What's the difference?

Downsizing the workweek is sometimes, not always, bad in the short term and small scale, not always. But longer term and larger scale, it is good and necessary if you're introducing more efficient technology. Why? Because it reduces labor surplus and makes labor expensive. Why is that good? Because expensive labor deconcentrates the national income, gets the money out to the people who actually spend it, and that additional spending upsizes markets and the sustainability of investments and your whole economy. More demand induces more supply, more consumption per capita induces more production - and there are more good destinations for investment.

How do you avoid runaway inflation? You don't avoid moderate inflation because that's part of the healthy narrowing of the income gap and deconcentration of wealth. You do avoid runaway inflation by a special design feature in the cap on the workweek. After all, you don't need to stop everyone from working after a certain number of hours per week - just the people with inflationary, money-only incentive. The ones who are doing it for love can work as long as they want.

How to separate the sheep from the goats? Simple. You require anyone who works overtime to reinvest their overtime earnings. Thus you design the cap on the workweek as a threshold, not a brick wall. It's a threshold from spending>hoarding to spending>reinvestment.

Reinvestment in what? How about in training and hiring so any overtime doesn't absorb work and worsen labor surplus but creates jobs and maintains labor balance? And companies can do it too if they parctice overtime. They can reinvest their overtime profits so they don't get hooked on the overtime "drug" and get back into short-term rush, longer-term suicide.

For more details, our layperson's handbook - Timesizing, Not Downsizing - is available from *Amazon.com