6 ms·

A 20 hour work week should become the norm. We will soon have 10 billion by 2050. Everything is going to be automated. There isn’t going to be a lot of jobs ar

A 20 hour work week should become the norm. We will soon have 10 billion by 2050. Everything is going to be automated. There isn’t going to be a lot of jobs around. If we still survive 2050 and continue having a money/currency.employment based economy, we will have to drastically reduce work hours. But that’s a BIG IF ..we’ll see what the future holds.

cercatrova 6y ago
How do you reconcile this with past predictions that we will have a 20 hour work week today, given improvements in efficiency, and yet we have half as many workers instead?
- ddingus 6y ago
  Desire for higher margins. That's really the whole story. Otherwise, the difference would have went into training, automation, expanding the business, etc... Some companies did it that way. Tektronix, under it's original founder trained everyone, funded startups, and generally expanded both the talent pool and number of companies operating in the region. Made a nice profit, but not the peak possible profit. There are many other examples. See big names in the midwest were headed down similar roads.
  - cercatrova 6y ago
    I understand that, my question is moreso how one would make such a 20 hour work week possible economically? It seems like on an individual scale that companies are more profitable with workers working only 20 hour weeks. I honestly think most companies are not actually efficient (see Bullshit Jobs by David Graber) but merely think that they are. Otherwise, there would not be such low hanging fruit as this still present.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      The question is political. As things stand right now? Not possible economically, because any gains will be rolled up in to lower head counts. There have been different value judgements in the past. They can change again in the future too. Will they? Hard to say. If people end up generally happy? Probably not.
      - cercatrova 6y ago
        But my point is that they'd make more money keeping headcount the same and cutting hours (keeping compensation the same of course, you're providing more value in half the time) than simply cutting half the workforce. It's like the saying, you can't make a baby with 9 women in a month.
        ddingus 6y ago
        For a lot of people, that means having to find another job, unless compensation remains the same.
        cercatrova 6y ago
        Yes, in this scenario compensation remains the same. Salaried, not hourly. It would definitely suck if you provided more value yet got paid half.
        jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        How is it same value when there is automation replacing 20 man hours? Population increases exponentially. As does consumption. Resources are limited. We will all live smaller. Thats what happens when we exceed carrying capacity.
        cercatrova 6y ago
        Certain jobs sure. And we're not there yet. Of course once full automation exists there won't be any jobs anymore. You will also find that Malthusian explosions don't actually happen among humans. See the declining birth rates across much of the first world.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    That’s not necessarily true. AMZN has had historically low razor thin net profit margins. I don’t think it has ever been more than 5%. Everything that is reinvested from the gross margins goes back into the economy for growth and jobs. But with automation, it will not go up in the beginning but will eventually grow only when automation gains outstrips hiring costs. I suspect Amazon has the capability to bring in more automation and cut existing jobs for increasing margins. They are just keeping the jobs on for now. There is no need for them to keep hiring like they do. A lot..not all..can be amenable to automation. That’s just one example. I am sure it’s true for Uber and Airbnb and the like.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      I did not speak to net margins.
      - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        Ok. What did ‘higher margins’ refer to..sorry, I assumed net profit margins.
        cercatrova 6y ago
        Gross margins. Of course if they made more gross profit and reinvested it all, net profit would look the same. Making 100 bucks and reinvesting 100 is the same as making 10 bucks and reinvesting 10, in net profit terms, so net profit is not really a useful metric when judging productivity.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        It is being invested. And that means capital being ploughed back..new products and new jobs created. And more taxes. Why doesn’t that count? More 20 hour/week jobs. With more young people educated and coming out of schools..and a raising population, this is how economy keeps chugging. When Amazon builds more warehouse hubs, there is construction, more automation jobs, more drivers, more consumption, more taxes and more revenue. Most important ..more jobs. What is an acceptable alternative?
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  It will happen in other counties first before the USA because most people rely on full employment for their health insurance. The scenario is already playing out in other countries.

cercatrova 6y ago

How do you reconcile this with past predictions that we will have a 20 hour work week today, given improvements in efficiency, and yet we have half as many workers instead?

ddingus 6y ago
Desire for higher margins. That's really the whole story. Otherwise, the difference would have went into training, automation, expanding the business, etc... Some companies did it that way. Tektronix, under it's original founder trained everyone, funded startups, and generally expanded both the talent pool and number of companies operating in the region. Made a nice profit, but not the peak possible profit. There are many other examples. See big names in the midwest were headed down similar roads.
- cercatrova 6y ago
  I understand that, my question is moreso how one would make such a 20 hour work week possible economically? It seems like on an individual scale that companies are more profitable with workers working only 20 hour weeks. I honestly think most companies are not actually efficient (see Bullshit Jobs by David Graber) but merely think that they are. Otherwise, there would not be such low hanging fruit as this still present.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    The question is political. As things stand right now? Not possible economically, because any gains will be rolled up in to lower head counts. There have been different value judgements in the past. They can change again in the future too. Will they? Hard to say. If people end up generally happy? Probably not.
    - cercatrova 6y ago
      But my point is that they'd make more money keeping headcount the same and cutting hours (keeping compensation the same of course, you're providing more value in half the time) than simply cutting half the workforce. It's like the saying, you can't make a baby with 9 women in a month.
      - ddingus 6y ago
        For a lot of people, that means having to find another job, unless compensation remains the same.
        cercatrova 6y ago
        Yes, in this scenario compensation remains the same. Salaried, not hourly. It would definitely suck if you provided more value yet got paid half.
        jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        How is it same value when there is automation replacing 20 man hours? Population increases exponentially. As does consumption. Resources are limited. We will all live smaller. Thats what happens when we exceed carrying capacity.
        cercatrova 6y ago
        Certain jobs sure. And we're not there yet. Of course once full automation exists there won't be any jobs anymore. You will also find that Malthusian explosions don't actually happen among humans. See the declining birth rates across much of the first world.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  That’s not necessarily true. AMZN has had historically low razor thin net profit margins. I don’t think it has ever been more than 5%. Everything that is reinvested from the gross margins goes back into the economy for growth and jobs. But with automation, it will not go up in the beginning but will eventually grow only when automation gains outstrips hiring costs. I suspect Amazon has the capability to bring in more automation and cut existing jobs for increasing margins. They are just keeping the jobs on for now. There is no need for them to keep hiring like they do. A lot..not all..can be amenable to automation. That’s just one example. I am sure it’s true for Uber and Airbnb and the like.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    I did not speak to net margins.
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      Ok. What did ‘higher margins’ refer to..sorry, I assumed net profit margins.
      - cercatrova 6y ago
        Gross margins. Of course if they made more gross profit and reinvested it all, net profit would look the same. Making 100 bucks and reinvesting 100 is the same as making 10 bucks and reinvesting 10, in net profit terms, so net profit is not really a useful metric when judging productivity.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        It is being invested. And that means capital being ploughed back..new products and new jobs created. And more taxes. Why doesn’t that count? More 20 hour/week jobs. With more young people educated and coming out of schools..and a raising population, this is how economy keeps chugging. When Amazon builds more warehouse hubs, there is construction, more automation jobs, more drivers, more consumption, more taxes and more revenue. Most important ..more jobs. What is an acceptable alternative?
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
It will happen in other counties first before the USA because most people rely on full employment for their health insurance. The scenario is already playing out in other countries.