The ever changing work week; history and technological change

 

     Once upon a time, long long ago, people did not divide their time between work and non-work. People spent the time needed to survive and did whatever they wanted the rest of the time. In certain "tropical paradises" with ample food and few dangers, most of the time was spent doing sports, enjoying flowers or doing crafts, building monuments, or whatever. In less amenable environments, most of the time was spent trying to survive and the only non-work time was during winter months when activity was severely restricted (but, often, the time was still allocated to doing activities to prepare for the warmer periods).

     As humans developed technology, including agricultural, animal husbandry, and environmental adaptive technologies, the less hospitable areas had less time required for survival. Society moved in two directions to make use of this non-work time. One direction was social stratification -- some had lots of leisure while others lost their leisure to perform labor for the higher social layers. The other direction was religious and familial development which provided more structured activities for use of non-survival time.

     Societies which had developed in the less stressful areas did not shift as much -- continuing to spend most of their time at leisure activities. In the other areas, a dynamic developed between the two directions of the shift of people's time with some wanting to do less and less for themselves and the others wanting more time to develop leisure activities. This dynamic continues unto today.

     But technology continued to develop and this push towards reallocation of survival labor time to non-work changed. This was buffered, in part, by continued population increases. The more people, with the greater strain on resources, the more efforts needed to survive -- but technology changes have continued to move somewhat ahead of those needs.

     In some areas, bolstered by religious mandates, the working people started having times, and days, where mandated activities could be forgotten. Children started to be seen as developing people rather than just another labor resource. Days were allocated for worship. Lastly, the work day was shortened to allow non-work time before and after the work day.

     In our present time, between automation and AI, we find our society entering a new period when the amount of work hours needed is becoming a smaller, and smaller, part of the total number of hours available to be produced by people. And, with automation and AI, the training and abilities needed by people who do work becomes more difficult to achieve.

     This leaves us with many hours not needed to be worked. It is no longer a survival situation -- it is a political and economic problem. If we reduce population then all of our production, and economic flow, will be at overcapacity (more than we can use). If we do NOT reduce population then there is not enough work for everyone. One possibility is to have each working person work fewer hours. Shorter days or fewer days? With commuting, fewer days means less overhead and more efficient labor movement.

     There is probably no universally "correct" solution but, unless civilization does a "reset" due to societal collapse, we need to face the problem of not enough hours of work for the number of people we have. Many object strongly to people not working but, if that is to not be the case, there must be better distribution (and better education) to spread the number of work hours among the many people.

Personnel Shifts: Continuous adaptation to the future

 

     If you enter into a grocery store (my son and I do so every Sunday at 6am to beat the crowds), you will have noticed that a growing number of "self-checkout" systems ("SCOs") are available. Sometimes these SCOs are oriented towards a limited number of items ("15 or under"), sometimes they are an alternative to the regular full-service checkout lanes. Occasionally, when I have only a half dozen items, or so, I am led away from the full-service lane (by a store employee) over to an SCO. I almost never voluntarily choose them -- because I know that the number of human cashiers are reduced as a shifting of resources.

     Is this bad? Bank tellers shifting to ATMs and online banking? Grocery store cashiers giving way to SCOs? The general shift from "brick-and-board" physical stores to online shopping or automated inventory and checkout systems? Automated package, and luggage, sorting at parcel and luggage handling locations? And so on and so on.

     There are shifts in the economy and work force taking place. Many of these shifts are due to automation. There are a couple of primary effects of this ongoing shift. First, the lower skill jobs are disappearing -- but higher skill jobs are being created. This is not 1-to-1 (1:1). For every five lower skill jobs that are replaced by automation, one high skill job is created. I am making up this ratio. It will depend on the exact industry and other factors. But it is still the situation that fewer high skill jobs are created than are lost from the lower skill job pool. That's a large part of the reason why there is a shift towards automation -- to save labor costs.

     The second shift can be interpreted from the above but it is rarely openly acknowledged. As more and more lower skill jobs are replaced by automation, the number of jobs that lower skill workers can qualify for -- and, especially, that pay a living wage -- goes down. There are unemployed people who do not qualify for a position in which they can support themselves and that number increases every year.

     Educate them! True, that can make more people, who used to be lower skill, able to join the higher skill work force. But, as the number of people needed for businesses continues to decrease, we end up with more people without positions to occupy. Education, by itself, only gives the possibility of having more higher skilled people without jobs rather than lower skill people without jobs.

     One possibility is to spread existing work around to more people. If each position in the economy occupies a person for fewer hours, then the economy allows for work by more people, If a company needs a labor force of 800 people-hours per week, there can be 20 people working 40 hours/week or there can be 32 people working 25 hours/week or even 40 people working 20 hours/week. Note that these people still need to be making living wages (and, with their education and training, likely will expect more).

     Another possibility is for people to set up businesses for themselves! That is happening and it may all work out. Certainly my crystal ball doesn't have fewer cracks in it than anyone else's. Such a shift requires economies moving away from physical consumerism; factories will continue to have fewer and fewer needed workers and "brick-and-board" businesses will move away from lower skilled personnel. Note that moving away from physical consumerism also has side-benefits for the environment.

     These newly invented businesses will have to deal with non-physical merchandise. Skills, learning, ideas, coaching, artistry, creativity -- a new paradigm for the economy. These new entrepreneurs need different training, and ways of thinking, from that which is presently being presented within the education system. Learning facts becomes less important. Learning how to research, and interpret, facts becomes vital.

          Jobs that are not cost-effective to automate (at least we are not at that economic tipping point as of yet) will still exist for the indefinite future. And there will continue to be people who will not, or cannot, obtain skills that will work within the new economy or the higher skill level traditional positions. But they cannot work 40 to 60 hours and still not be able to afford food, clothing, medical care, and shelter. It is a recipe of desperation. We may not often put people in jail for stealing a loaf of bread, like Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, but people who cannot succeed in living legally will find a way to live.

The Luddite effect -- when the new does not transition the old

    In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in London, as part of the "Industrial Revolution", a group of workers in the textile industry started gathering together to fight against technical replacements for their labor. Their fear was based in reality. The textile industry in England was a large one within which a considerable portion of the workers earned their living. A mechanized loom might replace the manual efforts of dozens of women and men.
    Similar to the situations that often exist today, these people were hard-working and had developed their skills over their lifetimes and, sometimes literally overnight, there was no longer any market for those skills. The response -- a losing battle -- was to destroy machines, make threats to those who were instigating the changes, and disrupt the ability for the new factories to produce. Some historical accounts indicate that the leaders of the workers recognized that there was no way to defeat the change but wanted better leverage to provide retraining and support of the unemployed.
    Government response was primarily organized around protecting the new factories, their owners, and products. Severe laws were passed and a number of "show trials" were held with death or penal transportation/exile as potential penalties. These laws, in effect, did succeed in breaking the movement.
    Other areas of skilled labor were also displaced within the context of the Industrial Revolution. Although history books usually focus on the improved ability to manufacture goods (and decrease of prices for the average consumer), they do not often indicate the huge labor displacement which was a direct effect of the change.
    The Luddites provide a practical history lesson. Change is difficult for societies to adopt and it is particularly hard on those who have invested much time and effort on the old. If change is to happen (and it is difficult to avoid it) then the process of moving away from the old must be kept in mind.
    There are a number of changes currently going on in current times. One is semi-involuntary, one is semi-voluntary, and another is fully voluntary.
    Climate change is semi-involuntary. This is because it was probably avoidable but made difficult to avoid because of inertia of old methods of business. Although there is still the chance to make the change less severe, it has already made significant changes to the world. The Great Barrier Reef is close-to-death largely because of the increase in global water temperature. The glaciers continue to shrink around the world -- this is especially important in the Asian subcontinent where winter storage of water in snowpacks and glaciers provide water to billions of people. "100-year-floods" and "100-year-storms" are occurring more often as the water temperature rises.
    A semi-voluntary area of change is the shift from non-renewable energy sources. Since the change has to be encouraged, and pushed for, it falls into the voluntary category. It is reaching the tipping point where it is almost easier to use new, renewable, energy sources than to keep using the old ones. However, just as happened in the textile industry, it is very important to recognize, and assist, the people and families dedicated to the old energy systems. Solar panel factories located at old coal mines to allow easier transitions?
    A full voluntary area of change is the strong push towards greater and greater independent automation. Phones get smaller and more powerful. Robots can take over more manual labor in a programmable fashion (as opposed to dedicated design such as in the textile mills). Innovation and extensive education becomes more and more necessary for general job positions.
    Whether voluntary, involuntary, or a mixture of such, change requires preparation and assistance in moving from the old. The is a necessity for the change and, when it is forgotten, much suffering can occur as well as rebellion (isolated or global).
    What happens to the old when the new comes? This is an age old question but, with more rapid change comes the need to actively address the needs for migration, retraining, and restructuring.