Let’s Remove Unemployment
This article presents a very simple idea which will eliminate unemployment. It will bring power to the people. It will significantly increase workers’ salaries. It will bring justice and growth to the economy. People know nothing about this idea because the rich hide it from the public.
The owners of corporations favour unemployment because the unemployed workers are pressured to accept poorly paid jobs to feed their families. A higher unemployment rate produces cheaper labour. The owners of corporations are capable of generating unemployment by influencing the economic policy from importing labour to rising interest rates. It seems that an unemployment rate of about 5% is very convenient for employers and economists have accepted it as a “normal” state. This “normal” state allows the exploitation of workers through low labour costs, while the total workers’ purchasing power is still large enough to produce profits for private companies.
Today’s economy recognizes cyclical, frictional, and structural unemployment. Cyclical unemployment is the result of oscillations in the process of expansion and recession of production, which oscillates demand for work. Some economists realize that the burden of crisis and benefits from profits should be more equally distributed between employers and employees, but they do not know how to implement it.
Frictional unemployment is the result of people willing to move between jobs, careers and locations. Structural unemployment is the consequence of a change in technology, which results in the absence of demand for available workers. These kinds of unemployment are invented by scientists to give students something to learn and are not worth mentioning. Economists today are so indoctrinated with the false teaching that they believe unemployment is the unavoidable price, which must be paid for technological development. They even believe that 0% of unemployment is not a positive thing. I want to stress here that 0% unemployment will solve most of the existing economic problems.
The current philosophy of economics protects capital as the main requirement for the protection of individual economic rights and of society. This is wrong. We need to base the philosophy of economics primarily on equal human rights because people are the main purpose of the economy and are the subjects that the economy cannot exist without. Besides, equal human rights are the condition for creating a good society. This is the foundation of my philosophy.
Society regulates freedom if such freedom endangers people. The stronger has no right to endanger the weaker, and if so, the stronger will be legally punished. Can you imagine what life would be like without law governing the rights and obligations of citizens? But there is no such law in the free market economy. A stronger producer might suppress a weaker from the market and thus endanger their survival. If we have adopted laws that prevent the stronger to threaten the weaker in daily life, we need to protect the weaker in the economy as well. But we don’t, and this is the reason our society deteriorates.
The unemployment of workers cannot form a healthy basis for a good society. A just society requires the availability of work to everyone. If job creation is not needed, full employment will be achieved by reducing the work hours proportionally to the unemployment rate. This is a political measure which needs to be accepted by people and must be enforced in both the public and private enterprises. The regulation of working hours will produce full employment and create a much better economy.
The shortening of working hours will reduce employees’ salaries proportionally to the reduction of working hours. For example, an unemployment rate of 10% will shorten the working hours of all workers by 10% and the workers’ wages would decrease by 10%. This 10% of the money the companies take from employed workers will be distributed to the newly hired workers. Initially, the full employment will not burden employers with additional labour costs, and all workers would get employed and receive incomes. The previously employed workers would probably perceive the lower wages as a disadvantage, but in the long run, their salaries will significantly grow because in the reduced work market the employers will be forced to increase workers’ salaries to be able to keep them.
The shortening of working hours will bring great benefits to society. The lower salaries of workers caused by the elimination of unemployment are not even close as bad as what unemployment brings to workers who receive no salary. Such a measure would guarantee that unemployment and economic insecurity of workers can no longer exist.
People are accustomed to fluctuations in living standards depending on the performance of the economy. The real purchasing power of wages changes more than the unemployment rate due to changes in the market supply and demand, economic crisis, inflation and deflation. Workers silently accept such fluctuations in purchasing power. They accept that they live worse through the crisis. So, why would they not accept this measure in the name of solidarity among workers, which will help them establish a healthy long-term basis to achieve higher standards of living?
Shortening work hours proportionally to the rate of unemployment will not only eliminate unemployment, but it will also solve the problem of exploitation. Here is a simple explanation: If there are a total of two workers who apply for a total of one work post, the competition among the workers will reduce the cost of labour so that the worker who gets the job will be exploited. If there is a total of one worker and a total of two jobs, the competition among employers will increase the wage of the worker. Regarding this, the reduction of work hours proportionally to the rate of unemployment will put workers in a better position in the production process. Lower availability of workers will raise the value of the labour of workers and thus, employers would pay workers more than they do today.
Access to the free market is a privilege that society gives to companies, and the companies must pay for this privilege in a way that satisfies society. Increasing the wages of workers will be at the expense of employers. Employers would not like it at the beginning of course, but later they will profit from higher earnings of workers.
Employers must understand that they cannot earn more if there is not a greater consumer purchasing power. They must understand that the purchasing power of society cannot be increased without increasing the wages of workers. They should understand that there is not a better distribution of incomes, neither for employers nor for workers than of the one achieved through a fair labour market.
Shortening work hours proportionally to the rate of unemployment would ensure a more fair distribution of incomes inside society. The fair distribution of incomes will provide greater purchasing power to the workers, which will ensure a higher flow of goods, which would again bring greater profits to the owners of capital. Besides, this would remove economic crises because they are primarily based on the lack of trade in goods and services. Shorter work hours will form better capitalism and bring prosperity to society.
Overtime work will continue to be allowed. In the Western world, overtime work pays time and a half. Employers who intend to solve the labour shortage with overtime work will not reduce unemployment. Then the policy that follows the will of the people will further shorten the working hours of all employees, and employers will have to pay more overtime hours. Let the employers themselves realize whether it is more worth it to hire new workers or to pay more overtime hours per worker.
The task of a good policy is to simplify regulation as much as possible while achieving the greatest positive impact on society. Today’s policy regulates minimum income, which has a very limited impact on the overall distribution of incomes. In the developed world, a large number of workers earn minimum wage while inflation reduces the real value constantly. Workers of the American corporation Walmart generally receive minimal income due to the unemployment in America. The salaries in Walmart cannot cover basic needs, and so the workers receive social assistance from the U.S. Government. They live at the expense of U.S. taxpayers while Walmart continues to be one of the most profitable companies in America.
A good policy will regulate the length of working hours and not necessarily the minimum income. When unemployment removes by reducing work hours, employers who need more workers will have to take them from other employers by offering higher salaries because other workers will not be available. They will have to compete by increasing workers’ wages to attract workers from other companies. It will cause a chain reaction in which the workers’ wages will rise. If employers do not increase wages, they would not have workers. This is a fair labour market. The regulation of a minimum income will not be required any longer. There will be no need for unions as intermediaries in protecting workers’ rights.
The reduction in work hours is not a new idea. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Robert Owen realized the absurdity of daily work that lasted between 12 and 16 hours. In 1817 he proposed the reduction of work hours to 8 hours a day so people would have 8 hours a day for recreation and 8 hours for rest. The employers were strongly opposed to it and did not let the reduction occur. The workers were very dissatisfied. The first significant worker resistance happened in Chicago, on May 1st, 1867, and the day was declared International Labour Day. The struggle between employers and workers has been painful and often bloody. It took around 100 years of struggle for the idea of the eight-hour workday to be accepted worldwide.
But this reduction in work hours is not enough today. French socialists in power adopted a new law in 2000, which shortened the work hours of all employees from 39 to 35 hours per week. They did this to reduce unemployment and enable more free time to workers. But the shorter work hours did not lead to an increase in employment because employers burdened employed workers more. That says to me that there is not even a need for a seven-hour workday because the automation in the manufacturing process has reduced the need for human resources.
The French Socialists should have been aware that the employers, who are accustomed to exploiting workers, would not easily give up. The socialists needed to implement a higher reduction of work hours until employers are forced to hire unemployed workers. I would recommend decreasing the work week length to 30 hours. The French Socialists were not sufficiently committed, and ten years later, the Conservatives abolished the limitation of 35 work hours per week. So the idea of social justice was lost once again.
Privileged people always find a way to oppress the marginalized, and that has always been the primary source of problems in society. But in the 14th century, a huge natural tragedy helped the disenfranchised. The Black Death killed one-third of the European population, which produced a vast labour shortage. “The shortage of servants, craftsmen, and workmen, and of agricultural workers and labourers, left a great many lords and people without service and attendance.” The crops in the fields languished because there were not enough people to harvest them.
Suddenly, workers and their labour were in much higher demand, enabling those who survived the Black Death to be in a much better position to negotiate work conditions. Historian and economist Thorold Rogers documented that the peasants were virtually given everything they asked. Wages have increased significantly (2-3 times) in one year, and the higher purchasing power of people has improved the economy. More about this can be found here: The Economic Impact of the Black Death.
Now what? Shall we wait for a new tragedy of humanity, or will we, in the name of justice and solidarity among people, be smart enough to shorten working hours as long as unemployment exists? Only that would force companies to hire unemployed workers. Only that would build justice and balance in the process of production and distribution. Such regulation of the market will use “the invisible hand” to balance the demand for labour and income heights in the most acceptable way for workers and employers.
I received criticism saying that expensive work drives capital to the places where the labour is cheaper. My response was the state market can always protect itself by duties and taxes on the borders. However, does capital not go to developing countries anyway? Yes, but this situation will come to an end because if workers in developed countries do not earn enough, they cannot buy enough of the goods that the large capitals produce. The less the capital invests in society, the less profit it receives. The capital which invests more, profits more, and more easily survives on the market. The same will happen when society accepts a new labour market regulation.
On the other hand, the departure of capital cannot bring workers into an existential threat anymore. The eventual increase in unemployment caused by the departure of capital would result in a more significant reduction of working hours of workers; thus, economic security would still be guaranteed to all people. The shortening of working hours will reduce the incomes of workers, but they would remain high enough to provide a decent life. Capitalism has spent a lot of energy in developing the consumer mentality, which is very unnecessary, and the egotistical character trait of workers, which is wrong. The solidarity in shortening working hours will fundamentally change it.
The question is, why has such a simple idea never been suggested? The reason should be sought in the conspiracy of big businesses, which by their economic power, prevent the advent of new ideas that can improve society. Big businesses supported ideas that cannot improve society. Big capital supported Marxism as the leading ideology of the Left because they have always known that Marxism cannot create a good society, and as such, it does not constitute a hazard to them. Otherwise, Marxism, as a vehicle of the violent revolutionary ideology, would have been outlawed. Marxism is useful to big businesses because it mistakenly directs the Left. This is proved by the practice of the socialist revolutions.
Thanks to the conspiracy of big business, my ideas do not have access to the media, universities, politics, and so, nor to the people. This article has been sent to hundreds of news publishers, predominantly left-oriented, and so far only “Global Research“ published it. But one day, the idea of reducing work hours proportionally to the unemployment rate will break through, and society will demand its implementation. This will reduce the privileges of employers and increase workers’ rights. It will also reduce the difference between the earnings of employers and workers. In such an environment, the capital will lose its significance. A fair labour market will spontaneously initialize a new social and economic system that will replace capitalism and substantially meet the needs of society as a whole. I have presented this system in detail in my book, Humanism. Humanism would be equally acceptable to all people and would further improve society.
