Re: Productivity vs....

["Barbara J. Philbrick" <burkbrick -at- AOL -dot- COM>]

>I think probably our gravest error, which is pointed out by Uncle Ralph's
story,
>is that we've started using our productivity gains almost exclusively to
make
>more stuff, rather than to make the same stuff in less time.  Rather than
using
>higher productivity to bargain for a balance of higher wages and lower hours
>(the pattern for almost a hundred years) we've largely opted to raise wages
(or
>in the last 20 years or so, reduce the rate of decline) and leave the work
week
>fixed at 40 hours.  Actually, the work week has been slowly creeping upward
on
>an individual basis (as a result of overtime, both paid and unpaid) and has
>skyrocketed on a per-household basis (as a result of two-income couples)
which
>is probably why most of us feel harrassed and stretched too thin.  I'd much
>rather have more time off and proportionately less money, but that's not an
>offer anyone is making these days.

Surprising that business hasn't picked up on this - I think it's partly the
government's fault (isn't everything). I hired two people on a short term
basis for about 10 hours a week, and the paperwork (I wasn't paying them
under the table) was horrendous. Almost all state-level stuff - Workmen's
comp, etc. I think if they'd loosen up on some of this stuff, they would
actually see more tax dollars.

Anyways, it's interesting that you say this - I read a report about a year or
two ago that said that most people don't really want two incomes - they want
one and a half, but companies just don't offer the option.

In the same vein, I also read an article about a company in Japan that went
to a completely automated shop. It kept its employees - they worked shifts of
about a day or two a month as security, maintenance, and other tasks that
haven't been automated. It's an interesting idea, but I never saw a follow-up
story - I've always been curious how it worked out.

Barb