True and false. Yes it is true that we in the USA work more hours then elsewhere in the world. But this isn't so much a result of management requiring us to work over 40 hours a week. In many cases it is people chooseing to work over time to make more money. As for making the most of your workers times when they are on the clocks, well that has always been the case. The labor unions have created some very real bussiness killing practices. Did you know the pention plans that GM entered in to due to unions takes up 2/3eds of their budget. This makes compeating with companys that are supported in this area by other governments difficult for GM.
But there is a bright side. This is self correcting. With unemployment at the lowest rate in any country in the world, the demand for employees could not be higher. This means that should a employee feel that the company is being unfair in the working hours they are being asked to work they can seek another job in with they will get better hours. Capitalism works. It only really goes bad when government, here or overseas, gets involved in protecting workers or the jobs. Look at any heavyly socialized nation and the unemployment rates are on average double or more that of the USA.
I would only say this. If the U.S. is being eclipsed in productivity per unit, it is ultimately not a good thing. That is efficiency in a nutshell and in the end efficiency wins. Right now we could make the argument that it's keeping the demand for workers up, but the spiral is downward when the goal is not total worker efficiency per unit.
Even during the growth of industrialization, places like Ford realized that efficiencey per unit work was paramount and that production per unit declined when workers were asked to perform for more hours. Obviously some other places missed this. We must realize that Marxism was floating around and unionization is probably all that saved the U.S. from joining much of the rest of the world...
Pensions are breaking on both sides of the fence. The pension guarantee is billions underfunded and United just got out from under theirs in court. There is no guarantee in the future. Every future fund proposed has broken at least once...
In many cases it is people chooseing to work over time to make more money.
While worker productivity has been going up, income has remained basically flat (adjusting for inflation). So might it not be more accurate to say that workers have been forced to work longer hours just to stay afloat, rather than than they 'chose' to work for more money?
As far as employment figures go, I consider them to be meaningless when comparing different countries because there isn't common definition of what 'looking for work' is, so I strongly suspect that a lot of the US's unemployment rate is hidden in the ranks of 'discouraged workers'. What really matters is not what the unemployment rate is, but rather how hard it is to find a job in your field of endeavour.
Demand for employees could not be higher, eh? That must be why wages are going up; supply and demand, and all that. Except -- oops! -- they're not. Have you been unemployed in the past four years? I have, and I can assure you it's not an environment of "I'll quit my job if I don't like it because I can just get another one" out there.
If you can cite a source for that "double unemployment" claim, I'd be interested to hear it; according to our own Department of Labor, some "heavily socialized" countries have unemployment rates higher than ours, some lower; Sweden, possibly the most "heavily socialized" country in the world, is only a percentage point higher.
Capitalism is indeed a great thing, but it alone does not produce a high living standard for a broad population. The reason we have such a large and strong middle class in this country is not because of unfettered capitalism, but because we also had worker protections, the GI Bill, and antitrust laws, to name but a few. There's always room for discussion about an appropriate level of regulation, but the history of the robber baron era should demonstrate clearly that it can certainly "really go bad" at that end of the scale, too.
5.6% (2004 est.) is Sweden w/ a 3.6% (2004 est.) growth rate and a small population by any standard. purchasing power parity - $28,400 (2004 est.)
USA = purchasing power parity - $40,100 (2004 est.) 4.4% (2004 est.) growth rate.
That means the average american earns nearly double the average Sweden and that the growth in that income is almost a full point higher then the sweden.
Most of the "robber baron era" had there positions protected by contracts and laws they help create linking the government to their companies and protecting their monopolies. Thusly it was indeed the involvement of the government that aided in their power.
(no subject)
But there is a bright side. This is self correcting. With unemployment at the lowest rate in any country in the world, the demand for employees could not be higher. This means that should a employee feel that the company is being unfair in the working hours they are being asked to work they can seek another job in with they will get better hours. Capitalism works. It only really goes bad when government, here or overseas, gets involved in protecting workers or the jobs. Look at any heavyly socialized nation and the unemployment rates are on average double or more that of the USA.
(no subject)
Even during the growth of industrialization, places like Ford realized that efficiencey per unit work was paramount and that production per unit declined when workers were asked to perform for more hours. Obviously some other places missed this. We must realize that Marxism was floating around and unionization is probably all that saved the U.S. from joining much of the rest of the world...
Pensions are breaking on both sides of the fence. The pension guarantee is billions underfunded and United just got out from under theirs in court. There is no guarantee in the future. Every future fund proposed has broken at least once...
(no subject)
While worker productivity has been going up, income has remained basically flat (adjusting for inflation). So might it not be more accurate to say that workers have been forced to work longer hours just to stay afloat, rather than than they 'chose' to work for more money?
As far as employment figures go, I consider them to be meaningless when comparing different countries because there isn't common definition of what 'looking for work' is, so I strongly suspect that a lot of the US's unemployment rate is hidden in the ranks of 'discouraged workers'. What really matters is not what the unemployment rate is, but rather how hard it is to find a job in your field of endeavour.
(no subject)
If you can cite a source for that "double unemployment" claim, I'd be interested to hear it; according to our own Department of Labor, some "heavily socialized" countries have unemployment rates higher than ours, some lower; Sweden, possibly the most "heavily socialized" country in the world, is only a percentage point higher.
Capitalism is indeed a great thing, but it alone does not produce a high living standard for a broad population. The reason we have such a large and strong middle class in this country is not because of unfettered capitalism, but because we also had worker protections, the GI Bill, and antitrust laws, to name but a few. There's always room for discussion about an appropriate level of regulation, but the history of the robber baron era should demonstrate clearly that it can certainly "really go bad" at that end of the scale, too.
(no subject)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html#Econ
5.6% (2004 est.) is Sweden w/ a 3.6% (2004 est.) growth rate and a small population by any standard.
purchasing power parity - $28,400 (2004 est.)
USA = purchasing power parity - $40,100 (2004 est.)
4.4% (2004 est.) growth rate.
That means the average american earns nearly double the average Sweden and that the growth in that income is almost a full point higher then the sweden.
Most of the "robber baron era" had there positions protected by contracts and laws they help create linking the government to their companies and protecting their monopolies. Thusly it was indeed the involvement of the government that aided in their power.