The dream of less work

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Human No More

It also means less pay. If someone could only do half their hours, they'd just take a second job to make up for the huge chunk of their income that was just stolen from them. Since a company would likely pay two people doing less work LESS than one person doing both people's work (due to doubled training, provision, doubled loss of employee time due to mandatory breaks, etc), someone would still earn a lot less with two jobs paying at the same rate than they would now with one even before the wasted time/money from additional travel comes into the equation. .

Noone would ofcourse be forced to work less, but if they like they could. And by reallocating resources those who work less still will be able to earn the same salary. The cost for that is, seen in a broader societal persective, compensated by a healthier and more productive workforce. Experiments have actually shown that people who work 6 hours many times are more productive than people that are working eight hours.
And the pay that the workers receive could be regulated by rules and laws so the company is not tempted to pay less.

Originally Posted by Human No More

In other words, you want to remove motivation to succeed?
Money is not always the motivation. Interest, meaningfulness and other things can be equally important for doing a good job. Sometimes, especially when it comes to creative work, more money takes away some of the initiative and motivation.

If you want people to perform better, you reward them, right? Bonuses, commissions, their own reality show. Incentivize them. … But that’s not happening here. You’ve got an incentive designed to sharpen thinking and accelerate creativity, and it does just the opposite. It dulls thinking and blocks creativity.”

Dan Pink on the surprising science of motivation | Video on TED.com

Originally Posted by Human No More

I don't think you understand economics. Wealth isn't created like that; simply moved - you can't just print free money to hand out. Zimbabwe 'creates' wealth by printing money with nothing to back it and no meaningful economic activity, which is literally not worth the paper it is printed on. The Weimar Republic did the same, the former is in state of economic ruin and the same practice drove the latter into one. .

You do not have to print out money, you have to distribute resources (which money is a representation of more equally among the population. That can be done by taxing the rich and redistribute their wealth. Also companies can be owned by the state, by all people together and the revenues be distributed in a fair way. Not impossible if one can fight of the selfish greedy capitalists.

Originally Posted by Human No More

Entrepreneurship is what causes jobs to exist.

You can also have jobs in a state owned, or collectively owned enterprises where the revenues are distributed between the workers and to the society in general. It is contraproductive to let the money be concentrated on a few rich people, it creates an unequal society with increased risks for conflicts and unhealth.

Originally Posted by Human No More

You have to put oil and petrol in a car and periodically check everything is within normal parameters for it to keep working; it won't maintain itself..

No, but people can still own the resources collectively and work less hours, and with more mechanization the amount of work could still decrease.
And the pensions should also be managed collectively to decrease the risk that a few individuals (owners of insurance companies and similar) gets rich on other peoples saved money.