"vectors"

12 Mar 2012
"if someone wants to work hard, let them." not just China, but also within the US as well; benefit to society to discourage working too much.

(50% of employees in firm with over 500 employees, http://www.census.gov/epcd/susb/2008/us/US--.HTM )

having confidence that the rest of society is able to identify and correct any unintentionally harmful actions as a result of perceived high ability. means reaching a personal limit and a direction for improvement which has not been completely mastered.

overall goal for society, internal instead of external. Recognizing that the relationship of a firm to its employees can be more fluid based on the situation of the firm and any external pressures on society (trust).

emotion problem and preventing unwanted harmful effects from common actions, as a result of signal accuracy shift. importance of the situation unrelated to its psychological relevance because the psychological mismatch between expectation and results holds true for trivial situations as well.

changing understandings of 'intelligence' while retaining confidence in avoiding harmful effects. (based on the cycle of signal decay in the general population, due to human lifespans etc. sort of like trying not to fall asleep and hypnic jerks..?) can allow better perception of issues without necessarily preventing them, but allows more rational choices without large-scale traumatic events. oil?

democracy: all must be intelligent. externalities result from good or poor signal evaluation without being reliably rewarded by those entirely within the system defined by signals, values and norms.

Self-interest: the choice that is the most challenging and rewarding.

Goal: to be able to say you can trust people..? (or any of the other 'coping strategies' that can result)


13 Mar 2012
'rational self-interest' distorted by hidden information
solve economic problems, but what then: the benefits of high self-confidence and accurate signal evaluation (prevents harmful buildup of tension)
convincing that a trust-based system won't lead to further problems, like arbitrary discrimination

college education trends?

the flaws in concentrating on either type of intelligence, and inability to tell if someone's analysis of a situation is correct without doing a similar amount of work. Based on trust then, of everyone confirming a particular value. But the ability to feel comfortable deviating from a common value after using sufficient effort to confirm an alternate method is essential to properly 'rewarding', socially, those who spend effort to find better solutions to a problem or more efficient/accurate signals.

...which many people have assumed to be impossible on a historical timescale, due to lack of understanding of the issues causing it. "The problem, rather, is that a small minority of activists have managed to gain quite a bit of control over one party: the Republican Party. And although it's possible to blame emotionalism and the herd instinct for this problem, solving the problem doesn't have to involve getting rid of emotionalism and the herd instinct, which we're never going to do anyway."

All solutions which involve trying to have just a subset of the population control social values and signals are flawed because of the inability to confirm that this has been done correctly for the benefit of the entire population, instead of just to the benefit of the 'privileged subset' (see: Communist party of the Soviet Union).


Politics: trying to blame elected representatives for doing what they understand is expected of them makes no sense. Cannot expect support of major social changes without clear, widespread support. (trust-based system and possibility for discrmination, etc)

Discrimination: not as much of a problem if there's choice, and market competitiveness based on actual product quality instead of 'soft' factors. Varying the demand response curve is therefore critical. (iPod effect)

Trying to isolate economic problems to 'bad government', based on the assumption that higher government efficiency = higher employment. Or possibly on the assumption that 'if government money was spent on more useful purposes instead of being wasted on boosting corporate profits, then the harmful effects of the economic slowdown would go away without higher taxes on working people'. Higher taxes on the rich: honest rich people are harmed, dishonest people who are cozy with government benefit.

Counter: even if government could be made perfectly 'honest', you would still be left with the choice of supporting the unemployed or not supporting them, unless the reasons for unemployment are addressed. The choice to increase government employment exists even when government is inefficient, while larger government even when inefficient leads to lower unemployment than a smaller government. (see start of great depression, government was much smaller than now but still record unemployment)

Key in that situation is the money that 'stagnates' when collected by the rich. Without any foreseeable ways to increase useful spending by an order of magnitude, only solution is to make it harder to collect money by decreasing the supply of labor.


economic prosperity vs environmentalism and resource conservation: why 'employment' does not have to be the main issue.


In the absence of accurate signals, the only way to tell if something is important or valuable is with self-consistency and the passage of time. (inefficient)

A one-time increase in 'awareness of signal inaccuracy' does not necessarily help society since it changes the form of systems meant to address that problem. Acceptable level of inefficiency from unclear situations, without exceeding it. Complex systems with interaction from many parts of society, requires awareness of the problem and how to correct it when it occurs. But economic opportunity regardless of past life choices is necessary for promoting a 'challenge-seeking' attitude to become popular; enabled by democracy and related ideas (self-interest).

Societal health: growth of the 'hidden problem' resulting from personal goals and lack of awareness of signal inaccuracy, but without confirmation due to the desire to avoid mentioning this conflict. Eventually leads to critical points of change, which may be harmful, that leads to wide acceptance of the existence of harmful effects from the problem and self confidence in abilities as a way to prevent it. From there to increased efficiency, beginning the cycle again.

Neither 'working less' nor 'working more' should be seen as bad; not doing what you want to do should be seen as bad, and only because there should be other options available so you can do what you want. Trust would continue to play a central role.


The idea that a stronger government is necessary to solve problems could be seen as implying that individuals cannot address it without the intervention of government. This suggests either a lack of ability (despite that a government is part of its population) or a lack of desire to fix problems by those in society who are able to. Wanting a smaller government is an expression that society is willing to fix problems itself.

Example of problem: Japan has much lower income inequality and social problems than other developed countries (www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/apr/29/ill-fares-the-land/) including lower crime rates, but has higher suicide rates. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/gbddeathdalycountryestimates2004.xls "Intentional injuries", self-inflicted vs violence for US and Japan.

US: Self-inflicted, 11.2 per 100,000 population
Violence, 5.9 per 100,000 population
War, 0.3 per 100,000 population

Japan: Self-inflicted, 24.8 per 100,000 population
Violence, 0.5 per 100,000 population
War, -

(Compare Russia: Self-inflicted 36.5, Violence 29.7, War 5.6)


Economic growth: "if we encourage people to work less, will the nation's progress suffer?" The idea of investing toward a future goal of society, and whether people will be prepared to support any eventualities that arise. Afraid of encouraging conflict between individual goals and society's benefit (seen as higher growth).

Education: http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3640 Assumption that growth rates will continue.

Universal high school education, vs diminishing returns on education beyond that due to the lack of relevance for many job types..? The idea that "more college is the way forward", including grade inflation.

If there was a technology to learn the equivalent of a college degree with an instant "memory flash of your brain", would the price of an iPhone change? Its components? (designed by Apple, manufactured in China.) Would the profitability of Apple Inc. go up or down?


Most basic strategy: same purpose as unions? Not class warfare when the rich are just as interested in giving people jobs. (Buffett letter to NYT... JJ?) Helps when any single change benefits the company being worked for (lower wages, never higher), even if it decreases the expected profits for all other companies. Then RSA Animate - Drive links to the benefits from firm profitability and quality variation in general..?

Must link to individual actions tho, since 50% of employees are at large firms...


14 Mar 2012

Amount of hours worked per week:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122510/Self-Employed-Workers-Clock-Hours-Week.aspx

Postgraduate degree holders work at a high rate (problem: just due to gender representation?)

For economists, is people working less than full time an economic failure? For those who are working?

Economic problems reduce interest in interfering with other countries.

Philanthropy - (just like government) "if only X group of people would just be less selfish or dishonest, the economy would be fixed!" X can be the rich, government, the unemployed..　assumption is based on 'hidden' knowledge that attempts to find and isolate people who cannot be trusted. Systems based on eliminating harmful effects of selfish attitudes when they exist; but depends on individuals to recognize and encourage actions that help the group. (trust)

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/08/it_s-catching--the-un-galvanizes-philanthropy-among-the-super-ri


Make earning large amounts of money (profiting from others' work) more difficult, but also more beneficial to the rest of society. Less concentration of power is acceptable if people are intelligent and can be trusted.

"make people smarter" example: Iraq WMDs


15 Mar 2012
Why simply paying people more (% of profits) is not the solution to unemployment. Funnels money to higher quality goods providers, instead of to high price:quality ratio providers; education and goods development/market positioning (brands).

"no external threats"? Facebook being used by Egyptian president, etc. Confidence that a new system would allow people to work less if they feel like it, while also retaining current skills  if an expansion of effort is needed (unlike if people just retired at age 40). Needs consensus on goals and confidence in a system that creates economic opportunity. Buy from poor countries instead of giving free aid to them.


"Back then, serious thinking about the general state of the economy was dominated by the notion that prices moved, market by market, to make supply equal to demand." http://www.neweconomictimes.com/?p=144
Labour - quantized by expectations, which prevent supply from decreasing to meet demand based on low wage rates.

Economists tend to misinterpret this collective adherence to social norms (and misunderstanding of benefit to society) as demand for money, despite actions and opinions that directly contradict this such as not voting to tax the rich, or polls where most people would accept lower wage rates.

(do people want to fix economic problems? John Irons comments off)

"But the theory is that monetary intervention — through an interest rate channel or other — will lead to greater business investment and consumer spending, yielding more demand, higher GDP, and lower unemployment consistent with the overall goals in #1." http://www.neweconomictimes.com/?p=127

Consumer spending - people imagine the typical consumer who is working, and not the very rich consumer who is not spending most of their money. The typical consumer's spending is already limited by the lack of increase in wages while corporate profits soar.

http://www.neweconomictimes.com/?p=120 "In economists’ jargon, fiscal consolidations are contractionary, not expansionary."

http://www.neweconomictimes.com/?p=116 "And as part of the enabling legislation, ask for emergency powers to temporarily streamline the regulatory red tape, interagency approval processes, environmental-impact statements, and labor rules that might otherwise keep the money from being put to work speedily."

(again) the assumption: higher efficiency = GDP and therefore higher employment. Wrong because there is no ready market for goods if prices become lower, and widespread education means that hiring more people to make up for inefficiency is relatively easy to do.

Vision is important. Work less quantized due to task expectations and management ease; someone being able and prepared to do your job as a good thing, not a bad thing (fear). "If you couldn't go to work tomorrow, who would do your job? Would it make them upset to have to do it?" Elimination of inefficiency such as 'red tape' which only serves the purpose of providing work.

Economic crisis allows us to see the problems in our society. Direction to go can then be based on careful deliberation of possible benefit.

Not "can you trust people", but "can you allow yourself to trust people"..?

Overtime: extra work is good because you get paid more. Reverse overtime: extra work is bad, but willing to do it for the sake of the company if necessary. More control.

Charts: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21227
http://www.economy.com/dismal/article_free.asp?cid=198972
Unemployment benefits and so on: good because they are effective; bad because they reward lack of effort and self-advancement (and are paid for by those who do have those qualities). People are just reluctant to use those drawbacks in an argument.


Assuming that all government spending or tax reduction has the same effect is bad because it makes people argue about moral (non-economic) effects, including large vs small government.
http://www.neweconomictimes.com/?p=115


Consequence for doing less than one's fair share of work depends on meaningful association with those who are making up the shortfall. Being temporarily 'supported' by people at one's work, who are more able to evaluate the justification for this, is better than being supported by everyone who pays taxes.

Willing to work more (to avoid loss of profit to company, or harm to others from lack of timely provision of goods/services) can be enough even if there is no work to do.

Highly educated person who works more than 40 hours/week: "Other people are just lazy, there is all this work to do." Moral obligation, but based on support of social norms and perception of some eventual benefit to the economy from working that much... charities again? (who could do your job; work hours: http://www.gallup.com/poll/122510/Self-Employed-Workers-Clock-Hours-Week.aspx)

Not enough to just quote data (work hours and overtime, willingness to be paid less, corporate profits) but also show convincingly that current strategies are　ineffective.


Assumptions or 'suspicions' about what benefits society also affect management (half of employees in firms of 500+)... understanding must come from commonly agreed values and priorities to the top of corporate chain of managers ("vision"). Not just being paid more, but also options in how much to work. Profit motive including shareholder votings based on assumption of social benefit (economic, moral)

Aimed at business owners. Each step must be justified to all involved; choice for employees, profit fo businesses.　Examine the effect on other firms' profits and on prices. Component of demand from working people vs from the rich with different product types. iPhones example? (overtime?)

ubuntu..?


16 Mar 2012

Businesses with lots of applicants: profit motive and reduction of wages. Fewer applicants: choice, efficiency (studies) and increase of average wage rate. RSA Animate - Drive. Flextime but with some compensation for extra work (and usable with shift workers); demand for flexible hours from UK stats.

Overtime: can be avoided simply by hiring more people. Partial compensation means that less money is wasted when people don't work a full 40 hours, while higher initial base rate means that people shouldn't complain about not having enough hours. Prior example of workshare, but with explicit benefit to the company from working more and effects on trust.

(economists and potential output: directly address 'waste'? national goals; skills maintenance vs capital utilization rates. Explicit goal of work reduction from efficiency increase. Low supply of labour leads to inflation only if there's lots of money floating around already.)

Note that some inefficiency is due to management proposals, not worker slowness. 'Modified flextime' offers benefits beyond workshare, since time spent working and compensation rate isn't constant; also the case for uncertainty about demand where workshare requires adherence to specific reductions of work hours.
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/work-sharing-the-quick-route-back-to-full-employment

Table 2: Share of job loss by firm size. Firms of over 500 workers have 50% of employment, but just 18% of job loss. Firm size of 1-4 had 14% share of job loss but just _ of employment. 'Prediction of what would happen if small firms more likely to cut workers were the only ones to change their wage system to prevent this'


We can still support whoever needs to be supported due to being unable to work; however, the work should be shared and jobs available to everyone even if they might need slightly more training due to lack of experience or education.


17 Mar 2012

Vision: working less in the future? Why not now? Address reasons for income vs motivation. (okcupid income charts)

Small businesses owners: don't be afraid to raise prices. (poll on people willing to accept lower income) And again, efficiency studies.

"need people to work less." gallup poll, postgraduate works the most, but education costs prevent people from being qualified for those jobs. Uneducated job sector is what must be focused on. Lack of votes to decrease inequality show that people are fine with low wages, even if individually we try to be the best possible. Alternatives to indicate competence other than income, uncertainty of finding these things. (unconventionality, Okcupid study?) Time, stress, options. Spending $60,000 per year on child care and private schools or spending 10 hours a week helping them yourself.

US wealth $55 trillion, money is not a problem nationally, only the decision to spend or tax it. Instead of concentrating on "the 1% have 24% of total income", concentrate on "the 1% eat 3 meals per day while the poor eat only 2.5".

Economists haven't suggested this because they tend to think entirely in terms of money since it's one of the few things people can agree is good to have, and assuming that if people wanted things to be different they would have already accomplished that goal.

"Corporate profits are up but the money isn’t flowing to American workers. The ratio of profits to wages is the highest on record – since the government began keeping track in 1947. Not only has the median wage continued to drop, adjusted for inflation, but a far smaller share of working-age Americans is now employed (58.6 percent) than was employed five years ago (63.3 percent)."
http://robertreich.org/post/19010110577


Example, one person has most of the annual income in an economy. He tries to find ways to distribute it efficienty by spending what he can, and giving some to a friend that he trusts to do the right thing. That friend spends some and gives some to another friend whom he trusts. That friend-of-a-friend gives some to his own friend that he trusts, who spends that money to buy lots of sex (hookers and blow) from women who otherwise might starve.

Is it the first person's fault that his friend's friend's friend couldn't be trusted? How could he have prevented the money from being used for that purpose? Answer: he couldn't have.

Unemployed vote less: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-29/unemployed-likely-to-sit-out-u-s-election-that-is-focused-on-their-plight.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/business/the-unemployed-somehow-became-invisible.html?pagewanted=all
(46% employed vs 35% unemployed)

(News article requires an event)


18 Mar 2012
efficiency requires reduction of work in the absence of new useful products. Okcupid income study vs Foxconn overtime work.

Mangagement costs of shorter shifts or more people working (different days), vs management costs of hiring when demand temporarily increases.

Adding 'time' to rewards that encourage efficiency. (RSA animate, money and summary of motivational factors without being micromanaged; flexwork as prior example) (reaction to 'scientific management' which aimed to reward efficiency only with more money) Hawthorne effect; benefit to not just the group at a firm, but also social groups outside the firm.

Rules seem to be somewhat different in the US to protect workers from being partially unemployed.

How to offer the option of working more without making it feel 'required' to show that you support the company.
21-hour work week suggestion:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/08/cut-working-week-urges-thinktank
http://neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/21_Hours.pdf
Examples of 3-day work weeks, etc. Lack of options hindered success in some cases; productivity increases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#United_States Lack of reduction of working time was due to threat of the Soviet Union and need for military spending.

http://cmdept.unl.edu/drb/Reading/overtime2.htm Longer work days are more productive than the same work hours spread out on more days.


20 Mar 2012

(higher job loss and gain is normal for smaller businesses, due to firm size changes and opening/closing)


Tiered wage rate unpopular. Implication: those who would accept the job offer are exceptional. How to sell to companies..~ "Benefit to nation" angle? Moral obligation despite popular resistance?

Proving that demands exists for 'flexitime'-type work at less than 40 hours per week, in a way that benefits the company

Facebook at work... as a place to be, not a place to be productive..? Only for salary-based jobs? "Acceptable level of inefficiency"? Wanting to have a predictable schedule? Letting employer take the risk from 'insufficient available work'? Reaction against the idea of making employees more productive as if inefficiency is bad? (Schedule similar to 'spending X minutes commuting to and from work')

http://www.allfacebook.com/how-to-use-facebook-at-work-without-being-caught-2011-08
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059451/Facebook-work-important-large-salary-college-graduates.html

Scientific management and Taylor's perception that workers tend to do the minimum amount that lets them avoid being disciplined

How to reconcile views while reducing unemployment..?

Does aversion to getting a new job influence decisions? Afraid of being exploited at unfair wage rate and unable quit?

For most people, does "being able to work less than 40 hours per week" have any value at all? o.0

Would all the 'value' come from not having to support the involuntarily unemployed and associated negative effects on society?

No 'current wage cuts', just efficiency increase argument and more flexible schedules? "Dual price structure" for wages, taking advantage of both those with free time and those without? Desire to use Facebook, etc. means that only those who value their free time will work harder and see efficiency increase etc. Possibility of being forced to 'inefficiently' use time is what motivates toward a high standard of work. Complementary without trying to force people to work more or less than what they want to..? Can those who dislike taxes be isolated to the 'high standard of work' group?

Task-based work means that if paid a higher wage rate, always beneficial to the firm (similar to flexitime). For shift work, decreases stress to have more of a reserve of people who can accept working less without getting upset.


Full-time work as the 'low point' in average compensation, with both working less and working more giving a higher average wage rate? Reduced productivity from overtime and reserve of workers should mean that firms try to keep weekly hours from ever going to overtime with decreased marginal productivity per cost. Explicit acceptance of need for those who desire to work less to stay for longer than they might want to, but with compensation unlike for flexitime.

If average wages are cut, then the effect on general unemployment and future job opportunities (marginal effects) might be important part of convincing.

If wages mean that those who want to work less can (given their specific job responsibilities, etc.), if there's still unemployment it's because those who are working want to work full time (additional labour otherwise has positive benefit) and moral justification for taxes etc. Addition of choice.

'Facebook culture' closely related to resistance to solutions..? Compare endless job hunt of the unemployed.
http://www.salon.com/2011/09/12/harvardjobless/singleton/

System: prevents "Decreases in product demand from having a negative effect on workers", while also making increases in product demand to be more helpful to companies by avoiding overtime pay or associated loss of productivity.

Flexitime having overtime pay in the US makes it more difficult to use with 'Facebook culture' of working full-time regardless of needs. Salary assumes the presence of some inefficiency in reaching 40 hours, which in turn justifies lack of overtime..?

So marginal decrease mostly eliminates inefficient effort, which is why wage decrease is less than the average rate as well. (efficiency argument then critical for average wage rate increase; assume previous feedback flawed.) Overtime means that there was no inefficiency in previous efforts, but additional tracking effort might be a problem..?

Hawthorne (productivity increase with lowered work hours) showed that people try to do a fair amount of work for what they're paid. Shows how time benefit can succeed in shift work/production, regardless of Facebook culture. Specific case for the first time reduction of increase in total production even, not a slight marginal decrease at some fraction of the average rate.

Illusion that "you are helping the nation by working more". With hundreds of qualified applicants for many job openings, simply not true but are people willing to acknowledge this by supporting an option to work less? Efficiency argument~ (compensates for management costs) (Facebook!)

Attitude: "a salaried job means you are harder to replace. Hourly wage is lower status and means you are less valuable to a company." Especially for males: "working more than 40 hours in a salary job shows dedication." Shows need to point out time inefficiency; Facebook and Hawthorne. Instructive examples without offering definite proof for a broad phenomenon. Especially inefficiency due to management

If not for varying utility of time for different people, no need for this and people would just either have reduced the working week (everyone values their time) or accepted the inefficiency of taxation and welfare (no one values their time, only income).


21 Mar 2012

Opinions based on trust? If employee and company can be trusted: flexible hours is better. If cannot be trusted, constant hours with firing/hiring is better.

Trust partly based on job market and other opportunities available (trusting the company to not exploit workers). However, legal stuff? If a worker refuses to work more than the minimum, can only fire them, no additional penalties allowed in contract?　But also company has same legal obligations as if they had quit, not fired (any unemployment insurance etc).

Would then also make sense not to have overtime pay. (Requires law change) If used in government, would be obligated to hire new workers within a certain amount of time to prevent overtime hours from occurring.  Expectation would tend toward the minimum weekly hours unless the employee had a preference otherwise. (point out productivity decrease from overtime)

Benefits to the company: efficiency increases. Hawthorne effect, etc.


22 Mar 2012

Say's law: "products are paid for with products" and "a glut can take place only when there are too many means of production applied to one kind of product and not enough to another"

Not applicable when it takes no effort to maintain income. Natural tendency to work less at high income, and therefore supply less products, is then no longer true. "Create more products" does not take into account non-monetary factors associated with consumption, such as time, which can cause utility of marginal consumption to drop below zero.


23 Mar 2012

Problem with shorter work week, stated concisely: people have different values of time at different points in their life. With overtime, and a work week shorter than the reasonable start of exhaustion of 40 hours per week, the optimal financial strategy would be to work as much as possible when time has low value, and quit working at all when time has high value. Anyone who worked a small amount of time every week without overtime would be a clear 'loser'.

"so honest people do better in life"?

College: used to not be required for professional degrees (law or medical school) http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/06/06/110606crat_atlarge_menand?currentPage=all ; 68% of high school graduates in 2010 entered college; grade inflation. Unable to say whether less people should go to college, but measuring accuracy of signals instead of relying on simple metrics is important. If college is the only way to get a job, then of course everyone will go to college... even if it doesn't guarantee a good job. "One problem at a time" based on universal competence. (universal free high school, vs paid college, diminishing returns) Knowledge glut and accessibility means that memorizing general facts is less important.


24 Mar 2012

War - confidence to solve challenging problems and effect positive social change. Unnecessary when people can be challenged at any job.

(effects of shorter work week with overtime, groups benefited, vs the reverse; including China)