Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday September 21 2016, @07:20PM   Printer-friendly
from the more-or-less-getting-more-done-with-less-people dept.

Having underemployed workers can lead to two outcomes that benefit an organization—creativity and commitment to the organization—according to a new study by management experts at Rice University, Chinese University of Hong Kong at Shenzhen and Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Statistics have shown that a significant proportion of workers worldwide are underemployed or working at jobs that are below their capacity. Researchers have estimated that underemployment ranges from 17 percent to two-thirds of the workforce in Asia, Europe and North America, according to the study.

"Our results have important implications for managers," said study co-author Jing Zhou, the Houston Endowment Professor of Management at Rice's Jones Graduate School of Business. "Managers should not assume that employees will always respond negatively to their perception of being underemployed. Our results suggest that managers need to be vigilant in detecting perceptions of underemployment among employees.

"When managers notice that their employees feel underemployed, they should support employees' efforts to proactively change the boundaries or formal descriptions of their work tasks, such as changing the sequencing of the tasks, increasing the number of tasks that they do or enlarging the scope of the tasks," she said. "Because the perception of underemployment may be experienced by many employees, managers should provide support to sustain positive outcomes in these situations."

Not getting enough hours to qualify for benefits is a good thing?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Francis on Thursday September 22 2016, @02:58AM

    by Francis (5544) on Thursday September 22 2016, @02:58AM (#405005)

    Why would anybody starve? We just cut everybody's hours and give them a raise in pay to ensure they've got the money necessary to pay for things like food and board. It's not rocket science and we've got more than enough money and production capacity to make it happen. As it stands more than half of the profits go to a small percentage of the population. Taking even half that money would easily allow people to cut back on their hours substantially without going hungry or lacking housing.

    As it stands now, fewer and fewer people are actually involved in the agriculture necessary to support us. None of them would be going out of business, as it is we have to pay large sums of money to ensure that they don't overproduce their produce and tank the price.

    The only other thing that would change would be that the mega-wealthy would only be super-wealthy. They might have to make hard decisions like whether to have a second yacht or that house in the Hamptons, but not both. The world would hardly come crashing to a halt.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday September 22 2016, @04:17AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 22 2016, @04:17AM (#405022) Journal

    We just cut everybody's hours and give them a raise in pay to ensure they've got the money necessary to pay for things like food and board.

    I find it interesting how the solution here to automation and global poverty is "let's make everyone useless". This is a small-minded person with ambition! I'm not as bored now.

    As it stands now, fewer and fewer people are actually involved in the agriculture necessary to support us. None of them would be going out of business, as it is we have to pay large sums of money to ensure that they don't overproduce their produce and tank the price.

    We want more than just some food.

    The only other thing that would change would be that the mega-wealthy would only be super-wealthy. They might have to make hard decisions like whether to have a second yacht or that house in the Hamptons, but not both. The world would hardly come crashing to a halt.

    You've just made capital far more valuable than labor with your scheme. Why would the mega-wealthy, whose wealth is tied up in capital and similar assets become less wealthy relative to laborers whose value you forcibly reduced?

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Thursday September 22 2016, @03:27PM

      by Francis (5544) on Thursday September 22 2016, @03:27PM (#405159)

      You sir, are a dumbass.

      With the productivity gains of the last century in particular, there's no need to have everybody working 40 hour work weeks with no sick leave or vacation time. The work that you're advocating for is mostly busy work. At some point, productivity will reach a point where the only way to have full employment will be to either pay people to move boxes from one side of the warehouse and back over and over again or cut people's hours down to something that reflects the time necessary to do the work.

      Personally, I think it makes a ton sense to just let people have the time off that they've earned.

      And BTW, food, shelter, clothing, transportation and medical care is most of what most people actually want. Everything else is more or less entertainment and leisure time. There's absolutely no reason why we can't provide people with that with a 20 hour work week. It would just require the rich to only be very wealthy rather than mega-wealthy.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday September 22 2016, @04:29PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 22 2016, @04:29PM (#405177) Journal

        With the productivity gains of the last century in particular, there's no need to have everybody working 40 hour work weeks with no sick leave or vacation time. The work that you're advocating for is mostly busy work. At some point, productivity will reach a point where the only way to have full employment will be to either pay people to move boxes from one side of the warehouse and back over and over again or cut people's hours down to something that reflects the time necessary to do the work.

        If it's all "busy work", then you don't have productivity gains by definition. I find this cognitive dissonance intriguing where the more useless we make people's labor somehow the more useful work they do! Maybe we should reconsider who is the "dumbass" here?

        And of course, you gloss over my quite relevant observation that devaluing human labor is just going to shift the wealth of society even further to the people whose wealth is not dependent on labor, namely, those mega-wealthy.

        And BTW, food, shelter, clothing, transportation and medical care is most of what most people actually want. Everything else is more or less entertainment and leisure time. There's absolutely no reason why we can't provide people with that with a 20 hour work week. It would just require the rich to only be very wealthy rather than mega-wealthy.

        If only we didn't have behavior of real people to sully your worldview!

    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday September 22 2016, @03:56PM

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday September 22 2016, @03:56PM (#405167) Journal

      I really think a profound change in work culture is in our near future. We're still on the Protestant Work Ethic. It is strange how our technological advances were fondly imagined as eventually making our children's lives easier, but it never seems to work out that way. In the 18th century people worked their butts off on the damnedest chores. People made their own clothes, "homespun", and that took incredible amounts of very boring work to do. First, needed a suitable crop, which might be flax, or might be cotton. The work of planting and harvesting was done by hand, horse, and oxen. The harvest had to be worked into threads, which was done with a human powered mechanical aide, a spinning wheel. After that, the threads had to be woven into cloth with another human powered device, a loom, then finally the cloth was cut and sewn into clothing. The Industrial Revolution ended all that. Freed an awful lot of hours, and what was done with that free time? Went straight into factory work.

      Will the same thing happen this time? I doubt it. As robots take over blue collar jobs, we'll just find other ways to sink our time into different work, and feel all smug and virtuous about it? Except the people who don't have the skills and imagination to do white collar work, what will they do? And don't feel that white collar jobs are much safer, not with computers now able to do a lot of the heavy lifting there. When computers and robots can do everything we now do, better than our best people can do it, then what? Computers can whip us at chess, and recently did the same in go, they're getting better at driving cars, and there are plenty of gadgets such as the Roomba. I don't see that happening in the next 20 years, I think many people are overly optimistic about the speed of progress. But it will come, perhaps by 2100. How about a computer politician for president?

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday September 23 2016, @01:18AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 23 2016, @01:18AM (#405369) Journal

        As robots take over blue collar jobs, we'll just find other ways to sink our time into different work, and feel all smug and virtuous about it?

        Why do you think work is about feelings?

        Frankly, there is too much terrible argument in this discussion about humanity's supposed future labor obsolescence. Francis complains that we're too productive giving "busy work" (which by definition is near completely unproductive) as an example. meustrus thinks we should optimize for better metrics. But his emphasis on things like income inequality and paying more for less labor (which is great if you're the worker and not great if you're the employer getting less as a result) indicates to me that he's thinking about the wrong metrics (which are just as bad as GDP and official unemployment rate).

        Then we get to the counterproductive measures. When you make labor far less valuable (keep in mind that employers pay you for the value you generate - less hours means for the majority of jobs, less value generated and hence, less wealth generation to share with you in the form of wages), then anything else such as capital becomes more valuable in comparison. For all the people paying lip service to income inequality, crippling our ability to earn more will just make that income inequality much worse.

        For example, I put more than half my income into stocks in large part because that's a better wealth generator in today's dysfunctional employment climate than working. If someone like Francis gets a clueless law dropping the hours I can work (and of course, assuming I can't get around that law by working two jobs or simply breaking the law and not reporting income), then what am I going to do that's going to justify the income I was getting? It's a two way street. My employer pays me because I generate more than I cost. Work less and I generate less in my job. But on the other hand, my stocks will do better relative to my income. That might be sufficient to avoid a huge decline in standard of living, assuming of course, that the cost of living collapses too in this brave new world.

        Also let us note the two economic effects that have so far prevented humanity's labor from declining in value: comparative advantage [wikipedia.org] and Jevons paradox [wikipedia.org]. There remains stuff that is better for humans to do, even stuff that can be done better by robotics, because robotics is better used elsewhere. And when you make human labor more efficient and hence, more valuable, you increase demand for it. Automation is a huge way human labor, even of the relatively unskilled sort, can be made more efficient and valuable.