Total employment and floating work shifts in macroeconomics

It looks like there are some common major problems in modern economic systems when employing people to work.

At first, some people stay without work in unemployment and suffer from the lack of funds without salary. The second problem is with working people – they always suffer from overworking (5 days and 8 hours shifts, limit of vacation and almost no time to stay with family) and are often quite bored and lack energy to do everything with joy and fun.

So why just not using floating working shifts to solve both problems ? Let’s say we have a 3 working days a week 6 hours shifts for an average workers for example. Thus we are able to both reduce load to the ones who are already working and to hire the ones who suffer without employment.

The total work load is thus equally distributed between the available population with everyone involved in production. The working people do not suffer from exhaustion and may relax and stay with their families longer (the income/time ratio is even a little higher from “not tired” performance gain). That will increase the overall production rates (people are completely not tired) and create a 100% employment, solving almost all poverty related tensions in society. Moreover, it is possible to make a 24/7 production if needed using just as many work shifts as needed.

It looks like it is quite profitable to both employers (happy 100% motivated staff, performance gains and net salary reduction) and employees (no over-exploitation, a lot of available time, no poverty at all), solving most modern capitalism problems (with appropriate state regulations). With further progress in using technology we only need to adjust shifts length a little bit (make it shorter) to suit industry needs.

Why not use this simple approach to solve all these problems ? Are there any special restrictions or drawbacks from using this simple scheme ?

Anyway, feel free to discuss this topic in details in our economics.stackexchange post.

Leave a Reply