxes to sup-port needless bureaucrats, precisely the same situationexists We are lucky, indeed, if the needless bureaucrats
Trang 9DISBANDING TROOPS AND BUREAUCRATS 6j
are mere easy-going loafers They are more likely today to
be energetic reformers busily discouraging and disruptingproduction
When we can find no better argument for the retention
of any group of officeholders than that of retaining theirpurchasing power, it is a sign that the time has come to getrid of them
Trang 10C H A P T E R X
THE F E T I S H OF F U L L
E M P L O Y M E N T
P T T ¼ E economic goal of any nation, as of any individual,
JL is to get the greatest results with the least effort.The whole economic progress of mankind has consisted
in getting more production with the same labor It is forthis reason that men began putting burdens on the backs
of mules instead of on their own; that they went on toinvent the wheel and the wagon, the railroad and themotor truck It is for this reason that men used their in-genuity to develop a hundred thousand labor-saving inven-tions
All this is so elementary that one would blush to state
it if it were not being constantly forgotten by those whocoin and circulate the new slogans Translated into na-tional terms, this first principle means that our real ob-jective is to maximize production In doing this, full em-ployment—that is, the absence of involuntary idleness—becomes a necessary by-product But production is the end,employment merely the means We cannot continuouslyhave the fullest production without full employment But
we can very easily have full employment without full duction
pro-68
Trang 11THE FETISH OF FULL EMPLOYMENT 69
Primitive tribes are naked, and wretchedly fed andhoused, but they do not suffer from unemployment Chinaand India are incomparably poorer than ourselves, but themain trouble from which they suffer is primitive produc-tion methods (which are both a cause and a consequence
of a shortage of capital) and not unemployment Nothing
is easier to achieve than full employment, once it is vorced from the goal of full production and taken as anend in itself Hitler provided full employment with ahuge armament program The war provided full employ-ment for every nation involved The slave labor in Ger-many had full employment Prisons and chain gangs havefull employment Coercion can always provide full em-ployment
di-Yet our legislators do not present Full Production bills
in Congress but Full Employment bills Even committees
of business men recommend "a Presidents Commission onFull Employment," not on Full Production, or even on
Full Employment and Full Production Everywhere the
means is erected into the end, and the end itself is gotten
for-Wages and employment are discussed as if they had norelation to productivity and output On the assumptionthat there is only a fixed amount of work to be done, theconclusion is drawn that a thirty-hour week will providemore jobs and will therefore be preferable to a forty-hourweek A hundred make-work practices of labor unions areconfusedly tolerated When a Petrillo threatens to put aradio station out of business unless it employs twice as
Trang 127© ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON
many musicians as it needs, he is supported by part of thepublic because he is after all merely trying to create jobs.When we had our WPA, it was considered a mark ofgenius for the administrators to think of projects that em-ployed the largest number of men in relation to the value
of the work performed—in other words, in which laborwas least efficient
It would be far better, if that were the choice—which itisn't—to have maximum production with part of the popu-lation supported in idleness by undisguised relief than toprovide "full employment" by so many forms of disguisedmake-work that production is disorganized The progress
of civilization has meant the reduction of employment, notits increase It is because we have become increasinglywealthy as a nation that we have been able virtually toeliminate child labor, to remove the necessity of work formany of the aged and to make it unnecessary for millions
of women to take jobs A much smaller proportion of theAmerican population needs to work than that, say, ofChina or of Russia The real question is not whether therewill be 50,000,000 or 60,000,000 jobs in America in 1950,but how much shall we produce, and what, in consequence,will be our standard of living? The problem of distribu-tion, on which all the stress is being put today, is afterall more easily solved the more there is to distribute
We can clarify our thinking if we put our chief phasis where it belongs—on policies that will maximizeproduction