Posted 6 months ago on Nov. 19, 2012, 3:58 p.m. EST by Misaki
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Some readers might be familiar with this proposal. For those who are not, these two recent threads explain it:
The closest anyone has come to supporting the specific idea is this blog post by Paul Krugman, the most popular economics blogger with ~700k Twitter followers: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/what-you-add-is-what-you-get/
I have explained in the past how the middle class is to blame for high unemployment by not supporting more government spending and taxation. This is why most people in poverty are politically independent, instead of supporting the Democratic party.
However, at the same time no one is really at risk of dying from being poor, even though it might require going to prison to survive. The result is that poor people have more children than rich people. If you think that rich people are "mean", then we are reducing the number of mean people who have children with how things are.
The current best explanation for why there has not been more support of the idea of working less by economists is that they view the middle class as mean and do not feel it is morally justifiable to support something that would help the middle class by giving them more time.
Is this a good reason for not supporting the idea?