6 ms·

Even if it is not found to be acceptable now (which might sadly turn out to be the case even in Sweden), at least when jobs start to dry out, people will realiz

by slizard 10y ago

Even if it is not found to be acceptable now (which might sadly turn out to be the case even in Sweden), at least when jobs start to dry out, people will realize that an intermediate solution to increasing unemployment is letting people work less -- hopefully for similar pay.

zepto 10y ago
How will people get similar pay for less work?
- bencollier49 10y ago
  Deflation?
- ptaipale 10y ago
  By wishful thinking. (I.e. the theory is that people are so much happier with shorter working hours that they come up with the same productivity. However, with a drop from 8 to 6 hours this doesn't really happen, although the productivity does not drop 25 % as it would without any dynamic effects).
  - saurik 10y ago
    No: you misunderstand this line of thinking, as the goal of this subthread is not to increase efficiency or health but to mitigate unemployment in the wake of automation. The argument is similar to a minumum wage increase, where we pay people more for the same work, and about which you can make the same backhanded complaint; only instead of helping only the people with jobs (as a minimum wage increase doesn't affect you if you do not already have a wage), it brings more people into the job force while having the same effect on the bottom line of businesses (that they are paying more for the same output, only instead of giving more money to one person they are giving that money to more people). The real issues are that it assumes work that scales well to having more people involved and that it breaks the market for low-value work; but the latter issue is the same core problem with mimumum wage increases, and the person who commented with this understands, saying this is only a way to transition a society which refuses to admit basic income as a better solution due to the "welfare state" argument (which is really the same reasonable defense of the minimum wage, as well).
- pcmaffey 10y ago
  Isn't that the point of technological efficiency? If only that surplus didn't just go to the 1%...
  - adharmad 10y ago
    As a curosity - why should the surplus go to everyone? Shouldn't it go to the initiator of the innovation? The market distinguishes between the users (eg - people using MS Excel or Google search) and the initiators (in this case Microsoft or Google). Put in another way - would people be as efficient if we remove the tool they are using for the increased technological efficiency?
achamayou 10y ago
It's been tried elsewhere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35-hour_workweek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35-hour_workweek), and it's not been a massive success. It certainly hasn't made a dent in the unemployment figures. We may be further from the jobs drying out than we think we are, and humans may have an ability to generate "work" for themselves greater than is generally thought. Among possible explanations anyway, there are surely many more :)
- user5994461 10y ago
  It was only tried in France. It's a different environment.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    France is not just a trial. It's the current working hours law, since 2000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35-hour_workweek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35-hour_workweek And it hasn't been a massive success, except that employees mostly like it. But the unemployment level is roughly the same 10 % as it was before 2000, and the last time French government did not have budget deficit is still 1974.
    - user5994461 10y ago
      It's the working hours for some jobs.
Eridrus 10y ago
I don't understand why we expect people to be paid the same for less work. Given the benefits of a shorter work week accrue primarily to workers, why do we not advocate for giving them the flexibility to work fewer hours if they want to? It's harder to make this argument in software, but in shift-based employment this should almost be a no brainer.
- eslaught 10y ago
  > shift-based employment this should almost be a no brainer In the US at least they already do, but probably not for the reasons you'd expect. US companies only have to pay benefits for employees to work >= 40 hours/week. So 2 employees working 20 hours/week costs less than 1 employee working 40 hours/week. (Of course this is not beneficial to the employees.)
  - Eridrus 10y ago
    The US has the obvious issue where healthcare is tied to employment and working less hours is mandatory, not voluntary.
- eropple 10y ago
  > I don't understand why we expect people to be paid the same for less work. Because it's the only way to keep the ongoing and increasingly shaky fiction that "we need everybody to work" hanging together? Foolish patches on the status quo, like "pay people more for less work", are the only way forward until we adult up and realize that the welfare state is both inevitable and beneficial (even to the self-anointed "makers" so busily hoisting themselves up on their crosses).
  - chongli 10y ago
    "we need everybody to work" Getting past this fiction is only the beginning. Many, many people find meaning in their lives through performing a task that others deem necessary. When nobody is necessary, the economy decouples from the people. We actually have examples of societies that operate like this right now: Eritrea [0] for one. The government of that country has decided it has no real use for most of its people. It makes business deals with foreign resource extraction companies directly. Many people live in abject poverty while the government enriches itself and does little/nothing to help them. Assuming we do reach a state where we no longer sustain the fiction that we need people to work, the question becomes "How do the unnecessariat [1] justify their own existance to those who control capital?" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea [1] https://morecrows.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/unnecessariat/ https://morecrows.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/unnecessariat/
adharmad 10y ago
The problem is that, capital will flee any company that tries this to more efficient competitors. As long as it is a public company, there is no easy way to try this without any repercussions to the stock price. Countries can legislate this, but they will not be able to prevent their economies from stagnating like some of the european countries. (Flight of capital, companies moving their workforce to other places etc.) The only way (as I see it) is if we, as a society accept lesser returns on our investments (via our 401Ks and pension plans) and allow that to be reflected in the compensation and productivity of the workforce. With the increasing life expectancy, even that can turn out to be a problem in the long run, but we cross that bridge when we reach it.....
- xchaotic 10y ago
  This is very true, it's all noble and such, but for now now markets and investors follow quarterly earnings guidance and most executives are not even allowed to make decisions that improve civilisation - the role of a company is to make money not make everyone happy. Let's work with that as a starting point and not some unrealistic ideas.
emodendroket 10y ago
Why would they do that instead of doing what they've done until now and accumulating wealth at an accelerating rate? Jobs have been getting less stable for a while already.
throwaway1X2 10y ago
"at least when jobs start to dry out, people will realize that an intermediate solution to increasing unemployment is letting people work less -- hopefully for similar pay" That doesn't check out. Either working shorter hours will produce the same result. This is true in knowledge workers etc., being more rested and well-being, and cutting on jabbering in the kitchen, you can produce the same net result easily in 5-6 hours a day instead of being overworked, sitting like a zombie for 10 hours. Then, while you pay the same for shorter hours, there will be no incentive to employ new workers, you pay the same, you get the same results, it is only done in shorter hours and pay-per-hour increased, but you don't need more workforce. Or working shorter hours will produce less results. This is true in "mechanical" jobs - e.g., car production lines, or in "overwatch" jobs - e.g., power plant control rooms. Then you will need more workers and have no incentive to pay the same for less results and then pay the same for new workers to make up the results. Yes, you can pay the same numerically for less hours (i.e. when forced by law), but now producing a unit of car, flour, bread, delivering a package from e-shop, programming a feature in software system costs more and the currency will be devalued. So you will work less hours, get the same pay (numerically), but for the same number, you will be able to buy less hours from others (whether it is a product or a service).

by slizard 10y ago

zepto 10y ago

How will people get similar pay for less work?

bencollier49 10y ago
Deflation?
ptaipale 10y ago
By wishful thinking. (I.e. the theory is that people are so much happier with shorter working hours that they come up with the same productivity. However, with a drop from 8 to 6 hours this doesn't really happen, although the productivity does not drop 25 % as it would without any dynamic effects).
- saurik 10y ago
  No: you misunderstand this line of thinking, as the goal of this subthread is not to increase efficiency or health but to mitigate unemployment in the wake of automation. The argument is similar to a minumum wage increase, where we pay people more for the same work, and about which you can make the same backhanded complaint; only instead of helping only the people with jobs (as a minimum wage increase doesn't affect you if you do not already have a wage), it brings more people into the job force while having the same effect on the bottom line of businesses (that they are paying more for the same output, only instead of giving more money to one person they are giving that money to more people). The real issues are that it assumes work that scales well to having more people involved and that it breaks the market for low-value work; but the latter issue is the same core problem with mimumum wage increases, and the person who commented with this understands, saying this is only a way to transition a society which refuses to admit basic income as a better solution due to the "welfare state" argument (which is really the same reasonable defense of the minimum wage, as well).
pcmaffey 10y ago
Isn't that the point of technological efficiency? If only that surplus didn't just go to the 1%...
- adharmad 10y ago
  As a curosity - why should the surplus go to everyone? Shouldn't it go to the initiator of the innovation? The market distinguishes between the users (eg - people using MS Excel or Google search) and the initiators (in this case Microsoft or Google). Put in another way - would people be as efficient if we remove the tool they are using for the increased technological efficiency?

achamayou 10y ago

It's been tried elsewhere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35-hour_workweek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35-hour_workweek), and it's not been a massive success. It certainly hasn't made a dent in the unemployment figures. We may be further from the jobs drying out than we think we are, and humans may have an ability to generate "work" for themselves greater than is generally thought. Among possible explanations anyway, there are surely many more :)

user5994461 10y ago
It was only tried in France. It's a different environment.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  France is not just a trial. It's the current working hours law, since 2000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35-hour_workweek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35-hour_workweek And it hasn't been a massive success, except that employees mostly like it. But the unemployment level is roughly the same 10 % as it was before 2000, and the last time French government did not have budget deficit is still 1974.
  - user5994461 10y ago
    It's the working hours for some jobs.

Eridrus 10y ago

I don't understand why we expect people to be paid the same for less work. Given the benefits of a shorter work week accrue primarily to workers, why do we not advocate for giving them the flexibility to work fewer hours if they want to? It's harder to make this argument in software, but in shift-based employment this should almost be a no brainer.

eslaught 10y ago
> shift-based employment this should almost be a no brainer In the US at least they already do, but probably not for the reasons you'd expect. US companies only have to pay benefits for employees to work >= 40 hours/week. So 2 employees working 20 hours/week costs less than 1 employee working 40 hours/week. (Of course this is not beneficial to the employees.)
- Eridrus 10y ago
  The US has the obvious issue where healthcare is tied to employment and working less hours is mandatory, not voluntary.
eropple 10y ago
> I don't understand why we expect people to be paid the same for less work. Because it's the only way to keep the ongoing and increasingly shaky fiction that "we need everybody to work" hanging together? Foolish patches on the status quo, like "pay people more for less work", are the only way forward until we adult up and realize that the welfare state is both inevitable and beneficial (even to the self-anointed "makers" so busily hoisting themselves up on their crosses).
- chongli 10y ago
  "we need everybody to work" Getting past this fiction is only the beginning. Many, many people find meaning in their lives through performing a task that others deem necessary. When nobody is necessary, the economy decouples from the people. We actually have examples of societies that operate like this right now: Eritrea [0] for one. The government of that country has decided it has no real use for most of its people. It makes business deals with foreign resource extraction companies directly. Many people live in abject poverty while the government enriches itself and does little/nothing to help them. Assuming we do reach a state where we no longer sustain the fiction that we need people to work, the question becomes "How do the unnecessariat [1] justify their own existance to those who control capital?" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea [1] https://morecrows.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/unnecessariat/ https://morecrows.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/unnecessariat/

adharmad 10y ago

The problem is that, capital will flee any company that tries this to more efficient competitors. As long as it is a public company, there is no easy way to try this without any repercussions to the stock price. Countries can legislate this, but they will not be able to prevent their economies from stagnating like some of the european countries. (Flight of capital, companies moving their workforce to other places etc.) The only way (as I see it) is if we, as a society accept lesser returns on our investments (via our 401Ks and pension plans) and allow that to be reflected in the compensation and productivity of the workforce. With the increasing life expectancy, even that can turn out to be a problem in the long run, but we cross that bridge when we reach it.....

xchaotic 10y ago
This is very true, it's all noble and such, but for now now markets and investors follow quarterly earnings guidance and most executives are not even allowed to make decisions that improve civilisation - the role of a company is to make money not make everyone happy. Let's work with that as a starting point and not some unrealistic ideas.

emodendroket 10y ago

Why would they do that instead of doing what they've done until now and accumulating wealth at an accelerating rate? Jobs have been getting less stable for a while already.

throwaway1X2 10y ago

"at least when jobs start to dry out, people will realize that an intermediate solution to increasing unemployment is letting people work less -- hopefully for similar pay" That doesn't check out. Either working shorter hours will produce the same result. This is true in knowledge workers etc., being more rested and well-being, and cutting on jabbering in the kitchen, you can produce the same net result easily in 5-6 hours a day instead of being overworked, sitting like a zombie for 10 hours. Then, while you pay the same for shorter hours, there will be no incentive to employ new workers, you pay the same, you get the same results, it is only done in shorter hours and pay-per-hour increased, but you don't need more workforce. Or working shorter hours will produce less results. This is true in "mechanical" jobs - e.g., car production lines, or in "overwatch" jobs - e.g., power plant control rooms. Then you will need more workers and have no incentive to pay the same for less results and then pay the same for new workers to make up the results. Yes, you can pay the same numerically for less hours (i.e. when forced by law), but now producing a unit of car, flour, bread, delivering a package from e-shop, programming a feature in software system costs more and the currency will be devalued. So you will work less hours, get the same pay (numerically), but for the same number, you will be able to buy less hours from others (whether it is a product or a service).