3 ms·
It's simply true that, barring disaster, the next generation will have it easier with more resources for cheaper. This is because worker productivity continues
by panglott 11y ago
It's simply true that, barring disaster, the next generation will have it easier with more resources for cheaper. This is because worker productivity continues to rise.
More is produced with fewer hours worked. It's beyond me why it's taken as a given that the result should be a decreasing share of the number of people employed at a constant rate and an increase in the number of people unemployed, rather than say a decline in the number of hours worked per worker. It would be much better to shift to a 35-hour work week and hope everyone would edit Wikipedia or put on free musical performances with the extra time (or 40-hour weeks in the developing world), than shift another eighth of the population into poverty.
- totalrobe 11y agoIMO depends on the type of job. In lower skill jobs you do see exactly what you're describing (more workers fewer hours). In knowledge industries it's probably much more efficient to have fewer numbers of high performing individuals that are leveraging experience and domain knowledge as a productivity multiplier.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago>In knowledge industries it's probably much more efficient to have fewer numbers of high performing individuals that are leveraging experience and domain knowledge as a productivity multiplier. Then you would think they could receive larger amounts of vacation time than three weeks per year. Or that they could collect such fat fees as contractors that they'd only have to work part of the year.
- panglott 11y agoHm, I think the shift to part-time workers in service and industrial jobs is mostly about evading labor regulation of full-time workers and further eroding the remuneration, economic stability, and bargaining position of lower-income workers. I would hope instead for more leisure at similar pay =/