It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The solution to unemployment?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
My first thread since my introduction. Please be kind


Since industrialization there has been exponential growth both in population as well as production. What was capable for one individual to do over a normal work week one hundred years ago can now be accomplished in a quarter of the time utilizing mechanized tools, computers, and the internet. This, I must say, is rather an impressive feat looking at known human history.

However the only ones profiting from this are the business owners. Why shouldn’t the worker see the benefits as well? Instead, the worker just gets asked to do four times the work.

There are 168 hours in a 7 day week. In other words we are employed about 24% of a week, just less than one forth. Not bad right?
However of the work week (120 hours) that is one third (33.33%) of that time; once you factor in commute, and getting ready before hand (let’s say one hour total for everything), now we are up to 37.5%. Now let us take into account the one half hour non paid lunch, and we are up to 39.5 % of the total time of the working week. That is still less than 28.3% of our full 7 day week.

The most recent sleep studies I have read suggest adults need a minimum of 7 hours sleep a night:
www.physorg.com... (one of many if you Google: study “7 hour sleep”).

If we factor that into our 5 day week with work and travel and lunch we are at 68.75% of our work week.
Now if we factor in overtime, cooking dinner, and traffic or other unknowns but necessities to get an accurate gauge of time, I would argue we spend well over 80% of our work week, or over 96 hours away from our family in a given week.

That is over 57% of our full 7 day week pulled away from our “free time.” Even more so if you have a second job, or full time committed hobbies such as a pool league or band practice/ gigs.

Ok. I know some folks out there will call me lazy because 40 hours a week is not that much time to have the privilege of being employed.

(For the record, I work in entertainment, as a back stage technician; as a drummer; as a photographer; and on rare occasion as an actor. Every summer for the last 15 years I have worked for a music festival where I average 250 hours over 25 days consecutive. Back in 2003 when I worked for a professional ballet company I clocked my hours for 2 weeks leading up to the opening of The Nutcracker at 127 hours for those 14 days.)

I will also add for all those people who claim CEOs deserve the multimillion dollar salaries because they earn it for their long hours- I have never made more than $50,000 in a year (due to the small market area I live in), and the performing arts company owners in this area make about $70,000 in a year averaging about 50 hours a week over the year.

“What about the solution you promised?” you ask.
I propose either a 32, 30, or 24 hour work week.
A 32 or 24 hour work week could easily be achieved by cutting the work week down to 4 days at either 6 or 8 hours per day, respectively. A thirty hour work week would just be 5 days at 6 hours.

If this study is to be believed: articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com...



company that allow users to access Facebook in the workplace lose an average 1.5 per cent in total worker productivity. Nearly half of employees in the recent 'social net-working' study use Facebook during work hours some as much as two hours per day.


If this one is right:



People who use the Internet for personal reasons at work are about 9 percent more productive that those who do not.

www.wired.com...

Either way, the fact that people do not concentrate on work the full eight hours they are being paid for is plain for all to see.

There are two arguments against my idea that I see are plausible:

1. I cannot/will not take the pay cut.
A: If it is a national or global mandate, all goods and services will reflect the income loss and adjust accordingly, or fail.

2. As a business owner I cannot afford the additional costs in personnel or benefits.
A: The personnel costs will be a wash if not a savings. Why have higher skilled (and higher paid) individuals fill out routine forms/ etc if it can be done cheaper by another? As long as all the information is provided beforehand, it would seem to be more cost effective business. To say it plainly, straight time is always cheaper than overtime.
I do not have the answer to the benefits question however. Although, past companies I’ve worked for have told me the rates are based on number of insured, so this could be a potential wash as well.

A history of the working week as laid out by the ever loved Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

I certainly welcome opposing opinions. What say you?




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   
The true solution to unemployment is essentialy simple. re-institute American manufacturing, and manufacturing in each Nation, stop NAFTA, KAFTA within all given nation-states, as it kills it's employment.

So simple a cave man could do it



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 


Unemployment is not just an American issue at this current time. But sure, I'd love to get paid more to build something other than giant doll houses for characters. I.E. Sets for plays.

I think the major point I am making is the increased productivity the internet allows has not been looked at by the public, as individuals are now able to do more in less time, therefor hindering a growth in job creation.

edit on 28-3-2012 by randomtangentsrme because: Added more

edit on 28-3-2012 by randomtangentsrme because: redacted a redundancy

edit on 28-3-2012 by randomtangentsrme because: I always put the comma in the wrong place



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
I propose either a 32, 30, or 24 hour work week.



And as fast as you can blink, workplaces shut down and are relocated overseas where such restrictive laws do not exist.

More people are now unemployed.

Whats your next plan?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


How so? Or Why so? If the pay out is the same what is the difference? If the pay out is not the same, why is it not?

I am an Independent Contractor who hires as needed, I do not see you argument as logical without clarification to support your point.
edit on 28-3-2012 by randomtangentsrme because: Added more



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Didn't Greece have a ridiculously short work week...

How is that economy over there again?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
The solution to absolute unemployment is perpetual motion.

The solution to relative unemployment is knowledge of supply and demand, and less state.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


No sir. They actually have the longest.
www.thejournal.ie...
www.marxist.com...



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by imherejusttoread
The solution to absolute unemployment is perpetual motion.

The solution to relative unemployment is knowledge of supply and demand, and less state.


As for the first, it has been proven perpetual motion cannot be achieved with our current level of technology.
As to the second, could you define your terms, and flesh out your argument?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
How so? Or Why so? If the pay out is the same what is the difference? If the pay out is not the same, why is it not?



I answered having read something in the past about efficiencies, but having now searched the internet for more info, the outcome seems less certain.
Some reports on your idea say the outcome will be negative, whears all the trade unions say the result will be positive, while most reports come to the conclusion that the outcome of a shorter worrking week are ambiguous.

In the end, it probably comes down to the nature of individual workplaces. Where you can easy swap out workers for new fresh workers (eg. a factory) then it might be positive, but where you have people who's knowledge of the current state of work lies in their head (scientists, project managers, designers) then there will be inefficiencies in swapping over to new people.

Now, I believe its a case where a one size solution wont work.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 



I can only agree with you there. Having worked from middle to upper management for the last decade plus, there are things you can assign the average workers, and there are things only you can deal with. This was the (personal) glaring counter point to my original post I hoped would not be questioned.
Every situation is different, and company's loose productivity if productive managers are limited by time constraints.

This supports the salaried positions rather than hourly. But (having had an assistant in the past), you can schedule few overlapping hours with said assistant and achieve the same level of productivity, while working less, and train an up and comer at the same time.

My first mentor was a Union President. I have respect for Union workers. But they do not rally for the greater good at this point in history. They only look after their dues paying members. While, in my opinion, they should be advocating for everyone in their trade.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   
So suppose you are making 50k with a 40 hour work week, the work week is cut to 20 hours and suddenly you end up making only 25k, so you go looking for another job, end up with a total of 40 hours work week with total 50k with increased travel and getting ready time because of double jobs, you decide which is better.

As for people using net at work for personal reasons, if it increases their productivity why not? But if productivity is decreased then of course net use has to be restricted.

And as for business owners most of them (specially small business owners) are literally on the job every moment they are not sleeping, and at times they have to pull through 3 to 4 days with only 1 to 2 hours of sleep total, so yeah maybe they should get a bit more than those who 40 hours no?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaleshchand
So suppose you are making 50k with a 40 hour work week, the work week is cut to 20 hours and suddenly you end up making only 25k, so you go looking for another job, end up with a total of 40 hours work week with total 50k with increased travel and getting ready time because of double jobs, you decide which is better.

As for people using net at work for personal reasons, if it increases their productivity why not? But if productivity is decreased then of course net use has to be restricted.

And as for business owners most of them (specially small business owners) are literally on the job every moment they are not sleeping, and at times they have to pull through 3 to 4 days with only 1 to 2 hours of sleep total, so yeah maybe they should get a bit more than those who 40 hours no?


I will answer point by point.

Better would be to work for yourself. I learned working full time for 30k a year is not as great as working 3 months and every Sunday for 20k a year, plus whatever else you can find. If you cannot work for yourself, a simple analysis of profit and loss should be able to give you the most effective return on your time investment.

Regardless, you are using time paid for by your employer for personal reasons. Or to put it bluntly, you are stealing from whomever you are working for, as you are not focusing on your job at hand while on company time.

Sure they should get more, that is not the issue here. For instance, on most jobs I bid I use the cheap hourly rate of $50 per labor hour. Depending on who is working for me I usually pay $30 or less per working hour. If I am working with my employee (sub contractor) that gives me a $70 per hour profit. So working in tandem I am still making more than the other, in fact I'm making $20 an hour just by giving another guy/gal a job. Plus the $50 per hour I get for working.
Or are you saying for me putting in over 60 hours a week I should have been making over the $575 per week (plus health insurance) salary that I was? While my boss was working less than 30 a week? In his defense, his first child was just born, and I did not fault him for taking the time. When my time comes for that scenario, I would do the same if I can.

Oh and due to the nature of theater, I get called anytime from 9 AM to 2AM local time. And always am working be it responding to emails or on the job site from the same hours or more. And still only pull in the average salary or less for the US of America. Yes I should have chosen a different vocation.
edit on 28-3-2012 by randomtangentsrme because: added an important H.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme

I will answer point by point.

Better would be to work for yourself. I learned working full time for 30k a year is not as great as working 3 months and every Sunday for 20k a year, plus whatever else you can find. If you cannot work for yourself, a simple analysis of profit and loss should be able to give you the most effective return on your time investment.


You are correct, working for yourself is the best, so yeah maybe you need to do that.


Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
Regardless, you are using time paid for by your employer for personal reasons. Or to put it bluntly, you are stealing from whomever you are working for, as you are not focusing on your job at hand while on company time.


I was talking from the employers point of view, (yes I am an employer) and I do allow employees to use company products on company time, specially if it increases their production. If I expect a set of work to be complete in 8 hours, but they do so in 4 hours the other 4 hours is for them to do as they see fit.


Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
Sure they should get more, that is not the issue here. For instance, on most jobs I bid I use the cheap hourly rate of $50 per labor hour. Depending on who is working for me I usually pay $30 or less per working hour. If I am working with my employee (sub contractor) that gives me a $70 per hour profit. So working in tandem I am still making more than the other, in fact I'm making $20 an hour just by giving another guy/gal a job. Plus the $50 per hour I get for working.


Good point.


Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
Or are you saying for me putting in over 60 hours a week I should have been making over the $575 per week (plus health insurance) salary that I was? While my boss was working less than 30 a week? In his defense, his first child was just born, and I did not fault him for taking the time. When my time comes for that scenario, I would do the same if I can.


maybe that was because his son was born, or maybe he is just lucky. I personally, and most of the other business owners I know start work as early as 5 am and continue till 10 to 11 pm, 7 days a week, and even then they don't have enough time to do everything that they want to do. Despite all that during times when things are in a downturn sometimes I end up making way less than the national average, and my employees take home 5 to 10 times what I'm left with, so well thats what I meant.


Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
Oh and due to the nature of theater, I get called anytime from 9 AM to 2AM local time. And always am working be it responding to emails or on the job site from the same hours or more. And still only pull in the average salary or less for the US of America. Yes I should have chosen a different vocation.
edit on 28-3-2012 by randomtangentsrme because: added an important H.

Maybe I should have chosen a different industry, but well can't change history now can we?



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join