0
Make yourself indespensible, that's all there is to it. Sure enough a lot of the manual labor will be phased out, but those of us with higher education will be safe for many years to come still.
0
JGPS wrote...
29.2 hour work year would keep that job fully staffed and functional between those 100 people.
But no, you don't have 100 people for 1 nessisary job in any society, anywhere. Even where you have 1.5-2 skilled people per job too many people can't get appropriate work, that's more realistically the situation we're dealing with. So, halving the workforce (more realistically, reducing about 30%) and reducing work by one day a week would balance it out nicely.
Also I seen jobs that had over a 100 people apply for them so not sure why you think that. People of that area are not the only 1 that apply, but instead anyone around the country or other country can apply cause of internet.
It wouldn't balance it out cause those workers still won't get the same amount of pay as they would at 40 hours thus people who already on job would be losing 10 hours. You think a company will be all good and give them all raises, but you fail to think of a company instead of just workers. Why would a company raise people's wages if they have to hire more people. You can say "companies will need to pay more to keep workers," but reality dictates it as there is someone else in the job market with the education level to do that job. You basically would have to raise minimum wage to 15 an hour in order to achieve your goal which means a lot of small businesses go out or basically get rid of their workers cause they cannot afford them.
Also 29-30 hours a week is considered part time thus a company won't have to provide benefits for employees. So now you add another cost to an employee so now they need to work somewhere else to get ahead and now another in the job market.
Back to the actual thread topic.
Machines will benefit humanity, but companies will need to hire humans to look after those machines. Also machines are not at the point yet they can do most of the jobs humanity can right now. Machines are specifically built for skilled jobs to reduce risk so until they create a machine that acts like a secretary then we need not fear of the machines.
0
Also I seen jobs that had over a 100 people apply for them so not sure why you think that. People of that area are not the only 1 that apply, but instead anyone around the country or other country can apply cause of internet.
It does not follow that all 100 applicants actually need that job or are without another job. Nor does it follow that that job is a nessisary one, it just happens to be desirable.
It wouldn't balance it out cause those workers still won't get the same amount of pay as they would at 40 hours thus people who already on job would be losing 10 hours.
That would only happen if they insisted on going only for the desirable job 100 people want, but that would leave vacancies in our present economy.
You think a company will be all good and give them all raises, but you fail to think of a company instead of just workers.
I said nothing like this, but my point on the whole is not well understood as it deals with macroeconomics, not microeconomics.
Why would a company raise people's wages if they have to hire more people. You can say "companies will need to pay more to keep workers," but reality dictates it as there is someone else in the job market with the education level to do that job.
You have totally ignored my proposal? Are you still talking to me or just to yourself? There would not be others to do the job in the case of a mild labour shortage, or at least it would take effort to find another. The whole idea is that there would NOT be another readily available worker, and the problem with wages we have now is due to the fact that there ARE said workers.
You basically would have to raise minimum wage to 15 an hour in order to achieve your goal which means a lot of small businesses go out or basically get rid of their workers cause they cannot afford them.
That would not work for all the usual reasons raising wages to arbitrary numbers does not work. It would do noting in the long run.
Also 29-30 hours a week is considered part time thus a company won't have to provide benefits for employees. So now you add another cost to an employee so now they need to work somewhere else to get ahead and now another in the job market.
Well clearly if the maximum work week before overtime was limited to 32 or 30 hours 32 or 30 hours would be defined as 'full time'...