See How It Works!
US95 - Work conservation to fix unemployment
| Create jobs without higher taxes or government spending through work conservation and laws to support working less. | |
|
|
|
   
|
|
Description
In polls, people consistently say that the most important issues in the United States are the economy and jobs, with politicians/government third at 9% of responses. The difference between economy and jobs is that corporate profits can be high without creating jobs. In April 2009, 42% said that the economy was the most important issue compared to 17% saying it was jobs.
Now, only 22% say the economy is the most important issue while jobs are at 26%.
So unemployment needs to be addressed before any other idea on this site, like the environment etc.
The way to create jobs is simple: have people work less, so that businesses can hire more employees. The basic idea is as follows.
This would be easier with laws to prevent discrimination against people who worked less in areas such as career advancement and to treat tax-advantaged health benefits as a normal part of wages, but companies could start using this idea even without these legislative changes.
Dedicated site: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/
Now, only 22% say the economy is the most important issue while jobs are at 26%.
So unemployment needs to be addressed before any other idea on this site, like the environment etc.
The way to create jobs is simple: have people work less, so that businesses can hire more employees. The basic idea is as follows.
A third major way to determine employee compensation, in addition to a monthly salary or hourly wages:
The first 20 hours are paid at 1.2 times the normal hourly rate for full-time work.
Work beyond 20 hours in a single week is paid at 0.8 times the normal hourly rate.
This would be easier with laws to prevent discrimination against people who worked less in areas such as career advancement and to treat tax-advantaged health benefits as a normal part of wages, but companies could start using this idea even without these legislative changes.
Dedicated site: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/
Arguments
Result: more attention devoted to other problems in society.
Without a job, it can literally be difficult to survive. Many people have had to depend on friends or family, or even on crime to get by.
If people work less, this creates jobs. For high-end jobs it would not be the currently unemployed who would fill job openings; there are plenty of qualified people who have not been able to find a job that challenges their skill set. People would simply shift 'up' the ladder of job quality and pay rate. So our super-efficient productive methods would lead to improvements in quality of life for everyone.
This would allow efforts to be redirected at other problems. For example, if everyone can easily afford to pay higher costs for alternative energy sources, then we can invest in things like solar panels BEFORE the world runs out of oil.
Or in an entirely different aspect of life, do you know anyone who feels stressed from hearing about the economy? Lower stress = lower divorces rates. Etc.
Without a job, it can literally be difficult to survive. Many people have had to depend on friends or family, or even on crime to get by.
If people work less, this creates jobs. For high-end jobs it would not be the currently unemployed who would fill job openings; there are plenty of qualified people who have not been able to find a job that challenges their skill set. People would simply shift 'up' the ladder of job quality and pay rate. So our super-efficient productive methods would lead to improvements in quality of life for everyone.
This would allow efforts to be redirected at other problems. For example, if everyone can easily afford to pay higher costs for alternative energy sources, then we can invest in things like solar panels BEFORE the world runs out of oil.
Or in an entirely different aspect of life, do you know anyone who feels stressed from hearing about the economy? Lower stress = lower divorces rates. Etc.
A very simple argument:
Unions work, in part, by restricting the amount that people work to preserve jobs.
Work conservation is the same thing except on the national level. Even employers that don't allow unions, like Wal-Mart, would see an increase in wages because there would be fewer unemployed people willing and desperate enough to work for whatever wage level they can get.
People would have choices which drives up wage prices. This might mean some companies go out of business, but if everyone can find a job then everything is still good. Wasteful companies (or ones that "spend" all their profits on corporate executive bonuses) are not needed in the economy.
Unions work, in part, by restricting the amount that people work to preserve jobs.
Work conservation is the same thing except on the national level. Even employers that don't allow unions, like Wal-Mart, would see an increase in wages because there would be fewer unemployed people willing and desperate enough to work for whatever wage level they can get.
People would have choices which drives up wage prices. This might mean some companies go out of business, but if everyone can find a job then everything is still good. Wasteful companies (or ones that "spend" all their profits on corporate executive bonuses) are not needed in the economy.
When people work harder, all it does it funnel money into higher corporate profits. Apple had profits of $34 billion last year and only paid a 9.8% tax rate because it stores its profits offshore in tax havens and currently has $100 billion in cash.
This is the consequence of the iPad/iPhone craze. If you have any of these products, you are responsible for the suffering of the 99%. If you are female, and having chosen to be in a relationship with a guy who buys you brand-name products and is extravagant with money, you are responsible for the suffering of the 99% (unless he doesn't work or only works a few hours each week.)
50 or 100 years ago, people imagined that in the future all the work would be done by robots or the work week would only be half what it was then. Be the change in society by supporting work conservation. The time for cultural revolution is now.
This is the consequence of the iPad/iPhone craze. If you have any of these products, you are responsible for the suffering of the 99%. If you are female, and having chosen to be in a relationship with a guy who buys you brand-name products and is extravagant with money, you are responsible for the suffering of the 99% (unless he doesn't work or only works a few hours each week.)
50 or 100 years ago, people imagined that in the future all the work would be done by robots or the work week would only be half what it was then. Be the change in society by supporting work conservation. The time for cultural revolution is now.
Counterarguments
Possible market crash.
"Effortless" job creation means that the dual mandate of the Fed, to keep employment high while controlling inflation, will not conflict. This means inflation can go to 0%, which saves money when making pennies and so on.
But it also means that people could just leave their money in the bank without it losing value. This would end the flow of stupid money into financial markets, causing the entire system to crash. The stock market would, once again, be mainly for "dividends" instead of being a game of which stock prices will go up and which will go down.
Just like in the 2008 financial crisis, retirement funds could lose much of their value.
"Effortless" job creation means that the dual mandate of the Fed, to keep employment high while controlling inflation, will not conflict. This means inflation can go to 0%, which saves money when making pennies and so on.
But it also means that people could just leave their money in the bank without it losing value. This would end the flow of stupid money into financial markets, causing the entire system to crash. The stock market would, once again, be mainly for "dividends" instead of being a game of which stock prices will go up and which will go down.
Just like in the 2008 financial crisis, retirement funds could lose much of their value.
The GDP of the US might go down.
If people only work less up to the point that unemployment goes away, then GDP shouldn't really be affected, even if prices go down since inflation calculations are supposed to include that sort of thing. Less buying of foreign brands might even mean the GDP goes up compared to current.
But it's very possible that enough people will choose to work less that the GDP of the US goes down below current (due to less total hours being worked). Furthermore, reliance on cheap foreign manufacturing could affect currency exchange rates, making (for example) the Chinese yuan go up.
This could potentially lead to the US no longer being #1 in the world for GDP.
If people only work less up to the point that unemployment goes away, then GDP shouldn't really be affected, even if prices go down since inflation calculations are supposed to include that sort of thing. Less buying of foreign brands might even mean the GDP goes up compared to current.
But it's very possible that enough people will choose to work less that the GDP of the US goes down below current (due to less total hours being worked). Furthermore, reliance on cheap foreign manufacturing could affect currency exchange rates, making (for example) the Chinese yuan go up.
This could potentially lead to the US no longer being #1 in the world for GDP.
Structural unemployment.
If people work less and spend less on brands or other unnecessary things, this puts people out of work who make a living sell brands.
For example, the financial industry. If income inequality goes down, then rich people will have less money to play with and they will choose to be clients of companies like Goldman Sachs less often.
This means that the financial industry will get less business and people will be fired. Local restaurants etc. will have fewer customers.
Jobs will be created in the areas that people are working less, but in order to get those jobs some people (such as former financial industry workers) might have to move around the country.
If people work less and spend less on brands or other unnecessary things, this puts people out of work who make a living sell brands.
For example, the financial industry. If income inequality goes down, then rich people will have less money to play with and they will choose to be clients of companies like Goldman Sachs less often.
This means that the financial industry will get less business and people will be fired. Local restaurants etc. will have fewer customers.
Jobs will be created in the areas that people are working less, but in order to get those jobs some people (such as former financial industry workers) might have to move around the country.
1 Topic
Discussion
Related Ideas
| Levy a tariff on Chinese-produced goods to encourage manufacturers to keep jobs in America. More detail | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From a certain level of unemployment onwards (e.g. 8%), working hours of the population should be reduced More detail | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
last reply by Misaki on May 28
Many work more than they'd like for more $$ than they need (1 reply)