That is, perhaps, a little harsh. I'm about as far from them on the political scale as is possible without being Atilla the Hun, but they do have one insight shining like a gem among so much donkey offal:
There is nothing natural or inevitable about what’s considered ‘normal’ today. Time, like work, has become commodified – a recent legacy of industrial capitalism. Yet the logic of industrial time is out of step with today’s conditions, where instant communications and mobile technologies bring new risks and pressures, as well as opportunities.
This is right in every respect, I think.
It is taken by many as an article of faith that there are 10x productivity differences in knowledge workers. If we actually mean that, then 2x differences in numbers of hours worked should be quite sustainable. As I've said before, why should my daily life be fit to the schedule designed to maximize the productivity of illiterate water loom operators.
Where this report gets really really wacky is assuming that everyone can do it, which probably requires massive amounts of wealth flowing around to support unproductive workers. That might even work, for a while at least, if you had some sort of unfair advantage which could conceal you from the market -- taxing authority, perhaps, or such a booming economy that you could afford extravagances like the demands of the United Auto Workers out of the petty cash drawer.
There are also hard limits on how much value can be wrung out of the labor of low-skilled people, and those hard limits work in pretty much direct proportion to hours labored. I think achieving income parity (and relatedly, working hour parity) between them and high-skilled workers is probably a lost cause. I can sell software while sleeping, a trader can act as a productivity multiplier on millions in capital at the click of a button, but this floor isn't getting swept until somebody actually pushes a broom over it for an hour. (Oh, more bad news: robots can already do that, and it will only be a few more years before the cleaning company we outsource to figures out how to exploit that differential profitably.)
> It is taken by many as an article of faith that there are 10x productivity differences in knowledge workers. If we actually mean that, then 2x differences in numbers of hours worked should be quite sustainable.
This might interest you if you haven't heard of it:
Results Only Work Environment - you agree on a set of tasks with your manager, you complete them, you get paid. Doesn't matter when you do it or how long it takes you. That lets people choose to work at a slower pace with more goofing off on Facebook or webcomics, or work in a blaze and hit the beach, or whatever. People who wish to produce manic levels of work can produce more and get paid for it as gauged by results, people who want to work less can complete less tasks can do so and still get paid a reasonable amount. I think there'll be some kinks to be ironed out, but it's more or less the future.
> (Oh, more bad news: robots can already do that, and it will only be a few more years before the cleaning company we outsource to figures out how to exploit that differential profitably.)
Cleaning floors is notoriously hard to outsource, but the technology-in-theory for automating/roboticizing much more of manual labor is already there. It's why I'd like to see the world get more wealthier - people have a false believe that if there's no more poor people, everything will get more expensive. Pretty false idea - if more people are doing R&D, pure science, engineering, art, programming instead of manual labor, we'll see huge gains in new innovation and can roboticize/automate much of the manual labor away. Hell, when I was in China I'd see like 30 guys with chisels tearing up asphalt which you'd have one guy with a jackhammer doing in the States. The labor was cheaper than the machinery, but as the Chinese get more educated and into high skilled work, that'll change and they'll switch over to jackhammers and whatever we invent next after jackhammers.
Oh, more bad news: robots can already do that, and it will only be a few more years before the cleaning company we outsource to figures out how to exploit that differential profitably.
This is really a key point, I think. Automation is the means by which high-skill workers apply their productivity multipliers to what would otherwise be low-skill work.
The technology already exists to automate large swathes of low-skill work; the only reason it's not already done is that, for the most part, low-skill workers are still cheaper, mostly due to the implicit coercion of things like "needing money to buy food".
What happens when technology progresses to the point where robots are cheaper than paying someone minimum wage is a tricky question--and it's going to happen, probably in Japan first (thanks to both a high level of technological sophistication and an aversion to cheap immigrant labor).
There is nothing natural or inevitable about what’s considered ‘normal’ today. Time, like work, has become commodified – a recent legacy of industrial capitalism. Yet the logic of industrial time is out of step with today’s conditions, where instant communications and mobile technologies bring new risks and pressures, as well as opportunities.
This is right in every respect, I think.
It is taken by many as an article of faith that there are 10x productivity differences in knowledge workers. If we actually mean that, then 2x differences in numbers of hours worked should be quite sustainable. As I've said before, why should my daily life be fit to the schedule designed to maximize the productivity of illiterate water loom operators.
Where this report gets really really wacky is assuming that everyone can do it, which probably requires massive amounts of wealth flowing around to support unproductive workers. That might even work, for a while at least, if you had some sort of unfair advantage which could conceal you from the market -- taxing authority, perhaps, or such a booming economy that you could afford extravagances like the demands of the United Auto Workers out of the petty cash drawer.
There are also hard limits on how much value can be wrung out of the labor of low-skilled people, and those hard limits work in pretty much direct proportion to hours labored. I think achieving income parity (and relatedly, working hour parity) between them and high-skilled workers is probably a lost cause. I can sell software while sleeping, a trader can act as a productivity multiplier on millions in capital at the click of a button, but this floor isn't getting swept until somebody actually pushes a broom over it for an hour. (Oh, more bad news: robots can already do that, and it will only be a few more years before the cleaning company we outsource to figures out how to exploit that differential profitably.)