4 ms·

That would only happen if the employees with cut hours then didn't spend their now-free hours on other stuff. If they just end up twiddling their thumbs, sure,

That would only happen if the employees with cut hours then didn't spend their now-free hours on other stuff. If they just end up twiddling their thumbs, sure, maybe it's break even. Maybe the people whose hours get cut are those who need the extra time more than the extra cash. Maybe they take that extra time and use it making money elsewhere, outside of the scope of what the study could measure. Do you know what those people did with that now-free time?

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Maybe they take that extra time and use it making money elsewhere, outside of the scope of what the study could measure. A study measuring hours worked that didn't account for hours worked in other jobs would be pretty useless. > Do you know what those people did with that now-free time? Something valued at no more than their original wage, as demonstrated by the fact that they had been willing to not do it in exchange for that amount of money. Meanwhile the thing they were previously doing at work was valued at least in that amount, as demonstrated by the fact that the employer had been willing to pay that much for it.
- RangerScience 8y ago
  > Something valued at I mean, good point, almost a great point, except, by whom? There are other forms of value than money. You're right that it's unlikely they've made up the overall reduction in wages by doing something else and why, but you're missing what I'm trying to point out.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    I gather your point is that the employee gets the value rather than the rest of society. But that's just the broken window fallacy. Most companies' margins are small. More than 90% of the value typically goes to someone else -- customers, other employees, suppliers (and their employees), etc. Even the business owners for a lot of small businesses are only scraping by. There is no guarantee that 0.75X value can outweigh 1.25X value just by going to one person rather than another, and all the usual reasons to expect that it won't.
    - RangerScience 8y ago
      Oh hmm, no, that's not my point. My point is that unless the study also looked into what the people with fewer hours then did with the now-free hours, we all have insufficient information with which to make a good/bad judgement call on it. I don't follow your utilitarian math. Can you rephrase? > that the employee gets the value rather than the rest of society. I don't think drawing this line is reasonable. The employee is part of society, trying to reason from a starting point of separating them from it just seems silly. As far as I understand your argument, I definitely do not agree that it's a broken window fallacy. In your view, what is the broken window in this case? (Not the fallacy, the thing that would be the literal broken window).

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> Maybe they take that extra time and use it making money elsewhere, outside of the scope of what the study could measure. A study measuring hours worked that didn't account for hours worked in other jobs would be pretty useless. > Do you know what those people did with that now-free time? Something valued at no more than their original wage, as demonstrated by the fact that they had been willing to not do it in exchange for that amount of money. Meanwhile the thing they were previously doing at work was valued at least in that amount, as demonstrated by the fact that the employer had been willing to pay that much for it.

RangerScience 8y ago
> Something valued at I mean, good point, almost a great point, except, by whom? There are other forms of value than money. You're right that it's unlikely they've made up the overall reduction in wages by doing something else and why, but you're missing what I'm trying to point out.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  I gather your point is that the employee gets the value rather than the rest of society. But that's just the broken window fallacy. Most companies' margins are small. More than 90% of the value typically goes to someone else -- customers, other employees, suppliers (and their employees), etc. Even the business owners for a lot of small businesses are only scraping by. There is no guarantee that 0.75X value can outweigh 1.25X value just by going to one person rather than another, and all the usual reasons to expect that it won't.
  - RangerScience 8y ago
    Oh hmm, no, that's not my point. My point is that unless the study also looked into what the people with fewer hours then did with the now-free hours, we all have insufficient information with which to make a good/bad judgement call on it. I don't follow your utilitarian math. Can you rephrase? > that the employee gets the value rather than the rest of society. I don't think drawing this line is reasonable. The employee is part of society, trying to reason from a starting point of separating them from it just seems silly. As far as I understand your argument, I definitely do not agree that it's a broken window fallacy. In your view, what is the broken window in this case? (Not the fallacy, the thing that would be the literal broken window).