I’m confident that a larger volume of labor, assuming that investments in assets are made, will lead to economic growth, because that has been observed many times over in Economics research.
The development (working longer hours) is not positive. I would much rather prefer a productivity boom due to some general purpose technology. And that that raises economic growth.
But for me personally, going from working parttime to fulltime is not the worst thing ever either. I’ve done it before.
I hope you (and Emopunker who removed my comments, grrr) can see that the link between economic growth and the volume of labor is quite solid, and it should not engage people. There are only four levers to raise economic growth that are known in the literature (investments in assets, volume of labor, total factor productivity, education).
There are a lot of people for whom this is not an option though. Some examples include: people who are stressed and close to burnout, people with young children, people who take care of older family members, people who are old, people with chronic illnesses.
And I’d argue even “lifestyle part-timer” have a valid reason for not working more, they value their time higher than the money they could earn in that time. That’s capitalism. And if Fotzen-Fritze wants these people to work full time he has to make them an offer, not a threat.
Much to agree with here. About the lifestyle parttimers, I guess it boils down to this difference: a firm should be able to refuse their request for parttime, vs an employee should have the right to work parttime at that firm.
I think that it is wrong for employees to have this right, since it privileges them over those who might work there fulltime but are not employed there. But I think the other side also has strong arguments, especially since unemployment rates are low.
People are not machines with linear productivity gain the more they work. That is why your argument is flawed. You only go by numbers instead of counting in the human factor (if you genuinely mean it and aren’t trying to russle my jimmies). Majoring in economics doesn’t mean anything if you only learn half the stuff. I majored in political economy and was also in business and they are worlds apart. So I recommend you read up about the political economy (Volkswirtschaft).
I’m confident that a larger volume of labor, assuming that investments in assets are made, will lead to economic growth, because that has been observed many times over in Economics research.
The development (working longer hours) is not positive. I would much rather prefer a productivity boom due to some general purpose technology. And that that raises economic growth.
But for me personally, going from working parttime to fulltime is not the worst thing ever either. I’ve done it before.
I hope you (and Emopunker who removed my comments, grrr) can see that the link between economic growth and the volume of labor is quite solid, and it should not engage people. There are only four levers to raise economic growth that are known in the literature (investments in assets, volume of labor, total factor productivity, education).
There are a lot of people for whom this is not an option though. Some examples include: people who are stressed and close to burnout, people with young children, people who take care of older family members, people who are old, people with chronic illnesses.
And I’d argue even “lifestyle part-timer” have a valid reason for not working more, they value their time higher than the money they could earn in that time. That’s capitalism. And if Fotzen-Fritze wants these people to work full time he has to make them an offer, not a threat.
Much to agree with here. About the lifestyle parttimers, I guess it boils down to this difference: a firm should be able to refuse their request for parttime, vs an employee should have the right to work parttime at that firm.
I think that it is wrong for employees to have this right, since it privileges them over those who might work there fulltime but are not employed there. But I think the other side also has strong arguments, especially since unemployment rates are low.
People are not machines with linear productivity gain the more they work. That is why your argument is flawed. You only go by numbers instead of counting in the human factor (if you genuinely mean it and aren’t trying to russle my jimmies). Majoring in economics doesn’t mean anything if you only learn half the stuff. I majored in political economy and was also in business and they are worlds apart. So I recommend you read up about the political economy (Volkswirtschaft).