Thread: Progressive working hours reduction ?

What effect will the progressive working hours reduction have, on this part of unemployment, that is created by automation.


Can such measure combat the present levels of unemployment and most importantly, the unavoidably upcoming higher unemployment and wages reductions, as automation advances and matures more. Employee compensations will also be in danger because human work will get less and less necessary and important.

Are you meaning the reduction of working hours from full time to part time?

Originally Posted by fay's unKle

What effect will the progressive working hours reduction have, on this part of unemployment, that is created by automation.


Can such measure combat the present levels of unemployment and most importantly, the unavoidably upcoming higher unemployment and wages reductions, as automation advances and matures more. Employee compensations will also be in danger because human work will get less and less necessary and important.

Some countries are experimenting with 6 hours working week. For example Switzerland, France and Germany. Among them only Swiss retained this practice on more or less permanent basis. I think that 4 day 8-hrs working week would be even better for human strength recovery as 3 day weekends would be very pleasant. Making working week shorter may reduce unemployment theoretically, but it is an official measure and there can be some practical violations. In the 1950-70 many futurists predicted that people will switch to a shorter working week at the beginning of 21 century, so it seems a way a reasonable society may choose.

I'm not sure it would have much if any effect on unemployment. People without ability, desire, or qualifications for work would still be unemployed, while people willing and qualified would probably just take on second jobs.

Recently Sweden joined 6-hours working day club.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Recently Sweden joined 6-hours working day club.

Only in a few experiments: What really happened when Swedes tried six-hour days? - BBC News

In Canada unionized employees are ...classed... as regular or casual workers. The regulars with seniority enjoy a predictable schedule and comfortable positions. The casuals work their way up filling odd shifts at different locations. Typically these casuals eagerly accept the most hours per week offered, to amass seniority hours... which takes years. Often they quit before attaining it. I believe the system - not anyone's cruel intention - the system contrives to cause burn-out, frustration, and incidental attrition among the casual workers, lest too many rise to seniority.

I suppose pressure to reduce working hours would hit the casual workers exclusively. Then this class of employees who are basically on-call must persist a decade or more to attain regular status.



A relevant experiment is about to begin. This when one of British Columbia's largest employers, the BC Ferry Corporation, radically switches the work "week" for crew.

I call it an experiment because this employer has unusual HR constraints that, for our purposes, remove a lot of variables. They can't toy with the basic morning/evening shift arrangement (ships typically run 5:30am - 11:30pm). Nor can they reduce sailings (hours per shift). And federal safety regulations prevent a reduction in crew per vessel... that also removes the variable of automation/efficiency. Of course this essential service must run 7 days per week.

Regular ferry workers currently do 5 morning shifts, then 5 evening shifts, then get 5 days off. The union membership is expected to vote for a new "five-five" schedule that is: five regular work days followed by five days off.

Then after ten years or so an economist may see the effect of this one change, most other variables constant.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I'm not sure it would have much if any effect on unemployment. People without ability, desire, or qualifications for work would still be unemployed, while people willing and qualified would probably just take on second jobs.

According to market laws price of some merchandise cannot typically grow if supply exceeds demand. Workforce presently is exactly a variety of "merchandise" price of which is dictated by demand and supply. It means that if there exist smallest unemployment (created not only by lazy people, but also by those who willing and capable to work) salaries will either start to fall or stagnate in the best case. Well, some "headhunting" for the best workers can continue, but for the majority salary increases will be closed. Obviously, that unemployment will continue to grow in the future due to automation and we are coming to a paradoxical situation when productivity will continue to grow (and unemployment as well), but salaries will either fall or stagnate for indefinite period of time. It seems to me the only way to change that situation is to create workforce shortage artificially by cutting working day. I think majority of people morally deserve right to work less and enjoy their life more as productivity grows.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

According to market laws price of some merchandise cannot typically grow if supply exceeds demand. Workforce presently is exactly a variety of "merchandise" price of which is dictated by demand and supply. It means that if there exist smallest unemployment (created not only by lazy people, but also by those who willing and capable to work) salaries will either start to fall or stagnate in the best case.

That assumes that employees are fungible; that like apples, you can replace one with another without concern. That's not really true. There will always be a demand for people with specific skills (ASIC designer, software tester, pipefitter, EMT, pilot) even if the demand for people with lower levels of skills (i.e. cashier) is low or nonexistent. The problem is that underskilled workers are being replaced rapidly by automation, and thus there is no longer a sufficient employment market to employ all of them. (That will get worse, not better, with time.)

It seems to me the only way to change that situation is to create workforce shortage artificially by cutting working day.

That would be difficult to do in most places, since many US workers are salaried (i.e. they get paid for 40 hours a week no matter how much they work) rather than hourly.

I think majority of people morally deserve right to work less and enjoy their life more as productivity grows.

They have that right now.

Originally Posted by billvon

underskilled workers are being replaced rapidly by automation

In my experience technology rather dumbs-down the workforce. An innovation requires precious few to understand it, more to dumbly operate it; and then some more are displaced by its efficiency. For example we still need to hire cabinetmakers - only modern "cabinetmakers" merely assemble parts from kits (IKEA-fashion). You could say they're ten times more efficient. But their skill is nothing like a traditional cabinetmaker's. Nor the factory worker's skill at making one component, they needn't know what it's for.

Originally Posted by Pong

In my experience technology rather dumbs-down the workforce. An innovation requires precious few to understand it, more to dumbly operate it; and then some more are displaced by its efficiency. For example we still need to hire cabinetmakers - only modern "cabinetmakers" merely assemble parts from kits (IKEA-fashion). You could say they're ten times more efficient. But their skill is nothing like a traditional cabinetmaker's. Nor the factory worker's skill at making one component, they needn't know what it's for.

I'd say it forces them into two bins - the dumb (the people who can assemble Ikea furniture) and the very smart (the people who can program the routers, milling machines etc to make Ikea furniture kits.) There is less left in the middle for someone with reasonable skills and intelligence.