7 ms·

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,

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
      But what about those in Detroit (or wherever else) who actually build the cars? I wouldn't be surprised if they were feeling the downward spiral of wages vs cost of living/inflation. Not that their loss is fueling cheap cars in my opinion, it seems the op doesn't believe that advances in technology can make things cheaper outside of labor costs I guess? I'd think that computers got on the whole much cheaper (and smaller/faster) due to the changes in the technology rather than the cost of actually assembling the hardware. But I guess I could be wrong and it could all be due to cheaper labor? Edit: I also love the idea that a walk in the park/reading a book in the middle of the day/etc is somehow comparable to needing to find two different daycare slots for a child, not being able to plan or effectively work for a second source of income, or spend time with family/kids (since you're working morning and night). Seems like a fair trade off of time to me!
    - kamaal 13y ago
      Improvement in CS/Electronics/MCU technology is a big contributing factor. In India, We have a motor cycle called Bajaj Discover which gives amazing mileage. The innovation in mechanical engineering is very small, bulk of the innovation is timing of the spark plug firing controlled by a micro controller combined a engine design which functions per that intelligent design. These sort of things were impossible even 20 years back, given the size, price and many other factors.
    - maerF0x0 13y ago
      Imagine a situation in which someone in 1980 is paid a premium price to build a premium product. Say a automobile with heated seats, electronic door locks and AC... Then in 2014 it has migrated from high end (and premium paid) labor to being common place and performed by low end (and marginally paid) labor.. To me that situation is a decline in labor prices, despite the low end worker in 2014 making more in absolute terms than the 1980 worker. A 2nd analogy, If I make 10 widgets an hour and earn $10 an hour in 1980 and then 30 years later make 100 widgets an hour for $25 an hour ($10 plus about $15 inflation, we're not talking inflation here). I would consider that a declining labor cost-- The labor cost per widget went from $1 per widget, to $0.25 ... So, when I pay less or the same for a greater good, I consider that declining labor costs. Aside: this illustrates a major flaw in the CPI, you cannot compare a 2013 TV to a 1960s tv to try and say "the price of a TV has deflated by X" ...
- nickff 13y ago
  Technology has historically benefited workers, consumers, and investors in the long run. You may argue that those long term benefits are not worth the short term costs borne by those who lack the skills and/or opportunities to take advantage of the technology. In making any argument(s) against technology, it should always be remembered that if you do not take advantage of it, someone else will; and technology compounds, so the short term costs should be compared to compounding long term benefits.
  - edanm 13y ago
    "Technology has historically benefited workers, consumers, and investors in the long run." For ~200 years, before which there were far less technology shifts and less market capitalism in general. And just because something has been true for ~200 years doesn't mean it will continue being true.
VLM 13y ago
A more likely outcome is the price will not rise a penny until those at the bottom who cannot survive legally at that income disappear from the market, either via medical reasons induced by poverty, or because they've entered the prison industrial complex via crime. A race to the bottom is never as much fun as it sounds.
- nickff 13y ago
  Was the industrial revolution the beginning of a race to the bottom, or the first step from agrarian poverty to modern prosperity?
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    For a great many people a 'race to the bottom' scenario can easily be posited. Especially for those who are exploited to make the super cheap products (particularly electronics) everyone prosperous is supposed to enjoy. Someone is always going to be getting screwed in the name of ever increasing growth/profits and ever declining costs. That is until we reach a sweet Sci-Fi robots doing all the work scenario! :)
  - VLM 13y ago
    There is a peculiar history revisionist outlook that farmers were fired and then lacking any opportunity to farm, they moved to a factory. Sometimes this happened. Usually not. Reality, as anyone who is related to a farmer knows, farming is very hard work and a factory job is generally better. They were upgrading, not getting downsized. Also modern prosperity only came after labor riots where lots of people suffered intensely and died in strike violence. Obviously a lot more violence is on the way, which I think sucks. Unfortunately that seems to be the only way things actually get fixed. History shows some really awful stuff has been done in the name of "gotta do whatcha gotta do to feed the family". So... go ahead, push a couple tens of millions of desperate people into a corner, what could possibly go wrong? I mean, its not like the US populace is extremely heavily armed, or has a cultural predisposition to consider violence as entertainment, or has what boils down to a martyr as a religious symbol...
ItendToDisagree 13y ago
Have you ever had to work a split shift? Not just been assigned one, but been in a situation where you had to take a menial job, and were forced to work this sort of shift, because if you didn't you'd be fired and likely unable to eat/have a place to sleep? I know it sounds pretty drastic but the split shift is primarily used against (yes I say against) the lowest paid workers who need the wages the most. Its not going to drive wages per hour up... Hell in most cases over the last decade the prospect of raising the minimum wage is fought kicking and screaming. At the lowest levels of the wage scale there isn't really the competition you would need to drive the wages up because no one is going to say "I deserve more for doing this shitty job" at the risk of being unable to feed themselves or their kids. Get real. Edit: Not making a comment on technology here at all. Just the idea that split shifts will somehow raise the wages for said shifts.
- nickff 13y ago
  One could also argue that split shifts increase the value of irregular (possibly part) time workers to their employers, thus increasing their working hours, thus increasing their earnings potential. I have no evidence to support this, but increasing the availability of any service usually increases utilization of it.
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    That might be true if they were two separate shifts... But they are not. Its one shift at two different times. What company is going to pay for all the hassle of having two employees to cover the same shifts they can force one person to do? The hypothetical you propose is not only imaginary, but worse value on the face for the employer, and thus will not happen because it makes no sense from a business perspective. One could also argue that any number of things, from faith in a higher power, to higher carbohydrate intake, could increase the value of an employee to their employers but that doesn't make it in any way realistic.
    - nickff 13y ago
      >"One could also argue that any number of things" It is not unreasonable of me to think that increased employee availability will lead to increased number of hours worked. Whenever it becomes easier for me to get something I want, I usually get more of it (e.g. Netflix); there is no reason to believe labor is different.
krstck 13y ago
Retail workers very often have little advance notice of what their shifts will be. This is bad for everyone, and results in people being idle when they would rather not be. People with kids, especially, need to have schedules that they can predict ahead of time. In addition, a lot of people would very much be willing to work two jobs, but without a guaranteed schedule, you have no way of avoiding conflicts. I don't think shift workers are much better off, as it currently stands, as a result of cost-saving tech. We'll have to see what happens, I guess.
- nickff 13y ago
  Maybe improved scheduling software would benefit workers and employers; employers would have access to the labor of workers who are not currently able to work because of the problems you describe, and workers would be more able to manage their schedules. This is not cost-saving, but it might be value-creating.
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    Maybe, and I wish you luck in your optimism! But I wouldn't hold my breath that any benefits gained from technology won't go to a smaller and smaller group of people as history shows time and time again.
- maerF0x0 13y ago
  My stepfather is a shiftworker and he can tell you what days he will and wont be working for the next year (4 on 4 off) ... Then again, he's also unionized..
ThomPete 13y ago
"The negatives of the split shift will drive up the per hour wages." Wallmart employees get around 10USD an hour. You are thinking about this as a student or someone without too many obligations. The reality is that you need to work those other hours when you get 10USD and hour.
- sentenza 13y ago
  As a side note, can you imagine what things would be like if the US didn't have a minimum wage? Here in Germany we don't have one and there are people working for wages as low as 3€ per hour[1]. That is 4.07$. [1] http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fr-online.de%2Farbeit---soziales%2Flohn-dumping-das-mindestlohn-versprechen%2C1473632%2C24158188.html http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=...
  - 3pt14159 13y ago
    Germany has an unemployment rate 1.5 points less than America. If we can attribute the bulk of that to the artificial spread between supply and demand of labor due to price fixing (minimum wage) then the difference would be 2.5 million people would be in the workforce.
  - ThomPete 13y ago
    Germany has a much better social security mesh than the US.

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
    But what about those in Detroit (or wherever else) who actually build the cars? I wouldn't be surprised if they were feeling the downward spiral of wages vs cost of living/inflation. Not that their loss is fueling cheap cars in my opinion, it seems the op doesn't believe that advances in technology can make things cheaper outside of labor costs I guess? I'd think that computers got on the whole much cheaper (and smaller/faster) due to the changes in the technology rather than the cost of actually assembling the hardware. But I guess I could be wrong and it could all be due to cheaper labor? Edit: I also love the idea that a walk in the park/reading a book in the middle of the day/etc is somehow comparable to needing to find two different daycare slots for a child, not being able to plan or effectively work for a second source of income, or spend time with family/kids (since you're working morning and night). Seems like a fair trade off of time to me!
  - kamaal 13y ago
    Improvement in CS/Electronics/MCU technology is a big contributing factor. In India, We have a motor cycle called Bajaj Discover which gives amazing mileage. The innovation in mechanical engineering is very small, bulk of the innovation is timing of the spark plug firing controlled by a micro controller combined a engine design which functions per that intelligent design. These sort of things were impossible even 20 years back, given the size, price and many other factors.
  - maerF0x0 13y ago
    Imagine a situation in which someone in 1980 is paid a premium price to build a premium product. Say a automobile with heated seats, electronic door locks and AC... Then in 2014 it has migrated from high end (and premium paid) labor to being common place and performed by low end (and marginally paid) labor.. To me that situation is a decline in labor prices, despite the low end worker in 2014 making more in absolute terms than the 1980 worker. A 2nd analogy, If I make 10 widgets an hour and earn $10 an hour in 1980 and then 30 years later make 100 widgets an hour for $25 an hour ($10 plus about $15 inflation, we're not talking inflation here). I would consider that a declining labor cost-- The labor cost per widget went from $1 per widget, to $0.25 ... So, when I pay less or the same for a greater good, I consider that declining labor costs. Aside: this illustrates a major flaw in the CPI, you cannot compare a 2013 TV to a 1960s tv to try and say "the price of a TV has deflated by X" ...
nickff 13y ago
Technology has historically benefited workers, consumers, and investors in the long run. You may argue that those long term benefits are not worth the short term costs borne by those who lack the skills and/or opportunities to take advantage of the technology. In making any argument(s) against technology, it should always be remembered that if you do not take advantage of it, someone else will; and technology compounds, so the short term costs should be compared to compounding long term benefits.
- edanm 13y ago
  "Technology has historically benefited workers, consumers, and investors in the long run." For ~200 years, before which there were far less technology shifts and less market capitalism in general. And just because something has been true for ~200 years doesn't mean it will continue being true.

VLM 13y ago

A more likely outcome is the price will not rise a penny until those at the bottom who cannot survive legally at that income disappear from the market, either via medical reasons induced by poverty, or because they've entered the prison industrial complex via crime. A race to the bottom is never as much fun as it sounds.

nickff 13y ago
Was the industrial revolution the beginning of a race to the bottom, or the first step from agrarian poverty to modern prosperity?
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  For a great many people a 'race to the bottom' scenario can easily be posited. Especially for those who are exploited to make the super cheap products (particularly electronics) everyone prosperous is supposed to enjoy. Someone is always going to be getting screwed in the name of ever increasing growth/profits and ever declining costs. That is until we reach a sweet Sci-Fi robots doing all the work scenario! :)
- VLM 13y ago
  There is a peculiar history revisionist outlook that farmers were fired and then lacking any opportunity to farm, they moved to a factory. Sometimes this happened. Usually not. Reality, as anyone who is related to a farmer knows, farming is very hard work and a factory job is generally better. They were upgrading, not getting downsized. Also modern prosperity only came after labor riots where lots of people suffered intensely and died in strike violence. Obviously a lot more violence is on the way, which I think sucks. Unfortunately that seems to be the only way things actually get fixed. History shows some really awful stuff has been done in the name of "gotta do whatcha gotta do to feed the family". So... go ahead, push a couple tens of millions of desperate people into a corner, what could possibly go wrong? I mean, its not like the US populace is extremely heavily armed, or has a cultural predisposition to consider violence as entertainment, or has what boils down to a martyr as a religious symbol...

ItendToDisagree 13y ago

Have you ever had to work a split shift? Not just been assigned one, but been in a situation where you had to take a menial job, and were forced to work this sort of shift, because if you didn't you'd be fired and likely unable to eat/have a place to sleep? I know it sounds pretty drastic but the split shift is primarily used against (yes I say against) the lowest paid workers who need the wages the most. Its not going to drive wages per hour up... Hell in most cases over the last decade the prospect of raising the minimum wage is fought kicking and screaming. At the lowest levels of the wage scale there isn't really the competition you would need to drive the wages up because no one is going to say "I deserve more for doing this shitty job" at the risk of being unable to feed themselves or their kids. Get real. Edit: Not making a comment on technology here at all. Just the idea that split shifts will somehow raise the wages for said shifts.

nickff 13y ago
One could also argue that split shifts increase the value of irregular (possibly part) time workers to their employers, thus increasing their working hours, thus increasing their earnings potential. I have no evidence to support this, but increasing the availability of any service usually increases utilization of it.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  That might be true if they were two separate shifts... But they are not. Its one shift at two different times. What company is going to pay for all the hassle of having two employees to cover the same shifts they can force one person to do? The hypothetical you propose is not only imaginary, but worse value on the face for the employer, and thus will not happen because it makes no sense from a business perspective. One could also argue that any number of things, from faith in a higher power, to higher carbohydrate intake, could increase the value of an employee to their employers but that doesn't make it in any way realistic.
  - nickff 13y ago
    >"One could also argue that any number of things" It is not unreasonable of me to think that increased employee availability will lead to increased number of hours worked. Whenever it becomes easier for me to get something I want, I usually get more of it (e.g. Netflix); there is no reason to believe labor is different.

krstck 13y ago

Retail workers very often have little advance notice of what their shifts will be. This is bad for everyone, and results in people being idle when they would rather not be. People with kids, especially, need to have schedules that they can predict ahead of time. In addition, a lot of people would very much be willing to work two jobs, but without a guaranteed schedule, you have no way of avoiding conflicts. I don't think shift workers are much better off, as it currently stands, as a result of cost-saving tech. We'll have to see what happens, I guess.

nickff 13y ago
Maybe improved scheduling software would benefit workers and employers; employers would have access to the labor of workers who are not currently able to work because of the problems you describe, and workers would be more able to manage their schedules. This is not cost-saving, but it might be value-creating.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  Maybe, and I wish you luck in your optimism! But I wouldn't hold my breath that any benefits gained from technology won't go to a smaller and smaller group of people as history shows time and time again.
maerF0x0 13y ago
My stepfather is a shiftworker and he can tell you what days he will and wont be working for the next year (4 on 4 off) ... Then again, he's also unionized..

ThomPete 13y ago

"The negatives of the split shift will drive up the per hour wages." Wallmart employees get around 10USD an hour. You are thinking about this as a student or someone without too many obligations. The reality is that you need to work those other hours when you get 10USD and hour.

sentenza 13y ago
As a side note, can you imagine what things would be like if the US didn't have a minimum wage? Here in Germany we don't have one and there are people working for wages as low as 3€ per hour[1]. That is 4.07$. [1] http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fr-online.de%2Farbeit---soziales%2Flohn-dumping-das-mindestlohn-versprechen%2C1473632%2C24158188.html http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=...
- 3pt14159 13y ago
  Germany has an unemployment rate 1.5 points less than America. If we can attribute the bulk of that to the artificial spread between supply and demand of labor due to price fixing (minimum wage) then the difference would be 2.5 million people would be in the workforce.
- ThomPete 13y ago
  Germany has a much better social security mesh than the US.