4 ms·

Some economists in Spain say that starting from this premise, and trying to apply it universally for the economy may have disastrous results. The problem here

Some economists in Spain say that starting from this premise, and trying to apply it universally for the economy may have disastrous results. The problem here is the effect on productivity. While there are some jobs where decreasing 20% of working hours while keeping productivity constant may be perfectly feasible, there are lots of jobs in Spain's precarious service-oriented economy where this is not possible. For example, take all jobs depending on tourism: how is a waiter going to produce the same in four days of work than in five? The same applies for Spain's public sector. Many public workers already have very good working conditions, but more importantly, the same effect described above also applies to them: it is not clear whether their working hours can be compressed without a significant loss of productivity. To be clear I'm not against the idea, as there may be some merit to it if applied reasonably and on a tactical level, as part of much greater economic reforms. But I fear this is not what will happen; rather, populist politicians will take it and run with it because it sounds good, without any regards for its real implications, and without addressing the much harder and endemic problems of the Spanish economy such as the eye-watering unemployment levels and the lack of opportunities for our youth.

teataster 6y ago
> how is a waiter going to produce the same in four days of work than in five? By not being tired on the fifth, not taking wrong orders and not dropping glasses. Same as a software engineer would. I see your point tho, and it is very valid. I am just playing angels advocate here. But, iirc, earliest research on the topic was conducted in a hospital, which is a services business, same as a restaurant. Increases in production (I said production and not productivity) were found. Research is not solid.
- yiyus 6y ago
  > By not being tired on the fifth, not taking wrong orders and not dropping glasses This is not an actual problem that needs a solution.
neilwilson 6y ago
"The problem here is the effect on productivity." If you make labour 'reassuringly expensive', then the only way to maintain output is to invest in capital deepening. Which is the only place productivity comes from. Capitalists need to start doing some capitalism.
- arcturus17 6y ago
  I'm not sure your comment addresses anything I've said, except nitpicking a single sentence and taking it out on a tangent. What kinds of capital deepening can one do for our tourism-oriented and increasingly public-sector-dependent service economy?
  - neilwilson 6y ago
    If that's your view, then that means that capitalist oriented structures running those operations cannot justify their profit share. Since capital depending - doing more with less - is the only reason they are allowed to take a profit in the first place. We can, of course, move all those operations to the Job Guarantee if that is your view of capitalism. Personally I'm more optimistic about improved methods and machinery.
    - Rule35 6y ago
      > capitalist oriented structures running those operations cannot justify their profit share They don't have to justify anything, they're profitable. Out compete them, with your 80% workers, if you think it's a better way. > Personally I'm more optimistic about improved methods and machinery. The companies are optimistic about machinery too, as it'll help them achieve the elusive 0% worker. It feels like you're trying to devalue humans out of any possibility of employment, not help them.
      - neilwilson 6y ago
        "Out compete them, with your 80% workers, if you think it's a better way." Once there is a guaranteed alternative job available - to balance the power discrepancy - then competition can be turned up to 11. At which point these operations 'profit' will be seen as what it is - under bidding labour in a system that is systemically short of work. Workers need that 'no deal' option adding. And businesses need the "what about the jobs, can I have a bailout" option removing. Then competition will be 100% fair - and effective. Driving forward the capital improvements we need to have a better standard of living.

teataster 6y ago

> how is a waiter going to produce the same in four days of work than in five? By not being tired on the fifth, not taking wrong orders and not dropping glasses. Same as a software engineer would. I see your point tho, and it is very valid. I am just playing angels advocate here. But, iirc, earliest research on the topic was conducted in a hospital, which is a services business, same as a restaurant. Increases in production (I said production and not productivity) were found. Research is not solid.

yiyus 6y ago
> By not being tired on the fifth, not taking wrong orders and not dropping glasses This is not an actual problem that needs a solution.

neilwilson 6y ago

"The problem here is the effect on productivity." If you make labour 'reassuringly expensive', then the only way to maintain output is to invest in capital deepening. Which is the only place productivity comes from. Capitalists need to start doing some capitalism.

arcturus17 6y ago
I'm not sure your comment addresses anything I've said, except nitpicking a single sentence and taking it out on a tangent. What kinds of capital deepening can one do for our tourism-oriented and increasingly public-sector-dependent service economy?
- neilwilson 6y ago
  If that's your view, then that means that capitalist oriented structures running those operations cannot justify their profit share. Since capital depending - doing more with less - is the only reason they are allowed to take a profit in the first place. We can, of course, move all those operations to the Job Guarantee if that is your view of capitalism. Personally I'm more optimistic about improved methods and machinery.
  - Rule35 6y ago
    > capitalist oriented structures running those operations cannot justify their profit share They don't have to justify anything, they're profitable. Out compete them, with your 80% workers, if you think it's a better way. > Personally I'm more optimistic about improved methods and machinery. The companies are optimistic about machinery too, as it'll help them achieve the elusive 0% worker. It feels like you're trying to devalue humans out of any possibility of employment, not help them.
    - neilwilson 6y ago
      "Out compete them, with your 80% workers, if you think it's a better way." Once there is a guaranteed alternative job available - to balance the power discrepancy - then competition can be turned up to 11. At which point these operations 'profit' will be seen as what it is - under bidding labour in a system that is systemically short of work. Workers need that 'no deal' option adding. And businesses need the "what about the jobs, can I have a bailout" option removing. Then competition will be 100% fair - and effective. Driving forward the capital improvements we need to have a better standard of living.