111–120 of 367 posts
This focuses on fertility, but the bigger deal here is it creates jobs. Because when you reduce the availability of labor you create more jobs and spur the economy. Not only will more people have jobs, but they will have more time to spend money. So this is potentially a win for the local economy.
This focuses on fertility, but the bigger deal here is it creates jobs. Because when you reduce the availability of labor you create more jobs and spur the economy. Not only will more people have jobs, but they will have more time to spend money. So this is potentially a win for the local economy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i've worked 10s before, and it's alternately amazing and terrible. at an office job, answering emails and going to meetings, 10hrs is completely beyond my tolerance level. but if you've got a project, and you can just put your head down and work, then 10s are really nice.
I agree. It's nice if you have something you can get into flow on. The biggest issue with 10s is commute time. If you work 10s with an hour+ commute, that's just awful.
I wish these stories would say if the hours are changing or not. 32 hours, 4 days a week seems better to me. But if all you do is take 40 hours and make it 10 hour days I’m not that much happier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is not the absolute number of people, but the ratio of relatively younger people who work and produce something, and the elderly who already are too frail and can only consume (pensions, medical care, etc). Japan has now fewer productive workers per elderly person than most developed countries.
==Japan has now fewer productive workers per elderly person than most developed countries.== Maybe, over the long run, we could change the expectation that elderly people can't be productive. Perhaps eliminating 20% of the workweek will allow people to maintain careers that are longer? The need to race towards retirement may lessen if we ease the burden of our weekly work schedule.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I kind of doubt this will be adopted practically in Japan. The old people get time off and leave work early in Japan by privilege and the young break themselves and any rule they need to permit it. The young would even lie about taking time off to make the boss look good, even taking less pay to sell the lie. Who can have kids when you already have to change everyone's diaper.
Fascinating. Is the loyalty reciprocated?
I think this is an overall good move, and very much support it, but many countries with better work-life balance and robust support for new parents still see declining birth rates....I can't help but think that a decline in fertility rates is as much about values -- what the point of life itself is, and how much it should be bound up in what we call the family -- as it is about the material conditions surrounding the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is not the absolute number of people, but the ratio of relatively younger people who work and produce something, and the elderly who already are too frail and can only consume (pensions, medical care, etc). Japan has now fewer productive workers per elderly person than most developed countries.
Even if the birth rate suddenly tripled, it wouldn't solve that issue for at least a generation. There's going to have to be other solutions, maybe in the form of automation/robotics/etc in conjunction with societal/economic changes. I wouldn't be surprised if the older population resists necessary changes and exacerbates the problem, though.
This focuses on fertility, but the bigger deal here is it creates jobs. Because when you reduce the availability of labor you create more jobs and spur the economy. Not only will more people have jobs, but they will have more time to spend money. So this is potentially a win for the local economy.
(It’s a fallacy, but I’m too lazy to face the criticism if I explain it in full. In summary, please inform yourself on why both breaking windows and working less don’t create jobs).