6 ms·

I found one of the simplest and most insidious examples of the effect of today's technology on today's jobs in this New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.

I found one of the simplest and most insidious examples of the effect of today's technology on today's jobs in this New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/business/a-part-time-life-as-hours-shrink-and-shift-for-american-workers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/business/a-part-time-life-... It documents how scheduling software in the retail and food sectors has allowed corporate chains to optimize the scheduling of low-wage workers, scheduling them for shorter shifts concentrated at peaks hours and sending them off when not needed. This article doesn't go into great detail about another exploitative practice: the split shift. This means a employee may be required to work a short morning shift and a short evening shift, making it effectively impossible for those prepared to scrape by working a second job to even do that any more. The net effect is less wages and less benefits for workers. And to whom does the difference accrue? Technology here acts as a tool further disadvantaging those who are already at a disadvantage. And technology itself doesn't offer an obvious remedy. Collective action among workers might help their cause, but unions in this country struggle to organize. Facebook and Snapchat don't appear to be picking up the slack. Government regulation would seem to offer a more civil remedy. Simply don't allow employers to squeeze their employees like this. But while I continue to hear occasional media stories and personal narratives about these abuses, I haven't heard reports of any serious proposals to end them.

maerF0x0 13y ago
The negatives of the split shift will drive up the per hour wages. To illustrate: say I'll work all day for $64 but I have some bare minimum I need to live on, maybe $60. If I cannot make $60 in the 2x 3hour shifts, then I have to look elsewhere. As people look elsewhere, the price to fill the job will rise. Furthermore, there are side benefits of split shifts, like being able to do a workout midday, running errands or seeing your kids, having a walk in the park etc. etc. These side benefits are the kinds of benefits that come to all workers when we utilize skills more effectively. When all the dishwashers were laid off due to dish washing machines, we rejoiced because people dont have to do menial work anymore and can pursue the higher callings of human life. Its scary, but beneficial to all. >"And to whom does the difference accrue" A portion of the difference will go to those who made the software, A portion to the capitalists who invest in the software, A portion to the business owner who implements the software etc. etc. A portion will be passed onto consumers as price competition.Like the economist article says, it can take time for the market effects to settle out though, maybe not now, maybe not in 5 years, but eventually everyone will be doing it, saving us all 10 cents on a combo (or whatever contrived number)..
- route66 13y ago
  > then I have to look elsewhere Where, exactly, in a world of reduced job opportunities? > ... side benefits ...... workout midday..., , ...walk in the park ... For the people in question these pastimes are probably as realistic as having a Rhino shooting in Namibia. > ... A portion... You make it seem like a beautiful win-win situation, like a well deserved 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 ... + 0.1 split. The current discussion revolves, among other things, around the question if it's more like 0.99 + 0.01 and if that is like it should be. With a reasoning like yours, I always wonder if there is indeed some underlying substance to it, or if it's sheer hope and faith in some Austrian god?
  - maerF0x0 13y ago
    As a consumer I've definitely experienced the benefits of declining labor costs. I can buy a computer today for less than 1/4 what my mother paid for 1/100th the power (when I was a child). Cars have gotten more fuel efficient, powerful, comfortable, safe etc, but I barely pay more than my parents did for a comparable 5yr old car in the 80s (FTR: 1984 Prelude in 1989 for $10k , 2008 Mazda3 GT in 2013 for $13k), so on and so forth for most of the goods that come to mind. Practically, everyone with a pension benefits from profits in the stockmarket; that's how someone is able to pay a nonworking person (a retired senior) $1000s a month in benefits. A walk in the park is free, reading a book from a library is similarly inexpensive, ok so they wont get to do some expensive pass times, but enjoyable things nonetheless. I never said it was an even split, but that each of the parties get some. Theres plenty of substance and I'm unaware of any Austrian gods.
    - eigenvector 13y ago
      > Cars have gotten more fuel efficient, powerful, comfortable, safe etc, but I barely pay more than my parents did for a comparable 5yr old car in the 80s You think the is the result of declining labour costs? I'm pretty sure mechanical engineers' wages have not decreased since the 1980s.
      - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
Houshalter 13y ago
The problem is unemployment. Employers want to minimize the number of hours they have to pay employees (this is a good thing, in theory, no sense paying people to work at times when they aren't needed.) If this creates problems for the workers, it doesn't matter for them because there is still a large number of people who are looking for jobs willing to work there.
_greim_ 13y ago
Government regulation will arguably only paper over the problem in the short term, as it incentivizes capital to route around it, mainly by accelerating the automation of these jobs. I'd argue that the focus should be on fostering policy and technologies that allow independent creation of wealth. Policy-wise, empowering self-organization of local communities. How can a community with high unemployment act in their own self-benefit? How can we shape policy so that they can grow their own food, build their own houses, and generally not be utterly dependent on "the system" for their survival? Technology-wise, let's look at things like 3D printing and solar.
lectrick 13y ago
All technology is amoral, and will continue to be amoral. If you don't believe so, you should just join the Amish or the Luddites, because that was their take on the world. The things you discuss were possible to do before technology, technology just made it easier to do. Ethics is therefore still important (and perhaps the enforcement of them via laws). Nuclear technology makes cheap energy. It also makes gigantic bombs. The libertarian in me says that workers who do not like their split-shift conditions should just quit them. En masse, this would force those employers to raise wages in order to attract people willing to put up with that kind of crap, equalizing things again. Of course, this would require extending unemployment benefits to people who quit jobs. (There is no logical reason why this isn't already the case. I can simply stop showing up for work and make it so that I get unemployment benefits, but that is far more wasteful and is basically a trade of self-esteem for security.) The thing is, if you ignore labor-saving techniques and keep labor for its own sake, that's quite a nihilistic existence if you think about it. I could take that to an extreme and demand that I get paid to manually move the bits around which generate the computing screen I'm looking at. It might take me over a year just to post this message, but hey, at least I'm getting paid and not forced to look for work that is better suited to me, right? If you want to see a real-world example of money burned simply to keep jobs alive, look no further than this article about how the US Military spent its money last year https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ec86786aae30 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ec86786aae30 . Read the story about the M1 Abrams tank. Then see how you feel.
Tycho 13y ago
Something seems not quite right to me about how businesses are singled out and criticised for deploying the sort of labor optimizations you describe. What I mean is, why should a business abstain from optimizations just because they happen to employ manual labour? Why is it their resonsibility to keep their processes inefficient, rather than the responsibility of other businesses to introduce inefficencies that will create more manual roles? Why don't we make Google have all their printouts for code reviews manually typed up and spell checked by a legion of low payed workers? Or something equally arbitrary that will 'create' a job? Note that I'm not coming down on either side of the automation vs job-preservation debate as a whole, I'm just asking what justification people have for only penalising businesses which recruit people for pre-existing menial tasks.
- shenanigoat 13y ago
  Of course, that would be silly and wasteful. I don't think anyone would think that would be a useful solution but we need to start seriously considering Guaranteed Basic Incomes.

maerF0x0 13y ago

The negatives of the split shift will drive up the per hour wages. To illustrate: say I'll work all day for $64 but I have some bare minimum I need to live on, maybe $60. If I cannot make $60 in the 2x 3hour shifts, then I have to look elsewhere. As people look elsewhere, the price to fill the job will rise. Furthermore, there are side benefits of split shifts, like being able to do a workout midday, running errands or seeing your kids, having a walk in the park etc. etc. These side benefits are the kinds of benefits that come to all workers when we utilize skills more effectively. When all the dishwashers were laid off due to dish washing machines, we rejoiced because people dont have to do menial work anymore and can pursue the higher callings of human life. Its scary, but beneficial to all. >"And to whom does the difference accrue" A portion of the difference will go to those who made the software, A portion to the capitalists who invest in the software, A portion to the business owner who implements the software etc. etc. A portion will be passed onto consumers as price competition.Like the economist article says, it can take time for the market effects to settle out though, maybe not now, maybe not in 5 years, but eventually everyone will be doing it, saving us all 10 cents on a combo (or whatever contrived number)..

route66 13y ago
> then I have to look elsewhere Where, exactly, in a world of reduced job opportunities? > ... side benefits ...... workout midday..., , ...walk in the park ... For the people in question these pastimes are probably as realistic as having a Rhino shooting in Namibia. > ... A portion... You make it seem like a beautiful win-win situation, like a well deserved 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 ... + 0.1 split. The current discussion revolves, among other things, around the question if it's more like 0.99 + 0.01 and if that is like it should be. With a reasoning like yours, I always wonder if there is indeed some underlying substance to it, or if it's sheer hope and faith in some Austrian god?
- maerF0x0 13y ago
  As a consumer I've definitely experienced the benefits of declining labor costs. I can buy a computer today for less than 1/4 what my mother paid for 1/100th the power (when I was a child). Cars have gotten more fuel efficient, powerful, comfortable, safe etc, but I barely pay more than my parents did for a comparable 5yr old car in the 80s (FTR: 1984 Prelude in 1989 for $10k , 2008 Mazda3 GT in 2013 for $13k), so on and so forth for most of the goods that come to mind. Practically, everyone with a pension benefits from profits in the stockmarket; that's how someone is able to pay a nonworking person (a retired senior) $1000s a month in benefits. A walk in the park is free, reading a book from a library is similarly inexpensive, ok so they wont get to do some expensive pass times, but enjoyable things nonetheless. I never said it was an even split, but that each of the parties get some. Theres plenty of substance and I'm unaware of any Austrian gods.
  - eigenvector 13y ago
    > Cars have gotten more fuel efficient, powerful, comfortable, safe etc, but I barely pay more than my parents did for a comparable 5yr old car in the 80s You think the is the result of declining labour costs? I'm pretty sure mechanical engineers' wages have not decreased since the 1980s.
    - ItendToDisagree 13y ago

Houshalter 13y ago

The problem is unemployment. Employers want to minimize the number of hours they have to pay employees (this is a good thing, in theory, no sense paying people to work at times when they aren't needed.) If this creates problems for the workers, it doesn't matter for them because there is still a large number of people who are looking for jobs willing to work there.

_greim_ 13y ago

Government regulation will arguably only paper over the problem in the short term, as it incentivizes capital to route around it, mainly by accelerating the automation of these jobs. I'd argue that the focus should be on fostering policy and technologies that allow independent creation of wealth. Policy-wise, empowering self-organization of local communities. How can a community with high unemployment act in their own self-benefit? How can we shape policy so that they can grow their own food, build their own houses, and generally not be utterly dependent on "the system" for their survival? Technology-wise, let's look at things like 3D printing and solar.

lectrick 13y ago

All technology is amoral, and will continue to be amoral. If you don't believe so, you should just join the Amish or the Luddites, because that was their take on the world. The things you discuss were possible to do before technology, technology just made it easier to do. Ethics is therefore still important (and perhaps the enforcement of them via laws). Nuclear technology makes cheap energy. It also makes gigantic bombs. The libertarian in me says that workers who do not like their split-shift conditions should just quit them. En masse, this would force those employers to raise wages in order to attract people willing to put up with that kind of crap, equalizing things again. Of course, this would require extending unemployment benefits to people who quit jobs. (There is no logical reason why this isn't already the case. I can simply stop showing up for work and make it so that I get unemployment benefits, but that is far more wasteful and is basically a trade of self-esteem for security.) The thing is, if you ignore labor-saving techniques and keep labor for its own sake, that's quite a nihilistic existence if you think about it. I could take that to an extreme and demand that I get paid to manually move the bits around which generate the computing screen I'm looking at. It might take me over a year just to post this message, but hey, at least I'm getting paid and not forced to look for work that is better suited to me, right? If you want to see a real-world example of money burned simply to keep jobs alive, look no further than this article about how the US Military spent its money last year https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ec86786aae30 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ec86786aae30 . Read the story about the M1 Abrams tank. Then see how you feel.

Tycho 13y ago

Something seems not quite right to me about how businesses are singled out and criticised for deploying the sort of labor optimizations you describe. What I mean is, why should a business abstain from optimizations just because they happen to employ manual labour? Why is it their resonsibility to keep their processes inefficient, rather than the responsibility of other businesses to introduce inefficencies that will create more manual roles? Why don't we make Google have all their printouts for code reviews manually typed up and spell checked by a legion of low payed workers? Or something equally arbitrary that will 'create' a job? Note that I'm not coming down on either side of the automation vs job-preservation debate as a whole, I'm just asking what justification people have for only penalising businesses which recruit people for pre-existing menial tasks.

shenanigoat 13y ago
Of course, that would be silly and wasteful. I don't think anyone would think that would be a useful solution but we need to start seriously considering Guaranteed Basic Incomes.