should everyone have a job?

[lemur]

Reducing unemployment through job-creation or work-sharing seems to be an important social goal. This reflects a work ethic that the economy supports everyone therefore everyone should support the economy. However, with mass production and other modern industrial efficiencies, trying to incorporate everyone into economically productive endeavors may be less effective than just keeping them out of the way. The problem, however, is that 1) people want to feel important and productive and 2) people who work generally don't like the idea of supporting people who aren't working. The solution that has been pursued in "the post-industrial age" has been to expand service sectors to create unlimited jobs where people serve other people in a variety of ways. This, however, has the drawback that people utilize unnecessary economic resources such as gas and tires to go around performing labor of questionable necessity. Plus, high levels of service expectations and dependency may result in increasing vulnerability to eventual shortages in such services causes by growing demand. Is there a solution or will there just be a continuing conflict between employed people and the unemployed they must work to support?

[Marat]

If you look at statistics on the labor sector before the introduction of the minimum wage, the service sector was actually much larger than it is today, since a large percentage of the work force was employed as domestic servants. Even middle-class people could expect to have at least one household servant circa 1900.

 

Work-sharing is the best way to provide everyone with a sense of a purposeful existence and an income. Although it would mean everyone earning less money, this would be good in that the greater income equality in society would promote social justice and decrease social tensions, and everyone would have more leisure. It is often said that our present era is the only one in which technological advances allowing a shorter work week have not led to fewer working hours being expected in the week, largely because capital is now insisting on higher profits. Circa 1880 people used to work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, and while this was gradually reduced with increasing productive technology to the 40-hour-week by 1950, we remain stuck there 60 years later.

 

In Europe, however, the shorter work week has already been introduced, with many people working just 34 hours a week. Even in Ancient Rome the work week was less than it now is, since the week was 10 days long with 3 days set aside as holiday time, and the whole morning was expected to be spent visiting one's patrons rather than actually working.

[lemur]

If you look at statistics on the labor sector before the introduction of the minimum wage, the service sector was actually much larger than it is today, since a large percentage of the work force was employed as domestic servants. Even middle-class people could expect to have at least one household servant circa 1900.

 

Work-sharing is the best way to provide everyone with a sense of a purposeful existence and an income. Although it would mean everyone earning less money, this would be good in that the greater income equality in society would promote social justice and decrease social tensions, and everyone would have more leisure. It is often said that our present era is the only one in which technological advances allowing a shorter work week have not led to fewer working hours being expected in the week, largely because capital is now insisting on higher profits. Circa 1880 people used to work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, and while this was gradually reduced with increasing productive technology to the 40-hour-week by 1950, we remain stuck there 60 years later.

 

In Europe, however, the shorter work week has already been introduced, with many people working just 34 hours a week. Even in Ancient Rome the work week was less than it now is, since the week was 10 days long with 3 days set aside as holiday time, and the whole morning was expected to be spent visiting one's patrons rather than actually working.

I also see work-sharing as a solution that promotes economic equality without the problem that some people feel like they are paying for others. You would think employed people would embrace this idea as a way to get more free time and pay less for others' social welfare. Yet people I've discussed this idea with tend to view it as unfairly taking away their work hours and thus reducing their income. This seems irrational, considering that it is likely that they're going to get stuck with providing some level of social welfare for unemployed people, but I suppose they think that they can just keep supporting politicians who do everything possible to take away social benefits and extract money from higher tax brackets to pay for what they can't eliminate. This is so detrimental because it concentrates paid-labor in the fewest possible jobs, which in turn promotes leisure-class activities as an escape from work.