Labor Economics

Hello guys! This is the thread to discuss LABOR ECONOMICS!

<Guitar Riff>

Minimum wage! Unions! OSHA!

Why do you want a 30 hour work week? I don't see the point. The hours aren't the problem, the wage is. Increasing wages and reducing work is a horrible way of managing your economy.

You'd think so, but Germany has implemented a work sharing program lately and their unemployment has actually been falling.

But more than that, it's a conceptual thing. As technology improves, worker productivity increases. That translates into citizens being able to consume more for the same amount, or to be able to consume the same amount for less. As technology continues to escalate, citizens would basically have to consume more and more and more just to keep up with their own natural productivity gains!

Now, obviously, the real problem at this point is that the benefits of that productivity aren't going to the people, but to the megarich (hence the intense income disparity in the country). But even if that ended... what are people going to do with all their new income? The reason I suggest shorter work weeks is that, instead of having a hyperconsumeristic culture that must constantly grow, instead, you have a culture able to sustain itself with less and less effort. This gives the citizenry time to do other things. Like exercise, which makes the nation healthier.

Again-this is not a short time project (though, again, the job sharing program in Germany is apparently surprisingly effective-I need to do more research on that). It's more a "In the next fifty years, under ideal circumstances-" kind of situation.

Does Labor Economics mean something specific, or are we just discussing how to increase wages and employment?

Anything relating to labor. Employees and employers and whatnot.

I thought the problem was determining when the extra efficiency from technology makes letting your workers come in for more money and less work actually becomes more effective, considering how faulty a lot of cutting edge technology tends to be, and how obviously enticing the idea of getting away with working as little as possible for the best bottom lines is to the workers.

I... don't think anyone could actually support themselves on thirty hours of work a week. It would be nice, though. Of course, this is disregarding several jobs where I think it's unwise to restrict hours like that; teachers, doctors and other medical professionals, police and so on.

How exactly could Germany's system be introduced to the US? Or convince people to introduce it to begin with?

Beats the heck out of me!

I walk away from this discussion feeling greatly enlightened, Tomu.

Eh, maybe I'll look up Germany's thing tomorrow when my brain doesn't feel shot from reading about Rick Perry.

My understanding is that the work sharing program was probably as a sort of stimulus measure, rather than a more permanent thing. I just off-handedly heard it on MSNBC and have yet to do full research myself.

Ah...

there's your problem. You get info from a biased source.

Seriously, 40 hour week works and should stay. I'll agree with you on a lot of change to labour, but not this. It really wouldn't help.

And you could argue that unemployment went done because the economy simply improved naturally.

PLUS, Germany's economy is predominately based in work that is not so based in areas replaced by technology as the States.

edited 30th Aug '11 9:32:11 PM by Erock

Look, if Fox News reports something, I look into it. Fox News isn't automatically inaccurate just because it's biased. It just happens to be inaccurate frequently because it's biased.

Again, I need to look at the specifics of what the program is, and how it's "helped." What's likely happened is that less people are unemployed, and more are underemployed.

Exactly. People often forget that the quality of jobs is important too. Unemployment can be solved by a lot of means, and crippiling businesses is not a good idea.

America need major changes to get strong again, and it's stuff conservatives would hate.

edited 30th Aug '11 9:34:37 PM by Erock

At this point, fuck strong-I'd be happy with "Not Anemic."

Then I have a plan for you, though it would require a lot.

Honestly, I'd be happy with seeing movement back towards the manufacturing sector in the US and away from outsourcing. It wouldn't be easy by any means, but it'd probably be better for us in the long run.

That's pretty much the key to my plan.

edited 30th Aug '11 9:57:29 PM by Erock

How.

The main problem is that outsourcing is cheaper. What incentives would you offer to make it seem more profitable for companies to come back home?

Without just closing off trade entirely.

You make high quality products that sell for higher so you can pay workers more.

Plus, you save on transportation that way too.

edited 30th Aug '11 10:24:14 PM by Erock

People don't give two shits about quality. They want cheap shit because they're paid so little.

That only works if the people buying them 1) care enough about "higher quality" to pay more for it, and 2) have the money to spend on a more expensive version.

That's why you pay them more, Tomu!

And cheap shit lasts less.

They have money to spend on cheap stuff twice, they can buy more expensive things once.

edited 30th Aug '11 10:25:28 PM by Erock

An emerging new corporation won't have enough of an impact on the market to sustain those kinds of wages. You really need government intervention at some point.