Economists Are Obsessed with “Job Creation.” How About Less Work?

submitted by Mnemonic from evonomics.com

all 10 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]fred_red_beans 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Another effect of everyone working so much is that there is much less time for people to communicate with each other. While we are out working we depend on small groups of administrators, politicians, judges, and corporations take responsibility for issues that face us and our communities. Most people have little to no interaction with the workings of our political, judicial, or educational systems. We are only allowed to influence them by proxy via elections. Responsibility is lifted from us by these institutions, and we are much poorer for it. It could be seen as less efficient for groups of people to take the time be able to come to consensus on issues, but if people had more time in the first place, we would all have to learn to take responsibility for ourselves as a group or community. Currently most people are so concerned about just making it and chasing the dollar that they are distracted from other things, that while would take some work, may have a greater value.

Congressmen and senators don't care about what their constituents really think or care about, they only want to know what message will help their re-election and what they can do for their donors.

Most people don't have any idea how many are in their county jail. Shouldn't the people in a community have a say or at least some insight into the how members of their community are being "corrected" and why? Judges are appointed by politicians.

Corporations fund the colleges to ensure they get the next generation of employees they want.

It doesn't have to be this way, but while we complain about the conditions imposed upon us by the system, it is also our collective choice to continue to engage in it.

[–]sodasplash 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It doesn't have to be this way, but while we complain about the conditions imposed upon us by the system, it is also our collective choice to continue to engage in it.

Choose "No."

Exceptionally apt comment. I would also add medical. We are told to not think for ourselves but trust learned individuals. And yet, especially when it comes to something like our own physical well being, if you go to for a second opinion, there's an 80% chance that the second opinion will be entirely the opposite of the first opinion.

This is actually true in many walks of life. Yet so few people realize this because they barely have "time" to get a well informed first opinion.

Opinions are the same as assholes. Everyone has them. Especially doctors and lawyers.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

if you go to for a second opinion, there's an 80% chance that the second opinion will be entirely the opposite of the first opinion.

Of course, this only applies for certain things. For something like "is it important to eat food" or "should I get my broken leg set", the decision won't be controversial. "Is chemotherapy or radiotherapy a better choice" will probably get you a different answer, if only because it's a false dichotomy.

[–]worm 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

May I suggest that the article's reasoning is fundamentally flawed?

The whole basis of the article is that as we have figured out ways to produce as much with less labour, and that this frees us up to have more free time. It argues that the reason we still labour so much is because we are all engaging in unproductive work.

Where this analysis falls down is on the simple fact that where human productive capacity increases twofold, human greed increases tenfold. As our ability to supply ourselves increased, we began to demand more and more things which our ancestors would have considered frivolous luxuries, and even came to regard such luxuries as being inalienable parts of our life - so much so that they are practically necessities.

The reason we continue to work normal hours is not because of some sort of shambolic work ethic which forces us to put in more hours at work despite producing nothing of value; the reason we continue to work is because our "play ethic" (as the article calls it) demands more work from others to fulfill our ever-increasing demands for goods.

[–]Mnemonic[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The reason we continue to work normal hours is not because of some sort of shambolic work ethic which forces us to put in more hours at work despite producing nothing of value; the reason we continue to work is because our "play ethic" (as the article calls it) demands more work from others to fulfill our ever-increasing demands for goods.

That might be true for middle-class and up.

A problem is that low/underpaid jobs somethings set a max on the hours work because of insurance and other things they have to fix for their employers. A normal paid job is mostly a job you can't haggle your time too much are requires you to work around 40+ hours, else you can pack up an someone will take over that will gives those hours.

There aren't many people who have to freedom to choose semi part time hours and not be a burger flipper.

[–]worm 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If I might say so, you seem to have missed the larger picture entirely and focused entirely on a single, hypothetical working man and his choices, instead of why those choices exist in the first place.

If you take a look behind the mechanisms for your hypothetical working man, you will discover that the working man is offered 40 hour work weeks because the employer believes that the 40 hour work week will be profitable for him. The employer in turn believes that it would be profitable for him because he believes that there is a sufficient demand for the products he can create, such that he would extract a maximum amount of benefits from the employee should the employee work for 40 hours for him. The demand which drives his confidence is the reason why the employee is able to work 40 hour weeks and is not on part-time work; and the demand, for the most part, is for goods which previous generations would have considered alien luxuries.

If we as a society stop buying all but basic necessities, it would be entirely possible that the luxuries market would grind to a halt and employers would consequently start employing less people on fewer hours to produce such luxuries.

[–]Mnemonic[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If we as a society stop buying all but basic necessities, it would be entirely possible that the luxuries market would grind to a halt and employers would consequently start employing less people on fewer hours to produce such luxuries.

I agree on that.

Though this does touch on a kind of 'chicken--egg' scenario for these luxuries goods and the need/want for them. I mean like

if we as a society stop buying all but basic necessities

Could also be:

"f we as a society stop making all but basic necessities"

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

We are getting to a point where we're running out of jobs. What should be do about it?

[–]fred_red_beans 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think there is a lot that people could do to add "capital" or value to our communities, problem is that they may not be able to earn money for it. Our economy, and those that control our economy, guide or dictate our productive activities.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So can't we just provide value to each other without money changing hands? Surely that would solve this particular problem. If money becomes worth less and less, then those with a lot of money will have less power. It's unorthodox, to be sure, but it Works in Theory™.