Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Boom Boom

Predictions About The Future Of Work: What Went Wrong?

Recommended Posts

The future of work as previously predicted

• In the late 1700s, Benjamin Franklin predicted we'd soon work a 4-hour week.

• George Bernard Shaw predicted we'd work a 2-hour day by 2000.

• In 1933, the US Senate passed a bill for an official 30-hour work week. (President Roosevelt killed it.)

• In 1935, W.K. Kellogg introduced a scheme to cut 2 hours from the working day, yet pay the same wages. It was cost-effective – morale and productivity rose; accident and insurance rates fell.

• In 1956, Richard Nixon predicted a 4-day work week in the "not too distant future".

• In 1965, a US Senate subcommittee predicted a 22-hour work week by 1985, 14 hours by 2000.

• In the 1960s, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that just 5% of the work being done would satisfy our food, clothing and shelter needs.

• In 1981, Buckminster Fuller claimed that 70% of US jobs were unnecessary: "inspectors of inspectors, reunderwriters of insurance reinsurers, Obnoxico promoters, spies and counterspies…"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The future of work as previously predicted

• In the late 1700s, Benjamin Franklin predicted we'd soon work a 4-hour week.

• George Bernard Shaw predicted we'd work a 2-hour day by 2000.

• In 1933, the US Senate passed a bill for an official 30-hour work week. (President Roosevelt killed it.)

• In 1935, W.K. Kellogg introduced a scheme to cut 2 hours from the working day, yet pay the same wages. It was cost-effective – morale and productivity rose; accident and insurance rates fell.

• In 1956, Richard Nixon predicted a 4-day work week in the "not too distant future".

• In 1965, a US Senate subcommittee predicted a 22-hour work week by 1985, 14 hours by 2000.

• In the 1960s, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that just 5% of the work being done would satisfy our food, clothing and shelter needs.

• In 1981, Buckminster Fuller claimed that 70% of US jobs were unnecessary: "inspectors of inspectors, reunderwriters of insurance reinsurers, Obnoxico promoters, spies and counterspies…"

Taxes, regulations and inflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

Those predictions usually come just before some new technical innovation(s) likely to increase productivity (predictions to help to ease the innovation's entry and to ease the associated fears of losing jobs) but as soon as it's widespread it never seems to actually translate into less working hours for those working. More recently as wholesale computerisation approached those sort of predictions went into overdrive. But in fact the hours worked seem to get greater and greater no matter what's innovated.

The predictions are jam tomorrow lies.

You would think that with all the innovation in developed countries that at least the price of accomodation might reflect the increased productivity but no, the opposite seems to happen, at least in the UK - a double whammy type of affect. Pauperisation. With each advance in "efficiency" it seems more and more people are needed for the economy to function but at ever lower pay rates. First it required more and more females and now it seemingly won't function unless every incomer from all over gains entry to work. Despite all the innovation.

It likely all aligns with the increasing gap rich to poor with the efficiency gains going to the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The future of work as previously predicted

• In the late 1700s, Benjamin Franklin predicted we'd soon work a 4-hour week.

• George Bernard Shaw predicted we'd work a 2-hour day by 2000.

• In 1933, the US Senate passed a bill for an official 30-hour work week. (President Roosevelt killed it.)

• In 1935, W.K. Kellogg introduced a scheme to cut 2 hours from the working day, yet pay the same wages. It was cost-effective – morale and productivity rose; accident and insurance rates fell.

• In 1956, Richard Nixon predicted a 4-day work week in the "not too distant future".

• In 1965, a US Senate subcommittee predicted a 22-hour work week by 1985, 14 hours by 2000.

• In the 1960s, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that just 5% of the work being done would satisfy our food, clothing and shelter needs.

• In 1981, Buckminster Fuller claimed that 70% of US jobs were unnecessary: "inspectors of inspectors, reunderwriters of insurance reinsurers, Obnoxico promoters, spies and counterspies…"

Rent together with the inability of people to share the output of production without creating meaningless jobs and rules to ensure that everyone "works" for their "fair share." We live in a hell of our own making. Unlike what the lefties believe, there is nothing that can be done about it as it is human nature. This makes tiger sad. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rent together with the inability of people to share the output of production without creating meaningless jobs and rules to ensure that everyone "works" for their "fair share." We live in a hell of our own making. Unlike what the lefties believe, there is nothing that can be done about it as it is human nature. This makes tiger sad. :(

These 'end of work' predications run into several problems:

1. A society where a small number of people actually do things and the rest just sit around consuming makes no sense. The productive could do far more with the resources that the consumers are using, so they'll never agree to produce things to give away.

2. An increasing fraction of the population are economically useless, so you either let them sit around doing nothing or put them into meaningless jobs.

3. Where do you stop? At what point will demands for 'free stuff' become too much? Can I have free beer? Can I have a free Ferrari? Can I have a free spaceship? Humans have an infinite capability to demand stuff, and somehow that has to be reconciled with a limited amount of resources and production. How is that going to be done in a world where most of the population do nothing productive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rent together with the inability of people to share the output of production without creating meaningless jobs and rules to ensure that everyone "works" for their "fair share." We live in a hell of our own making. Unlike what the lefties believe, there is nothing that can be done about it as it is human nature. This makes tiger sad. :(

Capitalism and human nature (greed).

What's more likely - an equal division of the profits of technological advances as everyone 'works' a 2 hour week, or the concentration of capital into an ever smaller and wealthier segment of society, whilst wages are ground down as the rest of the population compete for ever fewer jobs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

• In 1981, Buckminster Fuller claimed that 70% of US jobs were unnecessary: "inspectors of inspectors, reunderwriters of insurance reinsurers, Obnoxico promoters, spies and counterspies…"

That's the sensible statement!

Nobody makes shoes, of bakes bread any more! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boom boom I think you underestimate the progress man has made over the last 200 years.. but agree with you that over the last 60 year we've been going in reverse if anything on the hours worked front.

Back in the Victorian factory era the standard work week was near 80 hours. 6, 12 hour days and only an 8 hour day on Sundays.

By the time the great depression hit the industrial standard for factory and office work was the 60 hour work week. Monday-Saturday 10 hour days. Statuatory holiday were also being put in.

Then through the 30's the western nations went to the 40 hour work week, paid vacations, government old age pensions, disability insurance, etc.. By the 1960's income was an astounding 10 times higher in real terms than in the 30's. Our societies had everything figured out and it was just cruise control of gradually increasing benefits as production rose.

Then around the mid 70's we started going backwards. Women were sent to work part time.(while still expected to do all their duties to family as in the past) Then women sent to work full time.. and in more demanding jobs, now expected to be a bread winner the same as the men.

We created millions and millions of useless non-jobs and never ending bureaucracy that required labour to comply with.. but added no real production. The actual real work is being done by less and less people each year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The future of work as previously predicted

• In the late 1700s, Benjamin Franklin predicted we'd soon work a 4-hour week.

• George Bernard Shaw predicted we'd work a 2-hour day by 2000.

• In 1933, the US Senate passed a bill for an official 30-hour work week. (President Roosevelt killed it.)

• In 1935, W.K. Kellogg introduced a scheme to cut 2 hours from the working day, yet pay the same wages. It was cost-effective – morale and productivity rose; accident and insurance rates fell.

• In 1956, Richard Nixon predicted a 4-day work week in the "not too distant future".

• In 1965, a US Senate subcommittee predicted a 22-hour work week by 1985, 14 hours by 2000.

• In the 1960s, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that just 5% of the work being done would satisfy our food, clothing and shelter needs.

• In 1981, Buckminster Fuller claimed that 70% of US jobs were unnecessary: "inspectors of inspectors, reunderwriters of insurance reinsurers, Obnoxico promoters, spies and counterspies…"

Rent - up and up to meet productivity.

Tax - see above

Education - people brainwashed into things like "fulfillment is found in a career" (especially cruelly done to women)

The only people who have played their part have been producers, who are meeting their bargain by using vastly less labour and supplying goods for a fraction of their previous price, but those are the people you always seem to rail against. I don't understand that at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The future of work as previously predicted

• In the late 1700s, Benjamin Franklin predicted we'd soon work a 4-hour week.

<snip>

• In 1981, Buckminster Fuller claimed that 70% of US jobs were unnecessary: "inspectors of inspectors, reunderwriters of insurance reinsurers, Obnoxico promoters, spies and counterspies…"

All these predictions were issued before earth population began to grow fast or at the early stages of earth population growth.

I'm sure you will not find any predictions like that issued in 1990s-2000s.

If population stayed the same or declined we all be working 4-hour weeks by now.

Simple really.

Cue Great Plague and what happened to survived peasant/worker wages.

And regulation-taxation-inflation did not prevent jobs flight to Chindia and will not prevent them coming back when Western currencies depreciate enough against Eastern currencies. Then it will be Chindia's turn to try regulation-taxation-inflation to prevent jobs returning - we'll see how d'they manage :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DEBT, DEBT and DEBT ! In this fractional reserve debt based monetary system you always need to create new debt money to pay the interest on the past debt money. This pyramiding of debt swamps the economy in a geometric progression to ruin. We are debt slaves. And we are slaves because we are too dumb to put a stop to it. So collapse it will be, and the debt slave will lose everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we stripped things back to providing the basic components to sustain a comfortable life (adequete food, housing, amenities and basic energy supply) then any one of those statements could be correct. The rest of what we do on a daily basis is just to keep the game going but to whose benefit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This only applies to western countries. Long, long hours still exist all over the world. What happened is that people are retired for 20 years instead of 5, and study until they're 21 instead of 14/15. That, and found more and more ways to extract rents from the producers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boom boom I think you underestimate the progress man has made over the last 200 years.. but agree with you that over the last 60 year we've been going in reverse if anything on the hours worked front.

Back in the Victorian factory era the standard work week was near 80 hours. 6, 12 hour days and only an 8 hour day on Sundays.

In mediaeval times, people worked very little. I've seen some figures that suggest it was something like 130 days a year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rent - up and up to meet productivity.

Tax - see above

Education - people brainwashed into things like "fulfillment is found in a career" (especially cruelly done to women)

The only people who have played their part have been producers, who are meeting their bargain by using vastly less labour and supplying goods for a fraction of their previous price, but those are the people you always seem to rail against. I don't understand that at all.

About spot on. Rent - obvious. Tax - to employ people to do useless tasks. The brainwashing of women was just astounding. What an own goal 1960s/1970s feminism was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The future of work as previously predicted

• In the late 1700s, Benjamin Franklin predicted we'd soon work a 4-hour week.

• George Bernard Shaw predicted we'd work a 2-hour day by 2000.

• In 1933, the US Senate passed a bill for an official 30-hour work week. (President Roosevelt killed it.)

• In 1935, W.K. Kellogg introduced a scheme to cut 2 hours from the working day, yet pay the same wages. It was cost-effective – morale and productivity rose; accident and insurance rates fell.

• In 1956, Richard Nixon predicted a 4-day work week in the "not too distant future".

• In 1965, a US Senate subcommittee predicted a 22-hour work week by 1985, 14 hours by 2000.

• In the 1960s, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that just 5% of the work being done would satisfy our food, clothing and shelter needs.

• In 1981, Buckminster Fuller claimed that 70% of US jobs were unnecessary: "inspectors of inspectors, reunderwriters of insurance reinsurers, Obnoxico promoters, spies and counterspies…"

1. Greed.

2. Greed.

3. Greed.

Greed, for want of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The future of work as previously predicted

• In the late 1700s, Benjamin Franklin predicted we'd soon work a 4-hour week.

• George Bernard Shaw predicted we'd work a 2-hour day by 2000.

• In 1933, the US Senate passed a bill for an official 30-hour work week. (President Roosevelt killed it.)

• In 1935, W.K. Kellogg introduced a scheme to cut 2 hours from the working day, yet pay the same wages. It was cost-effective – morale and productivity rose; accident and insurance rates fell.

• In 1956, Richard Nixon predicted a 4-day work week in the "not too distant future".

• In 1965, a US Senate subcommittee predicted a 22-hour work week by 1985, 14 hours by 2000.

• In the 1960s, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that just 5% of the work being done would satisfy our food, clothing and shelter needs.

• In 1981, Buckminster Fuller claimed that 70% of US jobs were unnecessary: "inspectors of inspectors, reunderwriters of insurance reinsurers, Obnoxico promoters, spies and counterspies…"

These guys couldn't have predicted how our lives would change with new technology and the products that it created. In other words they imagined that people would have the same lifestyle in the future but have to work fewer hours to maintain it. Franklin would never have predicted the motor car, Kellogg probably didn't imagine mass air travel, Nixon couldn't have guessed at the X-box - all these innovations that we want require labour to create them. I'm not particularly rich, but if I wanted to I could afford to buy a shack somehwere in Bolivia and live out the rest of my life in the manner that most people did in the 1700s Britain. No central heating, a very basic diet, an ounce of tabacco a month, nothing much else. So in a way Franklin was right - if we'd settle for an 18th century material quality of life we could live by doing very little work. Infact, there are people in today's western world who don't work at all and enjoy a standard of living better than that enjoyed by an 18th century aristocrat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In mediaeval times, people worked very little. I've seen some figures that suggest it was something like 130 days a year!

Sounds about right for something sensible. In almost all jobs there is no correlation between work performance and pay and many jobs wouldn't allow people to use their full potential, for this reason I don't think the time spent in 99% of jobs is rewarding for most people either spiritually or monetarily. Unless you are one of those nutjobs who loves his job more than his life.

However if you are doing your own business it's different, it's a matter of pride and there is a direct relationship between performance and money earned which is why I don't mind working hard on business. In the past I've worked 60 hours/ week on my own business and that's a lot considering I think I am a lot lazier than the average person.

I know for a fact there are a lot of people around the world who put all their waking hours into their business, and I look up to them for it because I imagine it's rewarding. I would not look up to someone working 40-60 hours/ week in a job as I would consider them to be wasting their lives unless it was well paid and just for a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About spot on. Rent - obvious. Tax - to employ people to do useless tasks. The brainwashing of women was just astounding. What an own goal 1960s/1970s feminism was.

So what do you suggest my daughter does? Give up on education, marry some bloke and be his obedient skivvy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what do you suggest my daughter does? Give up on education, marry some bloke and be his obedient skivvy?

Too late, the genie is out of the bottle.

I agree with his thesis. Women fought for the right to work, and they won the obligation to work as dual-income families drove property prices ever upwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too late, the genie is out of the bottle.

I agree with his thesis. Women fought for the right to work, and they won the obligation to work as dual-income families drove property prices ever upwards.

Nevertheless, disregarding the actual situation, that's what you think she should do, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what do you suggest my daughter does? Give up on education, marry some bloke and be his obedient skivvy?

Alternatively imagine all men could actually afford a one income household. She would not be a slave because the general culture would be one of girlfriends/ wives deserve to be looked after without anything being expected in return, except I suppose to be faithful.

This is how China works, only problem is Chinese people are so obsessed with money and labour is so cheap that it's cheaper for parents to both go to work then employ a carer for their child.

The only time you commonly see mothers at home looking after their children in China is I think when the husband is rich and the wife doesn't need a job.

I think the one parent family was just a blip from the rich boomer generation who had dirt cheap house prices and high salaries so could easily afford one parent to live at home and still have lots of holidays and live in comfort. But at some point as living costs rose and salaries fell in real terms it became necessary for both parents to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too late, the genie is out of the bottle.

I agree with his thesis. Women fought for the right to work, and they won the obligation to work as dual-income families drove property prices ever upwards.

That's a closed minded way of looking at things, I believe all couples deserve to own their own home. If prices are going too high then the governments mandate should be to encourage more quality house building.

Considering the rubbish quality of most new build houses and apartments I don't buy into the theory that there is a plentiful supply of good property out there. If it's true that there really are 450,000 empty properties out there (how many of those are derelict/ unlivable?) then it's more proof of how rich these boomers are sitting on second and third homes.

The fact is our government has gone out of it's way to keep this housing bubble going through low interest rates, lack of regulations, ceasing to build any new council houses though this was a continued Conservative policy. That reminds me, buying your council house seems to be another bribe for the late boomers. They bought their house for 30-50k back in the early 90s and the same houses now are worth 150k.

The government is enemy number one, we have one of the highest living costs in the world and one of the highest taxed countries in the world with nothing to show for it. If tax and living costs start reflecting China's, so being able to rent an apartment for 50 pounds/ month and being taxed only 10% on anything over 300 pounds / month only then would I support abolishing the minimum wage and not see a problem with people earning 2-3 pounds / hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.