Save the world with a 3-day work week
Offline In 1930, famed economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that by the end of the century people would be working a 15-hour week. He figured we would no longer need to work long hours to earn enough to satisfy our material needs. Instead, we would be preoccupied with “how to use freedom from pressing economic cares” that accompanied societal prosperity.
It hasn’t worked out that way, of course. The 40-hour work week remains a staple of Western society, and many people put in far more hours. But now a British think tank is asking us to rethink our approach, and adopt a 21-hour work week. The New Economics Foundation, based in London, England, argues that is what we should be working if we wanted better balance – not just between the time at work and the time immersed in other life pursuits, but also balancing hours worked more evenly amongst the population, and moving us towards a more balanced, sustainable, less carbon-dependent economy. Anna Coote, head of social policy for the foundation, said in an interview that other, less drastic targets were considered, but “we went with 21 hours as it’s the 21st century and it’s good to get people to think radically. That would be a three-day week.”
The foundation does not expect it to happen overnight. Indeed, practically, it’s simply hoping that the report will lead us to reconsider our current work style and cut back, perhaps aiming initially for something like a 30-hour week, which in itself would be radical.
France instituted a maximum 35-hour week in 2000, and one trade union study found 58 per cent of respondents felt it had a positive impact on their life, mainly because it reset the work-life balance equation. On the negative side, the foundation says the option to spread annual hours in longer weekly chunks over the year made work more variable and less predictable, especially for low-skilled workers. When Nicholas Sarkozy was elected president, his government changed the law, giving employers a free hand to impose longer hours.
Ms. Coote says her foundation is not promoting a mandatory approach by government, but prefers cultural change. You may gasp at a 21-hour work week today – or even a 30-hour week – but you may have been equally unbelieving in the past that smoking could be curtailed, seat belt restraints and cycling helmets become common, and voluntary recycling become widespread. “We want to influence the climate of opinion and then change thinking. If in time we need a regulatory underpinning, that can be done, but first we need a change in attitudes,” she says.
The report notes that the Factory Acts at the end of the 19th century first limited the paid working week and by the beginning of the Second World War the eight-hour day and the five-day week were beginning to be seen as normal. “Fewer workers clock in and out of their jobs these days, but the logic of industrial time still ticks away in our heads, shaping how we understand our lives,” the researchers state.
The immediate fear many people will have is that their income will shrink. But Ms. Coote has two responses to that. The first is that when work is redistributed, it might mean the same hours or even more hours within a family, so income may not take as big a hit when, say, the husband spends more time at home with the children and the wife goes out to work 21 hours. But her foundation is also taking dead aim at overconsumption, and less income, she feels, will have a positive benefit. She notes that one of the fastest growing industries these days is self storage, with units dotting the edges of major metropolitan centres. “We are working to buy,” she says. “It’s an example of overconsumption – people buying things they can’t use.”
The researchers expect that negotiations with employers might see workers sacrifice part of their pay increases for reduced hours, as the value of a shorter work week is recognized. In the transition period, companies might also clamp down on overtime, so hours are released for people currently working part time or unemployed. Governments would also have to look at eliminating some of the penalties companies face in payments like unemployment insurance for taking on new employees rather than working existing employees for longer periods.
The researchers admit their report is meant as a provocation. But the resistance might come from the very people they are trying to help. People like to complain about the long hours they work, but in doing so it’s like complaining about the weather, something to talk about in a woe-is-me vein. But Ms. Coote says: “You can’t do much about the weather but you can change the way you work.”
And if you do, the report says businesses will see greater productivity, as studies show long hours hurt productivity. Individuals, in particular men, will have more time for their families, as they work a three-day week. And the transition to retirement will be less painful; indeed, if 21 hours are the norm, that work week may even continue for many people through what are now retirement years, since it’s more comfortable.
“A much shorter working week would change the tempo of our lives; it would re-shape habits and conventions and profoundly alter the dominant cultures of Western society. It would help to promote sustainable social justice, well-being, and the good life, to safeguard the natural resources of the planet, and to build a robust and prosperous economy,” they argue.
Source:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/management/morning-manager/save-the-world-with-a-3-day-work-week/article2332609/
- Login to post comments
His drugs were better than everyone else's, in so many words. (which is about all the 'thought' he deserves, in the world's current unsustainable state)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
You're talking about Keynes?
I actually been supporting this for a long time now. Even before 2008. We need to reduce the working time one way or the other or else society will become unstable.
Specially since the farming hoards of India and China left to work in the Industry. There is no work for all and there will never be as long as we keep stubbornly and irrationally hold to this century old philosophy. Western economy is as great delusion as organized religion (yes incendiary grenade intended in this atheist forum
)
Mock my words... you'll remember me in a decade or two.
There are other people who defended reducing work time like Bertrand Russell, which is a character I know better than Keynes.
Yes, of course we need a shorter working week.
But to achieve that, we'd need a lot more than just cut the hours. Our society has to become much less greedy and by society I mean rich and powerful people who shape the economy. We need to ban all inflation and switch over to non-growing, interest-free economy. All trading with money as a commodity must stop, the whole financial industry must become history, together with other forms of speculation, like stock markets.
Money is like a blood. It has no value or nutrients by itself, it can only dissolve. Blood must circulate. It must keep constant amount, not too little, not too much. Not too fast, not too slow. It must not accumulate! Its circulation must be closed, that is, it must not bleed away out of companies, municipalities, regions and states into greedy private hands who knows where.
Then and only then will be the Keynes' dream possible. We must stop paying the price of ever-growing economy that sucks money and time out of us. We must return the creation of money into public hands in public interest and in amount corresponding to real resources. You get the idea.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
If you don't personally approve of your's or someone else's work week then uh... don't work?
I'm sure someone else will be happy to work your hours.
(again, I'm thinking it should be blatantly obvious why keynes was a complete douche, but maybe not...
)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I have found I cannot just sit back and do nothing anymore, I need to to do something I feel is constructive most of the time. Big change from even a year ago. Despite this, I could get behind this. I have also found I don't need much money to be happy. Would give me more time to do my own projects. Instead of 4/5 hours writing in the evening I could do 8 before my brain melts and I become a zombie playing video games/ reading a book.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I don't have many comments about Keynes because I don't know his work that well. Although certain things I pick up here and there make a lot of sense to me. I know he had an important role in the coming back of the great depression.
"was a British economist whose ideas have profoundly affected the theory and practice of modern macroeconomics, as well as the economic policies of governments. " Seems pretty important to be a douche... I'm not saying he isn't but I think you are also, like me, very critical of todays state of affairs.
I have to work or else I can't pay the house I live in, or the electricity I use to chat here, or the internet service, or the food I eat, etc.
But would gladly work less if that meant other people would get jobs. My "boss" though don't think that way... he wants to pay "me" the less possible for the longest hours possible. He thinks I'm a commodity.
What I want is shared work time in a society. Work is not just a commodity, it is a fundamental right for all, because we all need to contribute for a society. It is actually good for the economy if most of us work, because then most of us will earn enough to spend and increase GDP. Work (individual money generating activities) will become even more scarce and difficult in the future.
I believe in an happy planet index, not GDP, but this way of doing things is purely irrational... not just because it makes hippies mad but also because it is self defeating for capitalism in the long run... but well time will prove me right...
It only shows that the richer a human gets the more greedy and irrational he becomes. Lobbyists are way up the roof in politics, like never before... Well almost as high as in absolute monarchy times...
You can only achieve the end of inflation with state price control. That I don't entirely agree... we had our fair share of total planned state economies, they don't work. Inflation is a natural thing occuring on any human transactions from the ratios between demand and supply.
But I agree, money has to circulate, that's obvious.
About the economic growth I'm not that radical... It is true that we need some economic growth at the moment to mitigate population growth and rising welfare from developing countries.
However We need to reinvent economy and make it serve human stability and civilization, not jungle law. Which is the law that governs the marketplace and workplace right now...
Before we stop economic growth we need to change certain things, we cannot just stop it overnight. If you take a look at what I wrote at this post: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/31659#comment-376514
... you'll get a glimpse of my thoughts.
Keynes, in so many words, was a huge fan of governments meddling in the economies they would otherwise only observe.
He believes (apparently) that government should have the final word on what both people and businesses should do with their money.
To drive the point home: do you want me demanding what you do with your money through force of law? Are the taxes you pay really that important through the welfare of others, military expenses aside*?
*they're important, mostly in the negative sense during wartime
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- What if the VAT and the work of machines are both written off as basically the same thing, leaving the pure price of resources?
- What if we actually set the prices of resources according to the actual physical amount of resources?
- What if we keep the amount of money in circulation as constant as possible, no matter of the inflation?
- What about a monthly tax of 1% for large private concentrations of money? (just an idea I saw on the net)
- Would that be really worse than economic cycle of recessions and crises?
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I found out one of the main differences between "conservatives" (far right) and "liberals" (far left) is the way they see Government competence.
The right say government is evil and should be reduced to it's smallest state possible. Political goverment can do very little good to society and are very corrupt.
On the other hand the far left thinks it is only through the State that you can force the otherwise blind money czars to share their fortunes with the oppressed masses.
They are both right, and both wrong... The state is actually the reflection of everyone's competence and ethics in a country. If the State is mostly corrupt so are the private enterprises. The left fails to see the state ends up being an enterprise, albeit a very peculiar one. The right fails to see the private sector is also a governing body!
Historically the "states" governances has done little good. Also the rich uncontrolled have a tendency to become mentally ill and crush everyone in slavery.
If we look at this from perspective there is really not much difference between "government" and the "rich" because... surprise, surprise... they are the SAME! They have always been the same, historically, only today we see a real effort to hide this fact.
The French revolution and different posterior suffrages have brought the masses of the less fortunate to share a little bit of the power. Good for that. But now with the end of the cold war a dangerous transformation is happening.
Okay... I think everyone needs a refreshing on what "the state" is: the self regulatory system that is ruled by a government. In a democratic system, the state "should" be the will of the majority. This is a great thing if managed correctly and fairly with no subterfuges. It should give a perfect governance of the economy if the "majority" makes rational decisions.
The state is needed for civilization to occur. Any complex system needs control and guidance to work. Civilization is a complex system.
The state, in my opinion, must uphold justice as it's primary objective. Justice means there must be found the best meritocratic method of sharing Earth's goods and products. Justice is a primary requisite of civilization.
Justice also means that there is no justice served by starving human or a human being denied opportunity to be part of a society, just because the merits of the fat cats have it all and didn't left anything.
The monkeys in the zoo are fed the exact ammount of Bananas for their wellbeing but the strongest monkeys, or the rulling monkeys, beat the other monkeys and get all the Bananas. This is the law of the jungle, this is what we have, we don't have civilization. There is no Fat Cat who deserves to earn a million a day and there is no No Good Dog who deserves to starve and be excluded.
Do you think feudal Europe was a "state" regulated economy?! NO! Medieval Europe was rulled by the Elites; Monarchic, Religious. People with money crushed everyone else.
I think we can all agree that democracy was a huge upgrade from this... but why?! Because it enabled us to be EQUAL in the RIGHT of opinion. Why can't we be EQUAL in our fair share of the world's economy which happens to be vital for individual survival?! I'm not saying we should all earn the same, I'm saying everyone is entitled to at least basic dignity and not being shoved of the economy and work (money/survival activities) like what is happening in my country. Please don't come and tell me the fault is European welfare state... because that's BS.
These last years we all seem to be hostages of a thing called the economy! Give me a break! It should be the other way around!
If by any chance I lived in Sweden I would have NO problem with the state meddling in the economy, because I know they are competent. The taxes I pay would be for the benefit of ALL (me included). On the other hand if I lived in Italy I would have lots of problems with that... So no... it's not a question of Big state or Small state... it's a question of competence.
Problem is it is extremely difficult to put someone competent in charge because of general population stupidity and missinformation caused by economic pressure groups financing corrupt and incompetent politics in their interest.
Some of these are very polemic...
And overall this would not stop inflation from occurring.
Inflation is not a big issue anyway...
BUT excessive workforce worldwide is a very big problem! And I still did not see here a rational argument for maintaining 8h/day besides stupid subburness!... Returning to this topic point!
For all intents and purposes workforce is a commodity, problem is we have too much now. Workforce is you, me and everyone around. What will we do about it
Why 3 days? Why not 3 hours?
Coincidentally, Hulu just put on an episode of "A Day In The Life" on Tim Ferriss, a man who has inspired much of my business style. If you have ever watched the show, you know that most of the people featured are experts in their field and work ridiculously long days. Ferriss on the other hand has made his fortune by working very short days. He creates business models where his presence is not required on a regular basis, serving more of an advisory role than direct management.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/352863/a-day-in-the-life-tim-ferriss
Anyway, it is worth checking out to see how evil capitalists can live their lives and his book "4 Hour Work Week" is definitely worth checking out for those who desire to escape the drudgery of the 40 hour work week. It is possible to make a very good income working few hours, it is all about producing value efficiently during the hours you do work. It is a good way to live.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
The reason inflation is a problem is because there is no deflation. Nor do wages tend to grow. Nor is inflation directly tied to all supply and demand.
Not without government intervention anyway.
So every year the dollar loses value and there's nothing to show for it but a poorer working class and a richer sit on my ass class.
It is definitely unsustainable.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"Sorry, currently our video library can only be watched from within the United States"
I've tried different sites, no luck...
Anyway, I think that's a good idea if it was possible for me! It's not, however. And I believe it's not possible for most people. I don't see how can I work part time here and get a minimum decent wage. It's not possible in the States as well.
I can hardly get ANY job, much less if I'm picky about work hours. The pressure here is to work MORE hours not less. It's much more easy for self employed people to do that. Even so many are not fortunate to choose their time off given the type of business.
“Work is the refuge of people who have nothing better to do”. Oscar Wilde
Thats what you don't nor ever will get. You don't mind getting lucky off "investments" to the point of having the ability to live off the labor of others to the point you don't have to work physically hard to make a living. WHAT YOU WILL NEVER GET IS THAT I AM FOR THAT if someone is lucky enough to get to that point.
WHAT I AM AGAINST AND WILL ALWAYS BE AGAINST is the pay gap and cost of living. The problem with our system is that it is causing people who are not as lucky to become indentured slaves for the people who do get lucky.
AND STOP FUCKING CALLING CAPITALISM A FORM OF GOVERNMENT! Gadaffi was a capitalist! HE FUCKING OWNED STOCK IN GE! CHINA CAPITALIZES OFF OF THE SALE OF JUNK TO THE REST OF THE WORLD.
You want so desperately to believe we want different things, I do and I dont. If someone is lucky enough to only have to work a few hours a week, GREAT! But when it comes at the cost of the middle class and poor to where they cant make ends meet, then that becomes long term an economy that cannot last.
Making money IS NOT EVIL! So get your head out of your ass and stop throwing that childish accusation at the rest of us. What is evil is PAY GAP.
If EVERYONE has the ability to make ends meet then the entire society benefits. If every family could afford to live off of one income, and education was at the same cost as it was AFTER WW2, which was virtually free, then that creates MORE opportunity for stability. More stability, higher education, higher education, less crime. Less crime less taxes needed for police and prisons.
What you will never seem to get is the range of inequity is the problem, not inequity itself. As long as money gets involved in anything, religion, politics AND the private sector, there will always be those who don't give a fuck about creating a monopoly or inequity that comes at the cost of the rest of society.
What we have that has been created by the past 30 years is the very same thing that caused the great depression. Making money IS NOT EVIL but "every man for themselves" which you stupidly advocate is.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Honestly the worst quote I have ever seen. Just because someone said it, doesn't make it true. If you enjoy what you do...
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Sure! I'm with you man... but do you honestly think that most people enjoy what they do at their work time?!
Great post man! Nice to agree with you for a change!
It certainly is possible in the states, and I would go so far as anyone who puts their mind to it can do it. You will never be able to do it working for someone else, but I think it is an extremely unhealthy obsession that people have expecting others to give you a job. If you are reliant on someone else for a job, you are going to face a lot of pressure to work whatever hours they want worked and always face the risk of being laid off or fired without warning. My advice, don't work for someone else unless you absolutely have to as a short term measure to pay for food today. And while you are working for someone else, develop an exit strategy.
Many self employed do work long hours. IME most of the self employed work much longer hours than any employee. This is because they create inefficient business models that require them to be personally present most of the time, or they hold a false belief that they are needed most of the time even if they are not. That is basically the topic of Tim Ferriss' first book, how to make your business model efficient enough that it requires little to no personal oversight from you. Too many people approach business with the attitude that they have to do everything themselves rather than trying to find ways to pass the labor on to others who are apparently eager to have a job.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
It isn't luck when it is done intentionally, with skill and according to a detailed plan. Are you "lucky" when you cook an egg properly?
Where did I call capitalism a form of government? Capitalism is simply the result of economic freedom and allowing people to purchase the means of production.
Obviously we do want different things because I would pan handle before I would work in a restaurant again, you apparently want to work in one. So that is a pretty big difference in what we want right there.
College attendance rates are substantially higher than they were after WWII... almost twice as high http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/college-enrollment-rate-at-record-high/ I still maintain the college is by and large a waste of money from an economic standpoint unless you are going into a specific profession that requires it. Four years of work experience and saving $25-$100k can do a lot for you economically if used intelligently.
If inequity is such a major problem why don't you do your part to fix it?
What exactly do you believe caused the great depression?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Don't bash an honest days work it may not be anyones dream job but its work all the same. But seriously, Brian what are you dong working at a restaurant? You can do better and its not about looking down on a job or the poor or whatever, but there is no reason to work in a restaurant long term. I have heard you complaining about your new boss. If there was ever a time to get a better job it is now.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Beyond Saving, I think it was you who once I heard saying here that the decendents of the rich should not inherit their fortunes so that every man could make is fortune from scrap and thus making society more meritocratic.
The more I look at that the more I agree with it. That would change a lot of things and the most important ones are not at plain sight. Although something like that would be extremely hard to implement...
But anyways... do you honestly believe that most people can be their own bosses??! That will never happen, that is economically and physically impossible within this economic and development system.
Ok... I'm really pulling my head now!... How can I successfully work for myself at the moment... be my own boss... what product or service can I sell to the market?... humm... no nothing comes out... maybe you can give me a hint?
I'm going to tell you something: Twice in my life I was close to open a business in a partnership with someone else. Why I didn't went all the way through? was because I didn't thought it had good chances of working. Any business is a risky endeavour and as time goes by I see that more and more business is becoming risky. The tendency is for less and less people to be self employed.
Ok, if I had a million or two I would probably risk it and open a business because I would not be risking my whole fucking life. The way I am now for me to go into any of the above mentioned businesses I would have to ask for a loan which I'd have to pay back with back braking interest whether my self made job worked out or not!
I feel so good about me because I have no debts whatsoever and that's a very good freedom feeling these days!
Anyways... there will always be employed people with bosses and todays problem is the excessive amount of these people given total work available that the market needs. There is no sharing of the work.
What you are talking about is just a completely different world. I'm talking about the unsustainable reality of your employees. We're talking about different things. The whole of the market needs X amount of services and products and these can be made with Y amount of workforce. There is excessive workforce meaning there will always be rising unemployment as long as work is not shared. Simple math.
----
Let me just tell you all about some recent situation I've learned about at a casual coffee table, which illustrates the fucked up world we live in:
One of my contacts who knows several business people was telling me about this guy in Spain who owns an important winery there. He apparently fired 12 employees because of the crisis (decrease in profits) or something. (BTW Spain has 25% unemployment, amazing isn't it?
)
And then after this at some point she told this same guy bought 2 or 3 Audi A8 for his sons! An 100.000$ car, at least.
And I said "what?!"... I told her that the money he probably gave to the fired people as compensation was not even half of the price of one of those cars! And I was outraged with the fact that he had more than enough money to keep those people working.
I know for a fact that this coffee table news is widespread behaviour and there are loads of business people who do this kind of stuff.
But I have higher moral standards than most people which goes beyond what I just babble here and stands in practical terms. I would never do such a thing. Most people would though.
Yeah, in an ideal world I don't think anyone should pass their fortunes on to their children. However, as a practical manner I object to government attempting to force it, I would like to see those with money voluntarily have their money sent to charities upon their death. I won't be getting any money from my father or leaving any for my heirs but since I don't have kids nor plan on ever having them it is pretty easy for me to say.
Yes, I believe that most people can, but I also believe that most people never will. In our current economic system the problem is we don't have enough people creating jobs and too many people looking for employers. The result is stagnant wages which should encourage more people to cross over to the employer side. There has been significant uncertainty in the global economy and tightening of the credit market due to a variety of factors which has created challenges for investors and start ups, but those variables are starting to settle.
Now obviously there are great efficiency benefits in having a group of employees working together, a factory that hires 500 employees can produce far more efficiently than if those 500 employees all had their own business creating the product. But this to is self correcting. If too many people set up businesses and there are not enough employees wages and costs will rise to attract enough employees to do the work. The result is that wages will get high enough for people who are self employed to choose the security of employment over the risk of being self employed. But really, as high as unemployment is now most localities are a long way from that.
That is the million dollar question. The way to make money is to provide consumers with something of value- what would people want that you have the ability to provide. What that thing is will vary widely depending on your locale. It could be something that no one has ever done before, or something that is done somewhere else that you can mimic in your area. Perhaps one of the safer methods is to look at something that is successful and find a way to do it better or more efficiently.
A good place to start is always what would you pay for? Or if you ever hear someone say the magic words "I wish there was someone who would ______". Whenever you have some little idea like that, jot it down. Later on you can take a look at the idea, do a little research and see if it is something you could feasibly provide.
The vast majority of these things you will probably never do. For example, I was at the bar one day and someone had accidentally put a bottle of wine in the freezer. It came out the texture of a slushy and the customer tried it and raved about how good it is. Idea: Wine slushy machines in bars, tell me that twenty something coeds with no palate are going to pass on a wine slushy. I haven't put in the research but I suspect that it could be done on a small scale at a fairly modest cost. Once you have demonstrable success on a small scale you can attract venture capitalists.
The other option if you have trouble coming up with an idea is to build a bankroll and invest in other people who have ideas and the qualities to be successful with them but lack funds. That is how I make my money now, every business I have ever started is either sold or closed. I don't so much as look for brilliant ideas as I look for brilliant and motivated people.
Having a lot of money helps, but isn't a necessity. The average business in the US only starts up with $10,000, I would recommend having $25-$30,000 at your disposal before seriously considering investing without being the main owner yourself. A good chunk of change but not unattainable for most people if you are willing to live without luxuries for a bit. Maybe you can't do it next year, but maybe a few years down the road you can.
Many people starting their own businesses run into trouble within a year because they didn't have enough cash at the beginning. There will be situations where they are actually making a profit but still have to close down because it isn't coming fast enough and bills are due. Being in a position where you can step in when a business runs into the hump and provide a much needed cash infusion in exchange for equity can be very profitable. Often more profitable than being there from the beginning because you can see whether the business in general is working.
How do you meet those people to find that opportunity? Simple, you talk to people. When a new business starts up, introduce yourself to the owner and get to know them. Talk about their business, people starting their first business love to talk about it. If an investment opportunity comes up you will already have a feeling for how well the business is doing, what its prospects are and whether or not the owner is competent.
It is only money. But I guess that is where I am different from many people because losing all of my money doesn't bother me. I actually kind of miss the thrill of having every dollar to my name at risk, I guess that is just the gambler in me.
And what you need is more employers to provide jobs to those who won't create jobs for themselves. There is certainly room for a lot more services and products, not everyone in the world has everything they want yet. The economy needs people who are willing to determine what people want/need and find ways to get it for them. Someone has to step up and create the means of production. Right now I see a lot of unemployed people sitting around waiting for someone else to do the work of creating an idea, finding a demand and developing a way to satisfy that demand. I'm simply saying if you are unemployed, or unhappy with your current employment, step up and be that person. If you aren't willing to be that person, I don't see how you can be upset that someone else isn't doing it either.
Businesses don't hire people just because they have enough money to do so or as a public service or for charity. You hire a person because you believe the results from that person's labor is going to result in you getting more money than you are paying the employee. If you are losing money for every hour the employee works and you don't expect that situation to change in the near future the smart thing to do is to let them go, regardless of how much money you might have in the bank. You don't get that kind of money by paying employees to do jobs that don't have value. If the labor isn't needed, it isn't needed.
Continuing to pay employees who are not producing value would be the equivalent of going to a barber when you are bald simply because you needed haircuts in the past. I know you don't like it, but labor IS a commodity and workforce decisions have to be made based on what is profitable for the company. A company that maintains employees that are not making a profit will eventually run out of money, no matter how much they started out with. Also, just because an employee is beneficial in the past, does not mean they are now or will be in the future.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Nope, wrong. The far left and far right both have their anarchic and totalitarian elements. You make the same exact mistake that so many other foreigners make in assuming that partisan politics in the US= left vs right. The political parties here are hardly 'leftist vs. right-wing'.
You're showing your ignorance again...
The gov't system here is nothing but symbolic of how broken it is.
You're starting to read like a self-styled historian who has read half of every history textbook and has seen half of every history museum in the world.
Ok... if you ever come back with some other commentary or treatise besides "ZHE EVILLE BURGEOUS OPPRESSES ZHE MASSES!", get back in touch with me. Until then... we have nothing to discuss.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Mostly because of actions carried out by the central bank (which is not only Keynesian but run by nepotists and favoritists.)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Nah... we should believe the crackpots here. It is the "ruling class's" fault! All of it is...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Beyond Saving, I don't have a problem investing all my money. MY money is the key word here. What I have a problem is asking for a bank loan. I hate being in debt.
IF I got to any of those businesses I had to be in debt to start. I would have to pay that debt no matter what, even if my business failed... and then I would be fucked.
I still believe that it is not possible for most people to be self employed, that is just delusional... You actually gave a good example of one of the things that make it unfeasible: "the efficiency of scale" in the example of the 500 worker factory.
There is only more room for services and products if the "common man" earns more money to spend.
Thank you for your explanation anyway, about how to invest. I have some questions about the technicalities of investing in other people's businesses... but this is not the place to ask them... investment laws here are different from there.
Yes, this is a good description of the system we have. I would have said instead of "losing money", "decreased profits" --> "fire people" ...for a more precise truth. I was told he fired those people because his company is selling less, so he doesn't need so many colaborators. So he is still making money, but not has much. He scaled down the business, is another way of saying it.
The system you explained given the situation I presented is immoral, and I would not do such a thing if I was in his shoes. I can imagine a ton of things I could have done before deciding that I had to fire people, and would certainly not spend 300.000$ in luxuries after firing people... I abject this economic system. Work is not a commodity. Work is the lifeblood of many human beings.
I will fight this system with all that I can.
And lastly to Kapkao, I just want to say that I broadly agree with some things you've said. But I still think it's pretty obvious that what breaks people appart is the way they see Government competence.
Again if I lived in Sweden, I would have said "please tax me!"
...on the other hand if I lived in Southern Europe (which I do) I would have acted very suspicious and ask: "What are you going to do with my money??" - This says it all...
So you believe an economic system should encourage (or at the very least not discourage) putting people in jobs where they produce products that are not needed? Should we continue to keep people employed to harvest fields by hand even though modern farm equipment makes that work unnecessary? I see no moral high ground in having a portion of the population doing what is essentially make work. No society becomes wealthier through people digging useless holes, and while a healthy economy can afford to support a certain number of those people, encouraging it can cause too many and collapse the whole thing for everyone.
Consider the winery, maybe he could have afforded to continue to pay the 12 people but they are no longer making enough profit to cover their expense. What happens when another 12 employees are no longer profitable? Do you keep them too? Eventually, the number of employees you have that are not contributing to profit will increase to the point where the entire business is not making a profit. Then what?
Maybe the business owner shares your ideals and he has money in his personal account. He continues to employ his entire workforce at a loss. Sooner or later, he will run out of money. Now what? The entire winery goes bankrupt and every employee loses their job. Not to mention all the people who work making the luxuries the business owner didn't buy now face a lower demand. Is that moral?
Suppose you throw out the whole concept of money, thus preventing any form of bankruptcy. You have a system that pays no attention to whether or not people are producing products that are needed/wanted. The inevitable result is that you end up with a bunch of stuff that is neither needed nor wanted wasting both the laborers time and anything they might consume during their labor. Such an economy would become quite poor, have a hard time modernizing and lead to a low standard of living for most of the people in it.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Havent you been paying attention to what I've been sayin?! What I believe is that we should share work. There is no reason we need to spend this much time at work! We certainly have the money and the technology to put everyone with 4h/day work max. Or something like it. Society would benefict greatly with more leasure time. It makes no sense in making machines and computers replace human work if we continue to work the same amount of time...
A poor example. Due to the fuel cost to the environment, it would actually be beneficial to put a stop to mechanised farming, and put more people in fields.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Well I see your point. But no! No back breaking jobs when we don't have to. I have thought about the problem you're posing...
I would solve the problem about mechanized/fossil fuel problem differently... First I would introduce to mainstream discussion the notion of Forest Gardening
Then I would phase out fossil fuel dependent transportation system. No more fossil fuel for transportation, this would be a huge ammount for use on other things... With this the remaining fossil fuel would be for agriculture. Not as a permanent solution though... and would probably be replaced with renewable energy engines; electrical or even nuclear.
With much more fossil fuel available, with the low work intensive concept of forest gardening and with population control I would solve the problem. If for this we need Government intervention by mandatory laws, so be it! I'm all for it!
A good plan with a fatal flaw: cooperation. Most people who have cars will not willingly part with the freedom given them through that car.
Farmers are, on the flip side, a spectacularly small minority, and it's much easier to manipulate their methods of farming than to manipulate the lifestyle of the majority.
Besides, a little hard work never hurt anyone. Especially in the context of this topic, where the work week is being reduced.
It'd also teach people to be more self sufficient. I doubt you could give an average person a farm and expect something different than what happened in Zimbabwe a number of years back. But after a few years of working on a farm, most people would be quite capable of growing their own food.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I'm skipping all the side-notes of this thread here.
My bother and I each owned a small construction company. We basically had the same set-up (man-power, equipment, customer base, etc.)
We both were very organized and kept good records of hours, expenses, profits, etc. We both also experimented with hours of the work day and week.
After filing taxes one year we sat down and compared our books over a 12-pack of budweiser. It didn't take long, nor complete sobriety, to see that a 40 hr/5 day work week was a mainstay in the workforce for a reason.
Not only did the books show it, but our observations of productivity were the same.
8 hrs is the time to get the optimal productivity out of the average healthy worker. Even after months of conditioning in a 10 hr/4 day week it was still obvious that productivity level dropped after 8 hrs.
And in a 10 hr/ 4 day week Mon-Thurs we found that everyone got too soft after a 3 day weekend and the work tempo would not get it's full momentum usually until Wednesday.
And in weeks that we were on 8 hr schedule but did not get the full 5 days in (losing Mon. or Fri.) the results were equally counter-productive.
On days where we could only get a half day in it was obvious that we might has well have just stayed in bed. Not only does production practically stop by the time it gets going, you must also take into consideration all the other things that are involved in putting in a days work. - all the way from getting your ass up and ready, but dealing with kids, transportation, misc. obligations,etc. You still have to do all those things whether you work 2 or 10 hrs.
As far as all of us being happier you can forget it. Even if you could optimize productivity in a 3 day week, after time you will grow bored with your time off and spend more money to occupy yourself, and find that you need to make more money.
If you are one of the very few that wouldn't need more money, after 4 days of sitting on your ass I assure you that you will not be a happy worker on Monday and you wont' be worth a fuck. Even after a 1 week vacation most people are so unhappy to go back and have gotten so soft in that short time, that they aren't worth a shit to themselves or anyone else for a couple days at the least.
8 hr/5 day week is a happy medium. It has been researched, studied, and experimented with by the smallest business man to the largest corporations taking in all considerations of the benefits to the workers and the companies.
Short of evolutionary changes over millenniums, global catastrophy, slavery, or an implementation of a world dictatorship- it's not going anywhere permanently. If the mainstay did change you would see the system taking a nose-dive almost immediately.
For the most part, the only one who a 3 day week would be practical for is someone who had the desire and ability to sleep 4 days a week and also had the amazing ability to wake up after 4 days and be strong, chipper, and ambitious.
"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia
Hi Tony!
Beyond Saving doesn't seem bored with his extra time off.
This is all very interesting... but I don't give a shit about productivity rates. My primary concern is social justice.
I can only speak for my self and in a 3 day week job I would not be bored. Although I think I'd rather have 4h/day. I don't believe I'd spend more money either.
There is this unsurmountable problem of rising unemployment caused by several factors: Displacement of farmers to industry in SE Asia; rising cost of raw materials; rising productivity and replacement of workposts by machines or efficiency increase and the loss of purchase power of the middle class caused by the replacement of increase in salaries with the credit bubble. You have to solve ALL of these problems to tackle unemployment.
This is causing an emergency world wide to the need of sharing work. All I've been hearing for the solution of this problem is similar to hallucinations caused by LSD
We have more than enough workforce world wide to considerably reduce work hours. The private economic sector has more than enough money to support this.
I seem to remember that many families in the 50's only the man worked and the wife stayed home. Now that seems economically impossible... strange...
Anyway can you show me studies that show productivity decreasing if you work less than 8/h day 5 days a week?? Cause I know countries in Europe where they work less than 40h/week and produce more than the US.
And I can show you studies from MIT too, supporting my cause: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/
Yes man, I'm an idealist. That's my big big flaw. I tend to think that if people see the truth as clear as I do, they would act as I would.
Although Vastet, I said I'd take fossil fuels out of the transportation system, I didn't say I would end cars! But they would probably end up all electrical cars, with energy comming from renewables and Nuclear.
I learned about the events in a small town of Wörgl, Austria. Apparently, during the Great depression this town issued its own interest-free currency with other special properties that created an economic miracle. The whole thing was of course carefully theoretically prepared by the economist Silvio Gesell and practically realized by Michael Uttenguggenberger. Thanks to the stamp scrips,
Over the 13-month period the Worgl money was in circulation, the mayor carried out all the intended works projects. The council also built new houses, a reservoir, a ski jump, and a bridge. The people also used scrip to replant forests, in anticipation of the future cash flow they would receive from the trees.
That means, not only was Wörgl rebuilt by the original project (fixing roads, streetlights, etc), these people had so much spare resources and workforce, that they pulled off some impressive development of public assets in Wörgl and surroundings.
In my opinion, this is not just a magical power of capitalism, but rather using money in such a way that they do not impede the development. Money that encourage fluidity of the economic cycle, that do not stick in rich people's hands. In other words, this very close to a resource-based economy in the sense of using all the available resources, while the money are used for their managing and motivating properties. Very impressive. No wonder the banking business stepped in and destroyed the system to preserve its monopoly.
I was reluctant to believe that the world could be rebuilt in ten years as some visionaries say, now I am convinced. Of course, I see it as a temporary solution. To work for 10 years like that is desirable, but not forever.
Now, this is something that got me thinking. I am in favor of an interest-free currency, much like the scrips. Dollar is crap. The only thing I like about dollar is the hemp paper. Otherwise it's a worthless currency, endlessly massed by a private company behind the Federal reserve. I was on a tour and lecture in my National Bank and they know there as well as I do that American finance is a joke. Obviously, borrowing dollar or even using it is a bad idea, although good for Americans. It's like giving away your stuff for a handful of sand on the desert. (Some say that Saddam was brought down because he wanted to trade his oil for euro, not dollar) We can not get rich by our work, because we use bad money and fruits of our work go to the rich and financial industry. The problem is, that up to 80% of global money is dollar.
So, how do we implement this miraculous Wörgl-like currency for rebuilding the world, without cutting ourselves from the rest of the world? I think the scrips could be used locally, limited to the local state, region or even city (to prevent draining of capital), alongside with regular money. Converting common money on scrips should be limited if ever (at local offices etc.) and scrips should not be converted on dollars at all. I think the two systems can work alongside each other. It certainly reminds me of other recent projects with internet-based "money", like Japanese currency of social help or Greek unofficial markets of discounts and services. Of course, the international trade with resources is corrupt and rigged and financial markets even more so. These markets must be done away with, regardless of scrips.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Don't get me wrong, I think less work would be great if it could be made practical and people were responsible and accountable enough to make good use of their time. But I believe most people need to work the 8/40 even for their own damn good.
My grandma used to say "the devil's work finds idle hands" - ok bad example but the premise stands. Given time, eventually most people aren't gonna do good for themselves with too much spare time. Our society is already fat, drunk, and stupid enough as it is.
I, myself, have been off work for a while and I admit I had to get a grip on my living and spending habits.
And as far as your dis-concern for productivity rates, the only way to throw that out the window is to change the competitive nature of all mankind. Now that would be a world I would love to live in.
And the studies you want me to show you would only be my deceased brother's and my own. Doesn't do you any good I know but it's all the proof I need. But if Europe pulls it off without a hitch I'm all for it. No one ever accused me of being the world's greatest businessman.
The real tragedy to me is not how much we have to work, but the work we do. Most people spend their entire lives working a job they hate, but pretend they love it cuz they don't have a feasible out.
If those people truly loved their work, they would wanna work more hours. Hell I know alot a guys who want to go to work just to get away from their wives.
"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia
I actually stopped driving last decade. And I love driving. But the cost to both the environment and my wallet was too much to justify continuing.
So I do see where you're coming from, and wouldn't mind at all if your vision came to pass. Indeed, I share it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I enjoyed reading you. Trully. You seem an honest down to Earth guy. Sorry about your brother.
I too have been off work for a while. One way I prevent boredom is to spend some time here banging my head with yours!
I'll start soon to work again. But my life is crazy. I spend like months without work, and now that I'm getting to work again I'll work from 10-12/h day.
I'm going to visit North America again though, which is nice.
But this is not my dream believe me... My dream would be to stay in a place with nice weather get a wonderful woman and live a simple stupid life and have a simple but socially important job were I could see people smile at me for services/products provided.
my country has nice weather, but no jobs and did not find the princess yet.
My experience, and I worked in a lot of places, is that what makes us happy is not a life filled with work but a life filled with social interaction and social integration. I feel sad when I look at society becoming more selfish and individualistic. People are becoming less and less tolerant with others differences.
I think that part of this has to do with information channels hypes (Media sensationalism) and the new forms of slavery like debts.
About our worship of work I really believe Christianity has a big slice of guilt for that.
Also I'm all for cooperativism which I think is feasible. I'm tired of this no mercy competition.
Hey Luminon, interest free is different from inflation free. I'm all for interest free economy. I'm positive I read somewhere that in the Arab world they have interest free economy in some places because it seems that is against their religion for banks to charge interest over money loaned. I've also read that somewhere in scandinavia, I think Sweden, they had that at some point.
The basic problem is competition. Competition for material resources, sex, to procreate, power, etc... Technology has improved, but so has the global competition. Unless and until this problem is addressed and all sources of competition curbed and controled, the problem will persist. Greed is caused by the competition, not a first cause.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
OK, you're right, inflation-free economy is something different. I just still have a feeling that without charging interest there is one less cause for inflation.
But isn't competition rather caused by greed? Why else would people start competing?
We could also call it commercialization or market orientation. Doing everything for profit, even hospitals and schools. It gives me a mental image of prostitutes on the E55 highway, dressed in high heels, stockings and mini skirts on the lower half - and their top half as teachers, workers, plumbers, secretaries, doctors...
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Without interest, why would someone loan you money? There have been interest free economies before, and some Muslim countries are today. However, realistically, no one is going to (willingly) give you money without getting something in return. The result is that those with political connections or who are in positions of power that allows them to trade favors can get loans, anyone not in such a position is SOL.
I think it is a great thing when average people are able to get loans to buy things like cars, houses or educations that would otherwise be unattainable for them. While I have been a frequent critic of the average American's willingness to go too deep into debt, I think a system that provides the opportunity for pretty much anyone to get credit is better than one that only provides that option to the extraordinarily rich and politically connected. People just need a basic economic education so they have the knowledge to make good decisions about when to take on debt, and when to refuse it.
As for inflation, it is directly connected to the monetary supply which in most countries is controlled by a central bank. That is why the US implemented the "quantitative easing" program I criticized last year, to intentionally cause inflation. The conventional wisdom among those who make decisions at these central banks is that moderate inflation (2-3%) is good, while deflation has to be avoided at all costs.
There are some good reasons why governments are paranoid about deflation- governments tend to be deep in debt and deflation makes debt more expensive. Deflation is good for anyone with cash, anyone on a fixed income, and those with little long term debt. It is bad for anyone with large amounts of debt since the money you are now paying back is worth more than the money you borrowed.
With so many governments have large debts and even larger promised obligations, significant deflation could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Since deflation could force politicians to deal with the reality that there isn't enough money for everything they are doing, they prefer to use inflation to delay the inevitable and hope to be out of office before the shit hits the fan.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I would say they are just pressing their advantage. But regressive income tax, minimum wage, tarrifs, etc... doesn't reduce competion or increase cooperation. It only rewards people that were loosing. It's just greed by the others. What happens is people become what they hate. Essentially what leftists say is because cooporations steal, then the government should steal. So that is why you see the greed of CEOs monopolizing resources and the greed of those collecting unemployment and just sitting on the couch.
What is needed is a way to go from competion to cooperation.
Greed is just the winners trying to press their advantages in the competition of life(which is sometimes economic competition). The mistake you make is attack the effects and not the causes of the misery which is global competition.
Isn't everything that is done for some kind of 'profit'. or to please oneself? To gain an advantage in the game of survival? What is the difference between Bernie Madoff and Octomom? Between corporations and labor unions? They're all out to please themselves at the expense of others.
There is the greed of those that want to use tons of natural resourses, the greed of those that demand more of government than they ever give back, the greed of politicians that gain power by taking from those that work to give to those that don't, the greed of those that have more kids than the planet can support.
Why are you only obsessed with the greed of capitalists? Doesn't the causes of all greed need to be reduced?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
The actual problem is that as fucked up as today's economy is, it would be unsustainable with work weeks cut in half (more or less) based on an idiot's ideology.
Maybe this is what Teralek actually wants (who knows) but governments, throughout history, readily demonstrate the folly of trying to improve life for one's populace by meddling with economic matters through force of law.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
The reason the economy is "fucked up" is because it is of competitive advantage to do so for many groups. Both rich and poor, management and labor, left and right politically acting in their own interests to the detriment of all. A kind of Tragedy of the Commons.
I believe we can have a society with a reasonable amount of work and time to enjoy it. The problem is do we want to cooperate to tamper down all the forces of life that cause the competition. One thing is clear, neither the political right or left have a solution. Only science and reason can find solutions.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
You're putting your ideology on a pedestal, again.
(yes, I can smell it happening a mile away)
'Free markets' works reasonably enough, but this thread is not necessarily about personal ideology.
Or, at least, it wasn't up until about 5-6 posts ago.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Call it ideology, or whatever. My point still stands as a mathematical truth. Too much workforce worldwide along with rising costs of raw materials, rising inequality, loss of purchase power of middle class is causing stagnation of demand which inevitably will make unemployment a long term problem. The only solution seems to be reduction of labour hours worldwide.
I don't think competiton is a problem on this issue. We managed to reduce work hours from "80" to 40, over the last 100 years, with increase in competition. If you had a poll asking if people would accept a reduction in worktime maintaining the same wage, we would have a sounding "yes".
Also I would say that most people would rather cooperate than compete. Cooperation was the reason we created civilization after all... if not what's the point of all this? Was just this all to create drugs to our minds (TV, internet, science, religion, cell phones...) to keep us distracted of life's real problems?! We have all these tools now. We can create a sustainable and wonderful society... the human animal amazes me with it's stupidity sometimes...
We tend to compete only when the "resource" we seek is scarce and there are many looking for the same. So let's not create that necessity/scarcity in the first place, whenever it's possible.
I agree that this is all part of a bigger scheme and we cant just change work hours in a meaningful way over night. There are other related things that would have to be tuned as well.
We all have our ideologies. All I've seen here from some people was denial, or not presenting solutions.
As I side note I don't have problems with loans, interest or inflation. That subject was not initiated by me. These things exist for ages now on different kind of governments.
But I have a BIG problem with investment banking.
Oh and another thing. The main critic I hear about reducing worktime is that would increase the cost of labour and companies would go bankrupt.
This is not true. Although it could happen on some places and with short term repercussions, the huge influx of new people on the labor market would rapidly increase demand and would save a lot of businesses.
This happened in the past.
The space is there and the money is there. Today we are at a all time low of labor costs in business, meaning the "profits" go more and more somewhere else other than the "general consumer"