As Hans Rothgiesser (and incidentally, The Walrus), many wonder why we have chosen to propose the four-hour days, not five, or three, or otherwise.
The question is relevant, though, I must say, is not as important as it seems.
not so important, because what we are proposing, regardless of whether they are now four, three or five hours, is an agreement to reduce progresva of the day, in proportion to the increase in productivity. If today the establishment of the four-hour day, it is likely that within ten or fifteen years, when measuring the increase productivity occurred between now and then, it will set up the three-hour journey. And after thirty years, two hours. So, although today we started to work six hours, sooner or later will work four, and later two, and later (and not us but our children or grandchildren), a. And so on.
So the discussion on why four hours is, in fact, a discussion from where we started walking, but still agree that, however, come to the same place.
Why start by four hours?
First, to recover, even in part, the huge backlog that has accumulated in ninety years since it was established eight-hour day. Since then, productivity, as we say in the video, has increased about 600%, and the day, far from diminishing, has been extended (ie over the last twenty years) to twelve or fourteen hours.
Second, establish, for example, six hours as they tried to do in Europe (the 35-hour workweek in France amounted to about six hours a day), has the problem that much of this reduction may be absorbed by the elasticity in performance (it has been found that reducing the time at one hour, for example, people tend to work faster, and ends up producing in seven hours what previously occurred in eight). Because of this flexibility in performance, six hours may not have a major impact in creating new jobs, which is a key objective of our proposal. Instead, four hours would ensure that the impact on unemployment is strong. We could achieve in a short time, nothing less than full employment worldwide!. Keep in mind that full employment worldwide (something that until now seems a distant dream) means, at least, the beginning of the end of poverty in the world.
Seeing the staggering numbers of increased productivity, we could propose the two-hour journey, it is true. The day four is a more prudent goal for now. Avoid a jump that can be traumatic. Even suggest, (and this explains the book) that are located within four hours, in turn, progressively: reduction half hour each month, until, eight months to the day of four hours. This form is intended to prevent gradual, as I said, any traumatic effect on the market.
Third, do not forget that back in 1932, Bertrand Russell proposed four-hour day. We are picking up, eighty years later, something that the wise and considered possible at the time. With much more reason today!
In summary, four hours is a number that allows projecting a scenario of full employment and, from this new situation, further reduce the journey time to time, and not only to eliminate unemployment and poverty (which will already have gotten), but to free human beings to conquer time free, to stop being slaves to work, to get the economy to our service, instead of being enslaved by it. Copntinuaremos
responding to other comments as hell later.
0 comments:
Post a Comment