Why you should help

This part, of whether anyone will support this, is what I'm not sure on. I was trying to avoid pointing out the inefficiencies that almost every organization has (especially since inefficiency currently reduces income inequality), or how economists have completely failed to identify why the average work week hasn't gone down and how this affects unemployment, or the way in which despite good intentions the rich are completely unable to effectively spend or even give away most of their money.

But without mentioning these things I just get comments about "manipulative leeches" wanting to get more money while working less, and very little constructive feedback. People just don't see a reduction of unemployment by itself as a convincing argument, it sounds too Communist or socialist I guess and we all know how that turned out. They lost, badly.


So I'll put it simply: it is not Communist to expect people to do a fair share of work to support themselves, instead of being supported by the government.

This support can come in many forms: unemployment insurance. Funding for military bases that politicians refuse to close because they are essential to the local economy. Inefficient and redundant government organizations. A lack of concern for health costs which causes the United States to spend twice as much on health care as other developed countries for the same effect, with many of the resulting jobs in health care being indirectly subsidized by the US government and taxpayers.

Many of these problems, and others, would go away if there were more jobs available. The SOPA and PIPA, which were only prevented from being passed by a massive protest? Due to not enough crimes being committed and lawyers burdened with law school debt were afraid of being forced to switch occupations in the current depressed job market. (No srsly)


But you might be wondering, having read the descriptions on this site of how to fix the economy, why this is any better than the other available solutions for resolving this, or any other social or economic problem. Since no matter how much people like to argue, the Congressional Budget Office and the well-known Moody's both agree that giving money to rich people results in less consumer spending than giving money to poor people, and consequently that the only reason we aren't raising taxes is an idealistic one. Why is the solution described on this site more ideal that others that will accomplish the same economic goal?

This requires looking at the specific drawbacks with other solutions, and the unique benefits from this one. What I think are the major alternatives...

Alternative 1: shorter work week.
France has tried this with a 35-hour work week, although it's slightly more complicated than that since it's based off the entire year as well. The problem with this solution is simple: if you want an intermediate level of income, somewhere between full-time work and doing nothing, the most efficient way to get it is to work as hard as possible for a while so you can get as much overtime pay as you can, and then to quit working. On a shorter timescale this is difficult because you lose work skills if you take a few months off from work, so people have the idea of spending several years working as hard as possible and then going into retirement.

But not only do you not know if that the day when you can retire will ever come, the government actively makes it more difficult with its policies meant to lead to full employment without sufficient taxation to avoid inflation. People are forced to entrust their money with specialists in the financial markets, which can lead to drastic losses from pension funds when these specialists incorrectly evaluate risks such as the recent financial crisis. Reducing the work week would just make these problems worse.

Alternative 2: government spending.
The majority of the population in the US doesn't want this to be the solution to the poor job market, because it's inefficient and the government tends to give money to people who either don't need it or don't deserve it.

Alternative 3: wait for it to fix itself.
There are still something like 4 job seekers for every job opening, and that's not counting other countries. The amount of new products that can be invented is somewhat limited by the time people have to enjoy those products, or the desire to avoid carrying more than one electronic device in your pocket, etc.

Other reasons why you shouldn't expect this to happen anytime soon: rich people had an increasing share of income before the financial crisis and are returning to that level of relative income without much improvement in the job market; youth unemployment is at the lowest point in over half a century despite being the most likely to accept a low-paying entry job; and the drop in employment for those with college degrees as well shows ([2], [3], [4]) that "more education" won't boost anything except tuition costs.


So why is the solution described on this site so special? It's simple:

• By working more efficiently and finishing sooner, the individual ends up with more free time (which they might not value) and a higher wage rate.
• The company benefits because they paid less total wages for the same amount of work (efficiency went up), or can avoid having to having to hire someone for a month being firing them with associated costs on both ends.
• The management benefits when people are motivated to take more responsibility because they can benefit from efficiency, even if it means correcting a stupid proposal by management (depends on trust).
• Every other worker able to do the same job benefits when the motivation to work more efficiently means that a company lets an individual who feels they don't need money to do less total work.
• Everyone who isn't rich benefits when someone chooses to do less work and have a lower income, because it makes status-based products like iPads more competitive on price and boosts profits for people making lower-end goods.
• Everyone who pays taxes benefits when there is less need for welfare because the market provides a fair wage without government interference, which means tax money can go where it's needed more and a reduction in all the problems that income inequality in a society causes.
• Everyone in society benefits when people have options to work the way they want, can feel challenged without it hurting other people, and is able to feel like they and other people can be trusted.

...maybe not that simple.

It seems unlikely that any change will happen without the support of a large number of people; sort of like the Occupy movement but more effective? And without treating corporations as inherently bad, since after all 50% of employees in the US work for a business with more than 500 workers.

But if you want unemployment to be fixed; if you want the poor, struggling workers making iPhones in Communist China to have an example of how to feel like you're making progress in your life without working 12 hours every day; if you want to remove 'an ignorant, overworked, overtaxed population' as an excuse for the US government to randomly invade whatever country it feels like invading, then please spread the word and support this proposal on fixing the economy.

I don't know everything that needs to be done, the best way to go about doing it or even if change is realistically possible. But you have to start somewhere, right? Any suggestions are welcome. I don't own any of these ideas or explanations, so if someone important feels like they can do something (like create a better website!) there's no need to ask me.