Socialism

[crazy canuck]

Rigid work hours are part of the unpleasantness of work that necessitate compensation to perform it.

So says the rigid boss who finds it hard to compete with employers who offer less pay but better fringe benefits.

[Admiral Yi]

So says the rigid boss who finds it hard to compete with employers who offer less pay but better fringe benefits.

Are we talking about a hypothetical case here?

[garbon]

I suspect if you started up a company and offered totally flexible work times and no pay the applicant pool would not be very deep.

Didn't he say it was a major component? Clearly then his suggestion wouldn't be no pay.

[crazy canuck]

So says the rigid boss who finds it hard to compete with employers who offer less pay but better fringe benefits.

Are we talking about a hypothetical case here?

Yes, in the sense that you are not a boss, rigid or otherwise.

[The Brain]

A major problem in Sweden is that we only have Socialist parties in parliament. There is no right wing option anymore since the Moderates (used to be the major conservative party) turned Red.

What about the Sweden Democrats

They are intensely Socialist. The fact that their voters are predominantly people who live on welfare may have something to do with it. They are essentially old-skool Social Democrats (of the Swedish 1960s-80s "moar taxes and moar welfare!" kind) who don't happen to like the brownies.

[The Brain]

I am rigid.

[crazy canuck]

I suspect if you started up a company and offered totally flexible work times and no pay the applicant pool would not be very deep.

Didn't he say it was a major component? Clearly then his suggestion wouldn't be no pay.

Yep.  Its been my experience that when employers show a lot of leniency over work hours productivity goes up.  I think it is a fallacy that workers do x amount of work per hour and so if you just increase the hours you will get more productivity on the assumption x will stay constant.

There may be some menial jobs where that may be true but for a lot of work where judgment and some degree of problem solving/creativity is needed increasing hours with only the reward of pay is counterproductive.

[CountDeMoney]

Yep.  Its been my experience that when employers show a lot of leniency over work hours productivity goes up.  I think it is a fallacy that workers do x amount of work per hour and so if you just increase the hours you will get more productivity on the assumption x will stay constant.

That approach does not increase shareholder value.

[crazy canuck]

Yep.  Its been my experience that when employers show a lot of leniency over work hours productivity goes up.  I think it is a fallacy that workers do x amount of work per hour and so if you just increase the hours you will get more productivity on the assumption x will stay constant.

That approach does not increase shareholder value.

Good thing I dont have any shareholders.

[garbon]

Yep.  Its been my experience that when employers show a lot of leniency over work hours productivity goes up.  I think it is a fallacy that workers do x amount of work per hour and so if you just increase the hours you will get more productivity on the assumption x will stay constant.

That approach does not increase shareholder value.

Actually it does...given that (office) worker productivity declines if you're asking them to sit for many hours without taking breaks.

[The Minsky Moment]

I have a more cynical view of history, I think. Individuals may have donated out of sincere belief of course, but I think the church maintained its wealth and power for roughly 1,500 years because of the secular role it played. One key part of that was the charitable mission.

There is an interesting period in 9th and 10th century Western Europe where a lot of wealth is transferred to religious foundations apparently because it was a more effective and secure way to control family patrimony. 
That is some time after the period that Peter Brown is usually writes about, however.

[Admiral Yi]

Didn't he say it was a major component? Clearly then his suggestion wouldn't be no pay.

This is a silly semantic argument about incentives and the absence of disincentives.

Most people would be happier sitting in a nice comfy chair than on cinder blocks, and more willing to work for less money if they get a comfy chair rather than a cinder block.  If you and CC want to claim that the comfy chair is an incentive to work, that's fine.  But it doesn't detract from my original point, which is that the only two ways to generate productive behavior is through rewards (money) or coercion.

[crazy canuck]

If you and CC want to claim that the comfy chair is an incentive to work, that's fine.  But it doesn't detract from my original point, which is that the only two ways to generate productive behavior is through rewards (money) or coercion.

If you want to ignore the fact that there are other methods then you are missing out on the last 50 years or so of management studies in the area of increasing productivity.

[derspiess]

A major problem in Sweden is that we only have Socialist parties in parliament. There is no right wing option anymore since the Moderates (used to be the major conservative party) turned Red.

What about the Sweden Democrats

They are intensely Socialist. The fact that their voters are predominantly people who live on welfare may have something to do with it. They are essentially old-skool Social Democrats (of the Swedish 1960s-80s "moar taxes and moar welfare!" kind) who don't happen to like the brownies.

I guess it's kinda like Argentina, then.  The only political party with any economic sense has a handful of seats in the lower house and zero Senate seats.  Only thing they have is the mayor of Buenos Aires and a governorship.

Everyone hates the lefty president and her Peronist faction now but I doubt anything positive will come out of the next election.

[derspiess]

Didn't he say it was a major component? Clearly then his suggestion wouldn't be no pay.

This is a silly semantic argument about incentives and the absence of disincentives.

Most people would be happier sitting in a nice comfy chair than on cinder blocks, and more willing to work for less money if they get a comfy chair rather than a cinder block.  If you and CC want to claim that the comfy chair is an incentive to work, that's fine.  But it doesn't detract from my original point, which is that the only two ways to generate productive behavior is through rewards (money) or coercion.

I think this is highly dependent upon the type of work and quality of employees.  Money is the main driver, but flexibility and other considerations may possibly contribute.