how to divide work among laborers - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

sixto · #1 10-30-2012, 06:23 PM

Assuming the amount of hourly work available and corresponding pay is a given, and there's a labor surplus, does society benefit more by maximizing the number of full time/40 hour per week workers or dividing the hours across the workforce? Let's say there's a thousand hours to be worked and 40 laborers. Should 25 laborers work full time and 15 go unemployed, or should all 40 laborers work 25 hours? I know Tian Chengping's opnion.

Sixto
87 300D

kerry · #2 10-30-2012, 06:51 PM

A thought crossed my mind a few weeks ago. Maybe a society is better off by having substantial welfare benefits and only employing the most productive and serious workers. Keeping the half-hearted out of the workforce might produce benefits not available any other way. Self-managing motivated workers and minimal supervisors make for a big difference in a workplace.

Mike Murrell · #3 10-30-2012, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

Maybe a society is better off by having substantial welfare benefits

Would you give these welfare benefits to the half-hearted - a form of salary?

MS Fowler · #4 10-30-2012, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

A thought crossed my mind a few weeks ago. Maybe a society is better off by having substantial welfare benefits and only employing the most productive and serious workers. Keeping the half-hearted out of the workforce might produce benefits not available any other way. Self-managing motivated workers and minimal supervisors make for a big difference in a workplace.

How do you keep the young, strong workers motivated? If they can get welfare by not working, what is to be gained by work?
The Pilgrims found it didn't work for them.

hill · #5 10-30-2012, 07:09 PM

I would use the Northern European method. Keep all of the employees at twenty five hours a week. When demand comes back you will still have the same pool to draw from. This may not be perfect for laborers, but have you ever tried to find good electricians/machinists that are up on the technology of the day .

cullennewsom · #6 10-30-2012, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

A thought crossed my mind a few weeks ago. Maybe a society is better off by having substantial welfare benefits and only employing the most productive and serious workers. Keeping the half-hearted out of the workforce might produce benefits not available any other way. Self-managing motivated workers and minimal supervisors make for a big difference in a workplace.

Yeah, that sounds great. Be sure and keep the productive ones too busy to notice what the others are up to. If they ever get wind, they might spend their productivity another way.

cullennewsom · #7 10-30-2012, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill

I would use the Northern European method. Keep all of the employees at twenty five hours a week. When demand comes back you will still have the same pool to draw from. This may not be perfect for laborers, but have you ever tried to find good electricians/machinists that are up on the technology of the day .

The danger in that is if workers have free time, some small percentage might pick up a book and read it. Some fraction of those might catch a clue as to how they're being hoodwinked. Some of them might even engage in some form of collective bargaining, or other terrorism. Next, they'll want to be treated fairly (give 'em an inch...). Best keep them busy, loaded with fake debt, and distracted ( you know, sports, shiny things, new cars).

KarTek · #8 10-30-2012, 07:33 PM

I would think "society" would benefit from employing more people at lower hours, assuming they still quality for job benefits at those hours.

The providers of employment benefit from paying fewer full time+ workers. This also depends on the type of work being done because 2 people working for an hour is often more efficient than 1 person working for 2 hours.