GRADUALY REDUCE THE WORKING HOURS
Working hours ought to have started being reduced decades ago, gradually, 10 minutes one year, 5-10 minutes a year or two later and so on without reducing the salaries and wages. A gradual reduction is in my opinion a much preferable way because initially the 5-10 minutes are not "missing" from the work output, especially in the office. The difference would have been noticeable when the subtracted minutes accumulated but employers would have time to adjust.
As automated machines keep doing more and more in production of goods and services, replacing humans, the working hours must gradually keep decreasing. If employment doesn't increase, which some use for an excuse (see some French's claims and excuses) nobody can proove that unemployment will not increase if working hours stay at the levels they were. By the way, for being just, in another sociol-economic matter, pensions, as life expectancy goes up, the age of retirement must go up, also gradually.
It used to be almost perfect. Industrial countries were searching for workers and were inviting immigrants too. Then came automation and created friction in the work markets and then second and third wave of automation. Now artificial vision incorporated in machines finds the hole to drive the screw in. In the 80s it became clear that automation will take over the factory floor and also and very importantly the office. Computers were either reducing the work load of office clerks or eliminating some of them altogether, employers through the media were praising the employees saying flattering things about their importance and how valuable they were for companies, but the numbers of employees were kept reducing mainly in my opinion due to their replacement by super automated machines. It's my unproved opinion that employers don't care now but only for about 10-15% of their workforce, the very capable and knowledgeable who create and develop, the others can be replaced without loss at any time.
In any way, above all in my opinion, THERE IS NOT AS MUCH NEED FOR AS MANY WORKERS OF ALL SORT, EVEN COLLEGE GRADUATES, AS IT USED TO BE AND THIS IN MANY WAYS CREATES SOCIAL STAINS BECAUSE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND AND GET UNHAPPY. EMPLOYERS CAN'T INCREASE THEIR BUSINESSES'S OUTPUT TO KEEP THE SAME NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WITH NEW AUTOMATED MACHINES AND CONTINUE WITH FEWER EMPLOYEES AND THE SAME PRODUCTION.
The results are shown with statistics like these: Middle class's income is falling decade after decade and the upper 10% (or 5 or 15 doesn't really matter) decade after decade holds a bigger percentage of the total existing wealth. All the people can see what's coming but some could foresee it long ago.
It could be seen in the early 80s looked through engineering eyes that automation will be advanced soon as much as it didn't for the last many decades. The integrated circuit and electronics in general were about to give new life to the field. (No references will be made to specific machinery, as pneumatic versus programmable electrical with electronics, etc etc etc) So the factory floor was forcibly occupied but also the office, to an extent, which admittedly couldn't foresee, the PC was just born.
Workers moved from high wage manufacturing jobs to low paying jobs in retailing or something. For college graduates, in heating and air-condioning for example companies used to employ long ago engineers to do demanding calculations for big buildings but now the programs do the work, change a few numbers push a button again and again. Why not employ 5 instead of 4 if the work day had been reduced.
If they had started reducing the hours decades ago, now the working day would have been 6-7 hours per day with accompanied increases in total employment in the very long run, there are a lot of people who don't enter the unemployment statistics. In 1900 the work week was 60 or 70 hours now its 40. It will not stop here, why not take place smoothly, gradually. What are they waiting for, in the 21st century, things to change the way they were changed in the past, with social unrest.
FRANCE,GERMANY 35 HOURS WEEK.
fay's unKle
As automated machines keep doing more and more in production of goods and services, replacing humans, the working hours must gradually keep decreasing. If employment doesn't increase, which some use for an excuse (see some French's claims and excuses) nobody can proove that unemployment will not increase if working hours stay at the levels they were. By the way, for being just, in another sociol-economic matter, pensions, as life expectancy goes up, the age of retirement must go up, also gradually.
It used to be almost perfect. Industrial countries were searching for workers and were inviting immigrants too. Then came automation and created friction in the work markets and then second and third wave of automation. Now artificial vision incorporated in machines finds the hole to drive the screw in. In the 80s it became clear that automation will take over the factory floor and also and very importantly the office. Computers were either reducing the work load of office clerks or eliminating some of them altogether, employers through the media were praising the employees saying flattering things about their importance and how valuable they were for companies, but the numbers of employees were kept reducing mainly in my opinion due to their replacement by super automated machines. It's my unproved opinion that employers don't care now but only for about 10-15% of their workforce, the very capable and knowledgeable who create and develop, the others can be replaced without loss at any time.
In any way, above all in my opinion, THERE IS NOT AS MUCH NEED FOR AS MANY WORKERS OF ALL SORT, EVEN COLLEGE GRADUATES, AS IT USED TO BE AND THIS IN MANY WAYS CREATES SOCIAL STAINS BECAUSE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND AND GET UNHAPPY. EMPLOYERS CAN'T INCREASE THEIR BUSINESSES'S OUTPUT TO KEEP THE SAME NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WITH NEW AUTOMATED MACHINES AND CONTINUE WITH FEWER EMPLOYEES AND THE SAME PRODUCTION.
It could be seen in the early 80s looked through engineering eyes that automation will be advanced soon as much as it didn't for the last many decades. The integrated circuit and electronics in general were about to give new life to the field. (No references will be made to specific machinery, as pneumatic versus programmable electrical with electronics, etc etc etc) So the factory floor was forcibly occupied but also the office, to an extent, which admittedly couldn't foresee, the PC was just born.
Workers moved from high wage manufacturing jobs to low paying jobs in retailing or something. For college graduates, in heating and air-condioning for example companies used to employ long ago engineers to do demanding calculations for big buildings but now the programs do the work, change a few numbers push a button again and again. Why not employ 5 instead of 4 if the work day had been reduced.
If they had started reducing the hours decades ago, now the working day would have been 6-7 hours per day with accompanied increases in total employment in the very long run, there are a lot of people who don't enter the unemployment statistics. In 1900 the work week was 60 or 70 hours now its 40. It will not stop here, why not take place smoothly, gradually. What are they waiting for, in the 21st century, things to change the way they were changed in the past, with social unrest.
FRANCE,GERMANY 35 HOURS WEEK.
fay's unKle
Comments
Post a Comment