SHORTER WORK TIME -- An approach to Unemployment and the Economy

[h9socialist]

Friends and Comrades --

I really would like get your ideas about this proposal going forward. I am convinced that the economic problems of our time -- foremost being unemployment -- cannot be effectively addressed in the context of the 40 hour work week with loose rules regarding overtime. Capitalist productivity has been rising over the last three decades -- but hourly wages have stagnated, and on average people are working 150 hours per year more than in. 1950. The whole notion of "re-engineering the workplace" was a contrivance for getting more product with less labor, and therefore labor costs. The result has been an on-going age of downsizing. The truth is that only about 60% of the adult non-institutional population is actually employed. This is down from the high 60s a generation ago. Computerization, robotization and downsizing has left a larger portion of the workforce unemployed, and a larger segment of those who have jobs more stressed out.

Here's the bottom-line: Full employment is no longer possible in the context of the 40 hour week. The aim of labor and the progressive left should be a workweek of no more than 30 hours, with pay adjustment so that workers do not lose income as a result of the cut. This would force a "spread the work" imperative.

Moreover, I contend that in the 21st Century, ecological considerations will eventually curb and curtail the growth of individual consumption. Human beings cannot keep consuming and befouling the planet without a major threat to human survival. I suggest that more "free time" will be a substitute for more "consumption." I contend that such a choice will be made one way or another. The only question is whether or not free time will be functional and rewarding, or if it will mean unemployment and hardship. The transnational corporations and banks have their answer. Unemployment cuts labor costs, and leaves more room to expand margins. The response of the democratic Left should be a demand for a shorter work week and more options for people to pursue functional leisure time.

I hope this thread inspires some healthy exchange of thoughts.

[bossy22]

1. Destroying effiency and productivity

is not a long term fix for unemployment. In the end it will lead to even more outsourcing as production in the U.S. becomes overly expensive. It is true that mechanization and computerization has caused the labor market to downsize but you can't just get rid those without heavy consequences. Mechanization has kept costs of goods down, increased production, and has led to job growth in other areas (such as the service sector because someone needs to "service" those goods). True its a good thing to employ more people, but it doesnt matter if a chevy sedan costs $200,000.

"Here's the bottom-line: Full employment is no longer possible in the context of the 40 hour week. The aim of labor and the progressive left should be a workweek of no more than 30 hours, with pay adjustment so that workers do not lose income as a result of the cut. This would force a "spread the work" imperative."

A few things on this sentance. first off, why is full employment in the context of a 40 hour work week not possible? I think it is, and up until 2008 that was the case. Right now we are going through a rough patch but eventually we will see those numbers again. Second, the idea of cutting down the productivity and then increasing the wages of the workers is just striving for inefficiency. Business will and should always strive for efficiency, especially in a global market place. Its just the way things are. By trying to force a company to be inefficient you effectively sign its death certificate. Efficiency allows american businesses to be competitive.

Here is the true bottom line (which many on DU always forget): the primary purpose of business is to make money. In doing this it also creates jobs. If business can't make money, business go bye bye and so do the jobs. So you will never be able to force a business not to make money

[h9socialist]

3. The primary job of production is to meet human need . . .

. . . capitalism holds the ability of human production to meet human need hostage to the greed of the ruling class. Efficiency and productivity can be applied to pursuits OTHER THAN PROFITS! For instance, they can create more functional free time -- time outside of the institutions and hierarchy of economics.

The notion that business has to profit in order for working people to have jobs is pure fiction. Obviously, the Chamber of Commerce wants to create that impression, for it's own selfish ends. However, in order to create jobs (necessary to keep the workers from rebellion) the capitalist system must forever stimulate economic growth. This growth is unsustainable in the 21st Century for two reasons: (1) The ecological bounds of the planet have been stretched to the breaking point already -- if global warming doesn't stop the insane dash towards economic growth, resource depletion will, and; (2) technological innovation will continue to marginalize the working class. By 2050, only 2% of the world's workforce will be in manufacturing -- it's less than that in agriculture in the advanced economies. In other words, as global population mushrooms in this century, there will be less and less a proportion of human work necessary. The 40 hour week will be either a cruel mechanism for impoverishing the working classes of the world, or a frivolous pipe-dream of the Republican Party and the Business Round Table.

I am more concerned with using productivity as a means of emancipation. Rather than taking the economic surplus in the form of more production or capital, it should be realized by the working class in terms of a reasonable standard of living and more functional free time. Logically, this will eventually lead to the collapse of capitalism as an economic system, and the dissolution of the bourgeoisie as a class. I find that a particularly pleasant thought!

[pokercat999]

5. "The primary purpose of business is to make money" the

profit "money they make" is the theft of the value that labor provided to their product!

[h9socialist]

7. Hear! Hear!

I agree with you!

[bossy22]

8. LMAO...theft you say?

So a person who's money is invested in the business and whos idea the business is founded on is not entitled to make a profit? I think you'd find many people who disagree with you.

Yes, we can debate the fact that sometimes business does exploit its employees but its silly to believe that a business owner should not be entitled to some of the profits from HIS/HER business

[h9socialist]

12. Entitled???

I don't think that a capitalist is entitled to shit by virtue of the ownership of capital, and I know there's a lot of disagreement on that. I have merely staked out my position.

Capital is nothing other than a bunch of legalism aimed at forming a ruling class based on the monopolization of money. As Marx so aptly put it: money becomes capital when in accumulates to a point where it can command human labor. Therefore, capitalism is not a system of "freedom" -- rather it is a system of buying the freedom of others -- based on the threat of starvation or social disapproval.

A capitalist is "entitled" to compensation for his/her own efforts on the basis of common humanity, NOT by virtue of property rights. People tend to give credence to capitalist profits, primarily because of social conditioning. Just like people in the middle ages were conditioned from childhood to believe in "the Divine Right of Kings." Eventually humanity grows up enough to recognize the self-serving rationalizations of the ruling class.

[abelenkpe]

14. I hope we grow up.

Therefore, capitalism is not a system of "freedom" -- rather it is a system of buying the freedom of others -- based on the threat of starvation or social disapproval.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sucks the day one realises that, don'tcha think?

My son asked me why I had to work the other day on the way to school so many thoughts crowded my head all I could say was "I trade my time and work so we can eat." He's only five. I don't want to bum him out. He wants to be an astronaut and fly to mars. I want him to too. :)

[Hello_Kitty]

16. If you can't pay a decent wage and provide good conditions and still make a profit.

You don't need to be in business.

[h9socialist]

17. Unfortunately, that's not the capitalist logic!

Rather, it's let the capitalists use the power of their capital to squeeze as much out of the workers as possible.

[abelenkpe]

13. Yet the market does this itself

I know of two large corporate studios whose business plan for the past ten years has been to not make a profit. Literally. Their plan has been to underbid all competitors. They have been OK with losing money for over ten years. They do this in a bid to drive other companies out of business and thus take all the work. Many smaller studios have fallen as a result.

I have worked for both large studios. I now work for a smaller studio that has survived these attempts and continues to thrive. The owners don't live lavishly, don't take salaries above their workers. Their whole goal is to provide a great place to work for their employees. That's it. Everyone who works here loves it, is devoted to the companies success and well compensated and cared for in an industry where many get burned out fast. It is much like the companies shown in Michael Moore's latest film.

It's not only about efficiency or profit. Nor does it have to be when it is realized that business is an integral part of the community. Publicly traded businesses and globalization has forced business owners who used to be more aware of their role in their local economy to forfeit that role and responsibility chasing profits for people they never know or interact with. Somehow we need to get back to a system that is more humane.

And we need to think outside the box. Which is better? One employee working 6 days for 60 hours getting overtime? Or two employees working 30 hours each straight time in shifts?

[h9socialist]

15. I agree with your statement:

"Somehow we need to get back to a system that is more humane."


The problem with the notion: "Yet the market does this itself" -- is that the market only does this piecemeal or in isolated incidences like this. I am discussing a paradigmatic change in the relation of human beings, work and claims on the social product.

[Odin2005]

18. LOL, typical simple-minded capitalism apologist that can't see the big picture

"Inefficiency" is the buzzword the Corporatists use to justify exploitation.

[SocialistLez]

2. Greed is the source of it all

There is no reason China can't make it's own goods and we can't make our own.

Globalization is just a tool in the owning class' tool box to screw the working class once again.

I think we should have FAIR trade, not free trade.

I'd be okay with trading with other countries if we paid a premium for products that can easily be made here in the United States.
Some may see my thinking as naive but oh well.
Let's institute tariffs for foreign made goods.

http://www.johngrayforussenate.com/nationalselfsufficiency.htm

"All products that are required for our National Security, as well as all basic needs of the citizens of our Country should be produced in American owned plants, right here in the U.S.A., by companies headquartered on this continent (and paying taxes here). Some luxury wants could be imported by paying equalization tariffs. This is necessary to rebuild our middle class, which has been practically destroyed by the effects of “Globalization". Democracy in the workplace should be the norm. We will always be a trading nation, but it is extremely bad management to allow a negative balance of trade."

[h9socialist]

4. That's fine . . .

. . . but it does not address the point I made. It is not simply free trade that destroys jobs. Rather it is the power of the corporations to control the technological development of the world that drives the destruction of jobs. For instance, if it were not for the application of computers and robots (IT for short) the transnational corporations could not have moved so much production off-shore. 50 years ago it was impossible to establish many factories in Third World nations because they all, invariably suffered from a shortage of skilled labor. Now, not only have they increased their suppy of skilled labor, but automation has made it possible to set up high production factories nearly anywhere in the world (save Antarctica).

The truth is that as long as economics is the driving force of society, our problems will always be rooted in economics. Che Guevara once said that socialism should address the problem of human alienation and spirituality. He disdained "cold economic socialism." I contend that a freer, more just civilization is impossible until humanity enslaves technology and productivity to enabling human emancipation, rather than the capitalist class employing technology and productivity to enslave the workers of the world to create the material conditions for capitalist profits.

In a just socialism, the people of the world freely share the bounties of the world -- and everyone would have enough free time to pursue their own lives on their own terms.

[SocialistLez]

10. " In a just socialism,..."

No disagreement from you there.

I think I would disagree with the statement, "The truth is that as long as economics is the driving force of our society, our problems will always be rooted in economics."

I could easily replace the word profit with economics, at the least the first time you use it.

I don't think the 40 work week is the issue, it's the hoarding of profit, capitol, etc. by the ruling elite.

[h9socialist]

11. But think about it . . .

. . . money and capital are no more wealth than the paper they're printed on. The effectiveness of money derives from how much product of human labor it can fetch for you. Marx put it very well when he noted in Das Kapital Vol. II that money becomes "capital" at the point where it has accumulated enough to command human labor.

Consequently, shorter work time is a means for limiting and curtailing the hoarding you speak of. Were it not fore the social relations of workers and capitalists inherent in money and capital there would be no point in hoarding.

[bossy22]

9. your last paragraph is actually

describing something that is already in place. In almost all DOD procurement agreements their is a "buy american" clause. Though many PD uniforms may be made in china, Army, Navy, Airforce, and Marine uniforms are made in the U.S. The way it should

[eridani]

6. Lavorare meno! Lavorare tutti!

Sounds much more operatic and revolutionary in Italian IMO. This is an international movement that really needs to get more traction now.

[Odin2005]

19. Technological Unemployment is Capitalism's doom.

Our sick, consumerist culture is, essentially, the result of trying to keep a doomed economic system going as productivity improves by manipulating people into buying more and more cheap junk. In a truly just society improved productivity would allow people to work less and less for the same income.

A big problem is cultural, namely the strong influence of Calvinist "work is virtuous" thinking, in our society's people's worth is based on being a workaholic, imagination and daydreaming is demeaned as "laziness", and recreation is considered a sinful indulgence rather than a necessary part of human existence.

Another problem is systemic inertia and the inability of most people to conceive of anything different as possible, or if they can they see it as evil and dangerous.

[Kat45]

20. Very true regarding the Protestant work ethic.

It really bugs me when people brag about being workaholics, like it shows great character and is something to be proud of. And you're right that those other things, which are actually quite important aspects of a person's life, are considered laziness and sinful indulgences. I feel that this way of thinking is assbackwards. I remember in the early days of technology when people would say that this would save us from having to do certain types of work, allowing us to have more free time to enjoy other aspects of life. Unfortunately, the way it's turned out we have been forced out of jobs and left to have to spend our time looking for new jobs--or working several low paying jobs--since we have no income to enable us to pursue more enjoyable things.

[jtuck004]

21. We're already ahead of this. 15 million people already have a 0 hour work week.

Only 135 million to go.

[Patchuli]

22. Wow, to have more me time?

I'm for it, especially at the same salary!