just disagreeing with it, on both economic and ethical grounds.
How so?
A wise man once said: “Imagine a world… based on voluntary relationships for mutual benefit.” I can easily see that being the sentence preceding Obama’s statement.
Not missing it, just disagreeing with it, on both economic and ethical grounds.
So you think that workers who voluntarily agree to a cut in wages or hours in order to avoid layoffs is a bad thing? How so?
*"‘just disagreeing with it, on both economic and ethical grounds.’ *
**
How so?"
Economic grounds: If a business finds it necessary to cut back on hours of employment in order to stay in business in this climate, that’s certainly understandable. Some such adjustments are certainly needed, as workers are moved from less productive to more productive sectors of the economy. There’s no reason, however, to think that a unilateral decision by workers to retrench their hours (as Obama’s speech suggests) is going to help anyone; if anything, it will make matters worse. If your employer is continuing to hire you, that’s an indication that you are still probably providing some net marginal benefit.
Ethical grounds: In the first place, if you take such an action for a “friend,” it isn’t really “selflessness”–particularly if he or she is a good friend. Obama’s use of the term “selflessness” implies that he’s suggesting making such a sacrifice on behalf of someone about whom one really does not care that much personally, a sacrifice made on general altruistic grounds. As an advocate of rational egoism, I find such a suggestion abhorrent. I provide the justification for that ethical viewpoint in Sections 2-3 of my website. BTW, I don’t think anyone ever called me a “wise man” before. I’ll try not to let it go to my head. 
“So you think that workers who voluntarily agree to a cut in wages or hours in order to avoid layoffs is a bad thing?”
No, if that’s the outcome of a voluntary arrangement between employer and employees, it could make very good sense, both economically and ethically. There wouldn’t be anything “selfless” (Obama’s word) about it at all. Perhaps my last reply to squid will make my position clearer.
Edit to add: I might mention that we may very well be looking at unpaid furloughs, at least on a small scale, in my own organization in the near future. If that happens, I will gladly accept it, since it would be much more in my rational self-interest than the possibility of being laid off. I can always use the extra time to train!
a unilateral decision by workers to retrench their hours (as Obama’s speech suggests) is going to help anyone
Well, no, he never suggested that. You seem to be attributing intent where none is indicated. I’m sure he’s intelligent enough to realize that a worker wouldn’t have the authority to make such a decision anyway.
some net marginal benefit.
How would you define that benefit? My sense ( I could be wrong) is that you approach the idea of organizational or business health strictly on the bottom line/$. With my organization, we have several indicators of health (if we want to use that term), profits being only one of them. I have turned down profitable business proposals because it was not in a particualr idividual’s interests. I and others in my organization have recently forgone annual raises and other benefits for the well being of subordinates (who may of got a job or salary cut ). I gues you could call this a “voluntary relationship for mutual benefit”. I’m going to start billing you for marketing services pretty soon . 
Obama’s use of the term “selflessness” implies that he’s suggesting making such a sacrifice on behalf of someone about whom one really does not care that much personally a sacrifice made on general altruistic grounds… I find such a suggestion abhorrent
What would make a fireman run into a burning skyscraper knowing that he wil likely lose his life to save someone he has never met? That’s not in his best interests.
Well, I think that you are taking this particular sentence from the address out of context (I really hate it when people say that!). This statement, when viewed with the other examples, is supposed to suggest if everyone is willing to voluntarily sacrifice a little bit, the country as a whole will benefit alot. Doesnt’ sound like a bad thing to me
“Well, no, he never suggested that.”
His exact words: “the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job.” Maybe I’m taking these words too literally, but it sounds to me as if he’s talking about a choice made by the workers. After all, if the decision were made by management, the individual worker wouldn’t really have much choice about it at all, so it would be a matter of necessity rather than selflessness.
Of course, if workers in agreement with management work out an arrangement to cut their hours in order to avoid a round of layoffs that nobody wants, there’s nothing inappropriate about that at all. But that’s not “selflessness”; on the contrary, it’s a way of pursuing rational self-interest.
“How would you define that benefit? My sense (I could be wrong) is that you approach the idea of organizational or business health strictly on the bottom line/$.”
Not at all. I’m looking at the matter from a praxeological rather than an economic perspective. In determining the utility of alternatives in human action, there are all kinds of considerations, including non-monetary ones. For example, the Glossary on my site defines “psychic utility” as “utility…attached to an action and deriving from the mental satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) produced by the action rather than from its physical product.” My point in my previous post was that if an employer continues to hire you, he/she/it does so because for whatever reasons your presence is regarded as beneficial to the endeavor.
“This statement, when viewed with the other examples, is supposed to suggest if everyone is willing to voluntarily sacrifice a little bit, the country as a whole will benefit alot. Doesnt’ sound like a bad thing to me.”
I’m well aware that “sacrifice” has long been a sacred cow for many, but it certainly is not from the rational egoist’s perspective. Of course, we are always giving up lower values in exchange for higher ones, but giving up a higher value for a lower one is never ethically appropriate. (To clarify, I’m talking here about what I call “objective values” on the website.) I would further argue (although this takes us far afield) that further calls to sacrifice are not what the country needs either; it is arguably the notion of sacrificing private interests to the so-called “public interest” that got us in this mess in the first place.