7 ms·

Quick refresher on productivity in economic terms: decreasing inputs = decreasing outputs UNLESS tech or technique improves. During supply and/or debt driven in

Quick refresher on productivity in economic terms: decreasing inputs = decreasing outputs UNLESS tech or technique improves. During supply and/or debt driven inflationary periods (eg. now), increased productivity = increased supply and/or decreased debt. What do these maxims of economics mean for a 4 day work week? At Beacon, nothing*. But implement this at Tyson Foods, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Waste Management, the FX trading desk at JP Morgan Chase, etc. and you get 2-6% productivity declines & some amount of increased supply-driven inflation unless you offset with new technology (eg. software, robotics) or techniques. Celebrate work from home, 4 day weeks, flex-time, etc.... but understand that as these benefits carry costs in important (not all) industries. Also, the migration to jobs having these benefits, from those important jobs that do not, drives inflation and/or illegal immigration and so-called "white collar" top-heavy joblessness risk during recession. No free lunch, even on Fridays. ** Note: UK small business situation is concerning, even if it doesn't apply to Beacon: "Office for National Statistics (ONS) data, showing that 2 million (or about 40%) of the UK's small businesses had less than three months of cash in reserves to support operations. He noted that 10% (or 200,000) were in grave danger, and 300,000 only had a few weeks of cash left."

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tharax 4y ago
That's why in my next start-up, we're making sure that each employee works 168 hours a week. We believe that maximising inputs is the only way to get results.
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  That’s some bleeding heart liberal commie bs. I make my employees bend the space time continuum to work more than 168 hours per week! <serveral bicep, rocket and fire emojis here>
- aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
  Hustle grindset!!!
musha68k 4y ago
You dropped the "UNLESS" there. Also lots of work is actually not useful. Constraints can be very good and quite often lead to qualitative outputs. There are lots of other factors at play as well e.g. more people finding employment / at higher pay to fill the gaps -> being able to spend more etc. The model is probably way more complex than that, it's not a simple function IMHO.
5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
5 day week, no-flex also has costs, it's a matter of value and perspective. So what if productivity decreases by a few % if it means we all get better work life balance. Change is not easy but over time equilibrium can be found which is not dependent on this paradigm of infinite growth.
- gms 4y ago
  Because then prices go up and the poor especially are hurt. Governments also get less revenue so are less able to assist the poor.
  - 5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
    if prices go up then some of that money should go to the poor i would be happy to pay a premium for goods and services after 6pm or 7pm (or on the weekend) if it means those "essential" workers get paid more. but of course many would not, and so people can re-evaluate their priorities. hence equilibriums can form which are more healthy than present.
dtech 4y ago
> implement this at [...] and you get 2-6% productivity declines This is the assertion this whole argument hangs on. I'd challenge it. At a farm or assembly line probably, I highly doubt it in knowledge work.
christophilus 4y ago
There’s a balance somewhere. I guarantee my 8/4 workers will outperform your 24/7 workers. Your workers will be worthless 20 hours into their eternal shift, and dead from sleep exhaustion after a few days. It’s obvious that the relationship is not as simple as one input, one output. If you work your employees 8/5, and I do the same, but with a gym break with a company-provided trainer, my employees will work fewer hours than yours, but I’d bet my productivity will win in the long run. This 4 hour work week experiment is along these lines. It’s not obvious to most of us how it will end or what impact it will have on productivity.
- Rayhem 4y ago
  > It’s obvious that the relationship is not as simple as one input, one output. Yes. It's easy to say "if we assume everything is linear...". Justifying that assumption and demonstrating that it's valid is another, significantly more difficult, thing entirely.
PeterStuer 4y ago
Beacon, and I bet the majority of the audience here, is a knowledge worker environment. You don't shed out x widgets per hour. Your result is highly variable as it involves creating bespoke, unique or novel (in a broad sense) solutions to various challanges in development. In non-rote work mood has an extreme impact on results. Rote assembly line tasks in a warehouse or factory setting, even there you will see a ramp up mistakes and accidents as the hours get beyond a certain point. The chances of these ever have been "work from home"are slim to begin.
golergka 4y ago
Hours of work are not input for knowledge work.
matsemann 4y ago
> and you get 2-6% productivity declines & some amount of increased supply-driven inflation unless you offset with new technology (eg. software, robotics) or techniques. People worked 40 hours a decade or two ago as well, and since then there's been enormous technical improvements. Why not use that improvement to work less and enjoy life, instead of chasing higher throughput in various industries?
- adamhp 4y ago
  Because capitalism.
omginternets 4y ago
thankfully, life isn’t about maximizing productivity.
nicoburns 4y ago
> 2-6% productivity declines That seems pretty good for a 20% decline in working hours! Unless I'm missing something?
- omginternets 4y ago
  It also seems likely that at least some of that 2-6% will be recovered as supporting processes and infrastructure emerges.
howmayiannoyyou 4y ago
Haters: you're missing my point, which is (a) this applies to some industries, not all; and (b) this applies to supply-driven inflationary periods and/or periods of excessive aggregate debt (public, commercial and personal). As someone who remembers 1979/80 talking to a bunch of people who may not have been born then --- we're in for a shit storm that only productivity & hard work will fix... unless USGOV finds more way to kick the can down the road.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
marcosdumay 4y ago
> Quick refresher on productivity in economic terms: decreasing inputs = decreasing outputs UNLESS tech or technique improves. Economists stopped repeating the ceteris paribus fallacy about half a century ago. At about the same time as systems modelling got mainstream. I vote for retiring the no free lunch one next.
karaterobot 4y ago
That's too simple a view of economics. What we've suspected for a long time is true: that humans don't act like robots or heat engines all the time.
aisengard 4y ago
Factories don't shut down on the weekends, they just have different groups of people come in for different shifts. A 4-day work week would just mean that they have to hire more people to fill the hours. Productivity wouldn't fall, unless they wanted it to fall.
larryett 4y ago
Are you trying to say if Amazon works less hours delivering packages , less packages will be delivered because they are already pushing every productivity edge possible? That is shocking to me. It feels like I just push these buttons and the package shows up to my door like magic. I assumed everyone has a job pushing buttons so why would we waste time pushing buttons for more than 4 days a week.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tharax 4y ago

That's why in my next start-up, we're making sure that each employee works 168 hours a week. We believe that maximising inputs is the only way to get results.

throwawayacc2 4y ago
That’s some bleeding heart liberal commie bs. I make my employees bend the space time continuum to work more than 168 hours per week! <serveral bicep, rocket and fire emojis here>
aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
Hustle grindset!!!

musha68k 4y ago

You dropped the "UNLESS" there. Also lots of work is actually not useful. Constraints can be very good and quite often lead to qualitative outputs. There are lots of other factors at play as well e.g. more people finding employment / at higher pay to fill the gaps -> being able to spend more etc. The model is probably way more complex than that, it's not a simple function IMHO.

5350-uiop-1130 4y ago

5 day week, no-flex also has costs, it's a matter of value and perspective. So what if productivity decreases by a few % if it means we all get better work life balance. Change is not easy but over time equilibrium can be found which is not dependent on this paradigm of infinite growth.

gms 4y ago
Because then prices go up and the poor especially are hurt. Governments also get less revenue so are less able to assist the poor.
- 5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
  if prices go up then some of that money should go to the poor i would be happy to pay a premium for goods and services after 6pm or 7pm (or on the weekend) if it means those "essential" workers get paid more. but of course many would not, and so people can re-evaluate their priorities. hence equilibriums can form which are more healthy than present.

dtech 4y ago

> implement this at [...] and you get 2-6% productivity declines This is the assertion this whole argument hangs on. I'd challenge it. At a farm or assembly line probably, I highly doubt it in knowledge work.

christophilus 4y ago

There’s a balance somewhere. I guarantee my 8/4 workers will outperform your 24/7 workers. Your workers will be worthless 20 hours into their eternal shift, and dead from sleep exhaustion after a few days. It’s obvious that the relationship is not as simple as one input, one output. If you work your employees 8/5, and I do the same, but with a gym break with a company-provided trainer, my employees will work fewer hours than yours, but I’d bet my productivity will win in the long run. This 4 hour work week experiment is along these lines. It’s not obvious to most of us how it will end or what impact it will have on productivity.

Rayhem 4y ago
> It’s obvious that the relationship is not as simple as one input, one output. Yes. It's easy to say "if we assume everything is linear...". Justifying that assumption and demonstrating that it's valid is another, significantly more difficult, thing entirely.

PeterStuer 4y ago

Beacon, and I bet the majority of the audience here, is a knowledge worker environment. You don't shed out x widgets per hour. Your result is highly variable as it involves creating bespoke, unique or novel (in a broad sense) solutions to various challanges in development. In non-rote work mood has an extreme impact on results. Rote assembly line tasks in a warehouse or factory setting, even there you will see a ramp up mistakes and accidents as the hours get beyond a certain point. The chances of these ever have been "work from home"are slim to begin.

golergka 4y ago

Hours of work are not input for knowledge work.

matsemann 4y ago

> and you get 2-6% productivity declines & some amount of increased supply-driven inflation unless you offset with new technology (eg. software, robotics) or techniques. People worked 40 hours a decade or two ago as well, and since then there's been enormous technical improvements. Why not use that improvement to work less and enjoy life, instead of chasing higher throughput in various industries?

adamhp 4y ago
Because capitalism.

omginternets 4y ago

thankfully, life isn’t about maximizing productivity.

nicoburns 4y ago

> 2-6% productivity declines That seems pretty good for a 20% decline in working hours! Unless I'm missing something?

omginternets 4y ago
It also seems likely that at least some of that 2-6% will be recovered as supporting processes and infrastructure emerges.

howmayiannoyyou 4y ago

Haters: you're missing my point, which is (a) this applies to some industries, not all; and (b) this applies to supply-driven inflationary periods and/or periods of excessive aggregate debt (public, commercial and personal). As someone who remembers 1979/80 talking to a bunch of people who may not have been born then --- we're in for a shit storm that only productivity & hard work will fix... unless USGOV finds more way to kick the can down the road.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

marcosdumay 4y ago

> Quick refresher on productivity in economic terms: decreasing inputs = decreasing outputs UNLESS tech or technique improves. Economists stopped repeating the ceteris paribus fallacy about half a century ago. At about the same time as systems modelling got mainstream. I vote for retiring the no free lunch one next.

karaterobot 4y ago

That's too simple a view of economics. What we've suspected for a long time is true: that humans don't act like robots or heat engines all the time.

aisengard 4y ago

Factories don't shut down on the weekends, they just have different groups of people come in for different shifts. A 4-day work week would just mean that they have to hire more people to fill the hours. Productivity wouldn't fall, unless they wanted it to fall.

larryett 4y ago

Are you trying to say if Amazon works less hours delivering packages , less packages will be delivered because they are already pushing every productivity edge possible? That is shocking to me. It feels like I just push these buttons and the package shows up to my door like magic. I assumed everyone has a job pushing buttons so why would we waste time pushing buttons for more than 4 days a week.