Economists Are Obsessed with "Job Creation." How about Less Work? (2017)

pfdietz

Sure, politicians are going to be happy with less economic power, and as a result less political and military power. Seems exactly like something politicians would go for. /s

naveen99

They have name for “Less work for same pay” : inflation.

CachedaCodes

Four-day week trials, for example, keep showing productivity holds or improves — Iceland ran the biggest pilot, the UK had 61 companies in their trial, Microsoft Japan saw a 40% boost. The data is there. Yet I know a CEO who suggested implementing a four-day week if the least productive 10% of workers came in an extra day instead. Just bonkers.

myrmidon

Decreasing working hours increases labor availability (=> so you'd expect people to get paid less as a result), but higher headcount for comparable output is also totally undesirable for an employer: The only potential benefit is some limited redundancy (bus factor), but this comes at the cost of communication overhead (meetings), decreased software design coherence, no "single source of truth" (person), all of which cost money/time to mitigate. I don't like it, but I understand why we ended up here...

wookmaster

There’s an odd goal with “productivity” by CEOs in recent years under some obsession to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. I suspect in the US where it’s shown time and time again businesses don’t value human lives we will not see this which is sad. Humans could improve so much if we chose to.

casey2

Quite a few fallacies in the article the largest relating to evolution. Sure we aren't evolutionary predisposed to work, but Europeans, North Africans, Asians are genetically and we have plenty of ancestors and examples of life that spend their whole lives working

dismalaf

"Less work" is productivity. Economists are absolutely obsessed with it. Now, as far as reducing the hours we work, there's a problem. If we decide to take our productivity gains to work only 20 hours per week, someone else can "undercut" us by working 30. Or 40. And so on. And part of the obsession with job creation is the fact we've taken on so many immigrants who need jobs lest they become a major drag on the economy. Anyhow, if we want to work less, it's almost inevitable it has to come through government regulation. Put a cap on how many hours a job can require. Minimum vacation amounts. Etc... but then how do you deal with entrepreneurs? Or ensure that a single job can provide a decent standard of living even if it's a low productivity job. And so on...

lizknope

This seems to work if everyone is peaceful with each other. What happens when two neighboring countries have a conflict but one of them decides to work less and is comfortable with less economic growth. The other keeps pushing harder and ends up with excess money that they put into their military. Now they can invade their neighbor. Economic power generally leads to military power. Maybe the world shouldn't be this way but it is.

t0mpr1c3

so there's this place called Europe

jschveibinz

Economic factors to consider: 0. Differentiation--> we are not all the same, and we do not have identical wants and needs 1. Massive investment of time, effort and capital in automation--> requires ROI for investors 2. Supply is governed by demand, not by a bureaucratic checklist 3. Necessary work is harder than unnecessary work --> who wants to work harder for same rewards and incentives? 4. Job "usefulness" and compensation is determined by supply and demand--> rare and difficult vs. common and easier 5. Hunter gatherer lifestyle is not equal to 21st century lifestyle--> the horses are out of the barn 6. Free time is not play time --> free time is a combination of play and personal advancement which creates more differentiation

drillsteps5

Not a good take. It wasn't work that was invented recently, but ability to sustain yourself by performing some repetitive (and not always meaningful or productive) actions at pre-defined time periods (like 5 days a week x 8 hours a day). Which does go back to Industrial Revolution and even more recently to Ford Motors and similar enterprises and business models. If you were to ask a hunter-gatherer or a nomad or a slave or even a trade laborer (ie a shoemaker) in pre-industrial times, they'd tell you it's a pretty sweet deal. No worrying where the next meal will come from, if there's going to be enough crops for the next few months, or if you'll be able to find an animal to kill large enough to feed you but but not large enough to kill you, if you can protect yourself against predators, or aggressive neighboring tribes, if you will be able to find/maintain a shelter good enough to protect you from the elements, esp in extreme cold or hot climates. If you'll be able to make enough shoes to earn enough to sustain yourself and the family, while competing with other shoemakers for a limited demand and limited materials, and million other things. > In fact, quantitative studies revealed that the average adult hunter-gatherer spent about 20 hours a week at hunting and gathering, and a few hours more at other subsistence-related tasks such as making tools and preparing meals (for references, see Gray, 2009). Some of the rest of their waking time was spent resting, but most of it was spent at playful, enjoyable activities, such as making music, creating art, dancing, playing games, telling stories, chatting and joking with friends, and visiting friends and relatives in neighboring bands. I'm surprised the author didn't add that they also didn't suffer from obesity or dental cavities or cancer (which is mostly because living past 30 wasn't invented until like 14th century).

yobbo

The point of automation is that it reduces the bargaining power of human workers, but they still have to trade their time and effort for wages. When automation improves, the wage proportion of the created value shrinks.

peterlada

See Australia.

ryanhiebert

To what extent is our extended increase in work time related to societal desire to increase standards of living? Cost of living is terribly high. How much is because we’re comparing different standards? Not all of it, I think, but some for sure. We don’t think it’s ok to not have running water, electricity, education, sanitation, etc. we think it’s worth societal costs to provide public benefits like fire control, roads, law enforcement, zoning, etc. I think it’s interesting to consider what makes it harder to live in the modern world that it takes more money to do it.