Misaki
Senior Member
- Jul 8, 2011
- 159
- 30
- 46
The greatest barrier to change in the world is people's desire to stay within the herd. This is especially true when it comes to decisions that affect other people. This message is meant to let people show how they feel about this issue, so that someone who fully supports it doesn't feel as alone. After reading this, please vote in the poll whether this makes sense and whether the issues it solves are important.
This is about fixing unemployment, including people not being able to work as much as they'd like, and all the problems that result from a lack of jobs or competition for the right to sell things in a particular market with no extra taxes or restrictions. This is not a politically divisive issue that only some people would support. If there are more jobs, poor people and people who are discriminated against can find work, which some political parties see as a priority; but welfare spending and taxes on the rich to support that welfare spending would decrease, which other political parties see as a priority.
The basic idea can be easily summarized: pay people a higher rate when they work less time. For example, 1.2x their normal pay rate for the first 24 hours of work each week, and 0.7x their normal pay rate for all hours after that, including hours beyond 40.
Understanding why this system creates jobs requires a bit of explanation. Businesses hire people because there is work that the business needs done that's worth paying someone to do. Sometimes the value an employee supplies is a little less than what they're paid, sometimes it's a little more, but usually it's about the same. If the employee left the company for whatever reason, the business would still want that work to be done if it could hire someone who demands less than the value of the work they do. This is true for skilled and highly-paid employees as well as low-paid ones. If some employees can't do work if another one is absent, this only increases the incentive to replace lost workers.
The same is true when someone works less. More workers are hired because the demand for the company's products remains the same. Whether the employees in question are paid $500,000 or $20,000, the company will on average pay the same amount to get the same amount of work.
But the real benefit is in how people spend their money when they earn less and have more time to spend it. It may seem natural to think that everything would be better if everyone had more money. First, it's never been that everyone has more money. Some people can buy private islands while others are homeless and forced to try to find a spot of land they can sleep on without being kicked off of it because it's owned by someone else. Second, people often spend their money on conveniences that make everyone worse off, like plastic that they'll throw away, instead of on things like brilliantly and expensively designed products that are easy to recycle. Even if there were no environmental problems or inequality, we still need to prepare for when the world has no more fossil fuels, which still provide 85% of the world's energy consumption. If we act poor and reduce things like hour-long drives to get to work each day, we'll be more prepared for the day when we are poor.
When people work less, their altered spending has additional economic benefits beyond just creating jobs at the same company. Highly-paid workers would be more likely than low-paid workers to work less if they were offered the chance and understood that doing so would help society. This means lower prices for everything that rich people buy. Lower college tuition, lower rent prices in cities with large numbers of financial or technology workers, even more affordable medical care.
And people don't buy the same things when they work less. They buy the 'standard' version of a good instead of the 'deluxe' version. This is important because for two similar items, the more expensive one is likely to be more profitable and made by people with a higher total income.
This might be too much explanation, but as a generalization, there will always be counter-examples that make seeing the trend more difficult. Companies that sell expensive physical goods, like 'smartphones' or brand-name shoes, like to make their products using as cheap labour as possible. They may even be better at finding cheap labour, and securing good business deals that give very little money to the companies that hire people who do the actual work, than their competitors who sell less expensive and less-valued products. But lower wages for workers assembling a 'smartphone' means higher corporate profits, which illustrates the general principle: buying the more expensive product makes your money go to rich people, while buying the cheaper product makes your money go to poor people.
If poor people and rich people spent money the same way this would not matter. But they don't. Poor people are more likely to spend money that they earn (the highest quintile of households in the US, by income, don't spend a third of their income, while the lowest quintile spend more than they earn) and are also more likely to buy cheap things, causing that money to go to other poor people.
All of this results in more job creation, and just as importantly, it sets a social standard for the 'stylish' or acceptable thing to do. Instead of showing off on social media that you have some expensive product or jewelry, you could demonstrate that you actually care about what world people will be living in a hundred years from now. The more people do something, the more socially acceptable it becomes.
The basic system, remember, is to pay people 1.2x their normal pay rate for the first 24 hours of work each week, and 0.7x their normal pay rate for all hours after that, including hours beyond 40. So if someone worked 24 hours in one week, they'd be getting paid for 28.8 hours of work. This doesn't mean the business has to be losing out. This person could be doing the equivalent of 28.8 hours of work in just 24 hours, or they could be doing even more than 28.8 hours of work in 24 hours. When society wins, it doesn't mean that companies that use this system have to lose.
There are a lot of problems that would be solved by this beyond just unemployment. But this message is about showing there's enough support for this idea for people to have the courage to take the first step.
Please vote in the poll!
This is about fixing unemployment, including people not being able to work as much as they'd like, and all the problems that result from a lack of jobs or competition for the right to sell things in a particular market with no extra taxes or restrictions. This is not a politically divisive issue that only some people would support. If there are more jobs, poor people and people who are discriminated against can find work, which some political parties see as a priority; but welfare spending and taxes on the rich to support that welfare spending would decrease, which other political parties see as a priority.
The basic idea can be easily summarized: pay people a higher rate when they work less time. For example, 1.2x their normal pay rate for the first 24 hours of work each week, and 0.7x their normal pay rate for all hours after that, including hours beyond 40.
Understanding why this system creates jobs requires a bit of explanation. Businesses hire people because there is work that the business needs done that's worth paying someone to do. Sometimes the value an employee supplies is a little less than what they're paid, sometimes it's a little more, but usually it's about the same. If the employee left the company for whatever reason, the business would still want that work to be done if it could hire someone who demands less than the value of the work they do. This is true for skilled and highly-paid employees as well as low-paid ones. If some employees can't do work if another one is absent, this only increases the incentive to replace lost workers.
The same is true when someone works less. More workers are hired because the demand for the company's products remains the same. Whether the employees in question are paid $500,000 or $20,000, the company will on average pay the same amount to get the same amount of work.
But the real benefit is in how people spend their money when they earn less and have more time to spend it. It may seem natural to think that everything would be better if everyone had more money. First, it's never been that everyone has more money. Some people can buy private islands while others are homeless and forced to try to find a spot of land they can sleep on without being kicked off of it because it's owned by someone else. Second, people often spend their money on conveniences that make everyone worse off, like plastic that they'll throw away, instead of on things like brilliantly and expensively designed products that are easy to recycle. Even if there were no environmental problems or inequality, we still need to prepare for when the world has no more fossil fuels, which still provide 85% of the world's energy consumption. If we act poor and reduce things like hour-long drives to get to work each day, we'll be more prepared for the day when we are poor.
When people work less, their altered spending has additional economic benefits beyond just creating jobs at the same company. Highly-paid workers would be more likely than low-paid workers to work less if they were offered the chance and understood that doing so would help society. This means lower prices for everything that rich people buy. Lower college tuition, lower rent prices in cities with large numbers of financial or technology workers, even more affordable medical care.
And people don't buy the same things when they work less. They buy the 'standard' version of a good instead of the 'deluxe' version. This is important because for two similar items, the more expensive one is likely to be more profitable and made by people with a higher total income.
This might be too much explanation, but as a generalization, there will always be counter-examples that make seeing the trend more difficult. Companies that sell expensive physical goods, like 'smartphones' or brand-name shoes, like to make their products using as cheap labour as possible. They may even be better at finding cheap labour, and securing good business deals that give very little money to the companies that hire people who do the actual work, than their competitors who sell less expensive and less-valued products. But lower wages for workers assembling a 'smartphone' means higher corporate profits, which illustrates the general principle: buying the more expensive product makes your money go to rich people, while buying the cheaper product makes your money go to poor people.
If poor people and rich people spent money the same way this would not matter. But they don't. Poor people are more likely to spend money that they earn (the highest quintile of households in the US, by income, don't spend a third of their income, while the lowest quintile spend more than they earn) and are also more likely to buy cheap things, causing that money to go to other poor people.
All of this results in more job creation, and just as importantly, it sets a social standard for the 'stylish' or acceptable thing to do. Instead of showing off on social media that you have some expensive product or jewelry, you could demonstrate that you actually care about what world people will be living in a hundred years from now. The more people do something, the more socially acceptable it becomes.
The basic system, remember, is to pay people 1.2x their normal pay rate for the first 24 hours of work each week, and 0.7x their normal pay rate for all hours after that, including hours beyond 40. So if someone worked 24 hours in one week, they'd be getting paid for 28.8 hours of work. This doesn't mean the business has to be losing out. This person could be doing the equivalent of 28.8 hours of work in just 24 hours, or they could be doing even more than 28.8 hours of work in 24 hours. When society wins, it doesn't mean that companies that use this system have to lose.
There are a lot of problems that would be solved by this beyond just unemployment. But this message is about showing there's enough support for this idea for people to have the courage to take the first step.
Please vote in the poll!