> This wouldn't be a "hedge against automation", it would be a catalyst for further automation. You'll reach the point where the only sensible thing for a compa

> This wouldn't be a "hedge against automation", it would be a catalyst for further automation. You'll reach the point where the only sensible thing for a company to do is to automate. If it's inevitable that x% of jobs are going to be automated in the next decade, reducing the supply of labor by x% is a reasonable hedge. Yes, it may mean that x+y% (where y is something significantly less than x) are actually automated, but IMO we are still better off. The thing is, there's some jobs that are very resistant to automation, and this will tend to spread them over more people and push their wages up by reducing supply. > But in the short run intentionally making people harder to employ doesn't make any sense to me. Right now there's a lot of talk about increasing minimum wage. I think shortening the work week is better, because it spreads the higher skilled jobs around more people and doesn't exclude people whose current labor value is less than a higher minimum wage from the work force. The 40 hour work week has been good for everyone. Do you believe 40 is the ideal number, and can't be improved upon by moving it in either way? I think that: - looming issues that may reduce demand for labor - increased productivity that the benefits of have almost all accrued to capital instead of to labor - other developed countries doing OK at 36 all argue that 40 hours may have been ideal for 1940 and something more like 36 hours is ideal for now.