TheBramble
Legendary member
- Messages
- 8,394
- Likes
- 1,171
Just looking at tomorrow’s scheduled data releases and saw the JPY job-to-applicant ratio (expected to be 0.77). Which pretty much means there’s only 0.77 of a job for everyone who wants one. And then, thinking a bit like a rights issue, if you mash up all the available man-hours employers need filled and then distribute that as equally as possible over the available workforce, you get a figure which is the number of hours per week (month or whatever) that you can give to everyone.
Taking JPY as an example, it would (I think?) roughly equate to reducing everyone’s working hours by using the job-to-applicant ratio as a multiplier on current hours. So for a ‘standard’ 40 hour week, multiply by 0.77 and you get 30.8 hours/week.
Put everybody on a new ‘standard’ of 31 hours/week and you have (OK, only arithmetically, but in principle it works) full employment, no unemployment benefits to pay – plus people suddenly busting a gut to be better than the ’other’ person sharing their job.
Obviously ridiculously under-stated in terms of management and overlap and unforeseen complications and obviously not thought through at all, but with the right incentives to business (e.g. not to increase administrative overhead and reduce taxation overall [which the government could afford as tax receipts would increase overall through 100% employment and effectively 0% unemployment benefits]) I can’t see any major flaw in this calculation. Of course, there will potentially be labour, social, legil;ative, tax et al issues. But…any thoughts? Be rough with me, I like a tussle….
Taking JPY as an example, it would (I think?) roughly equate to reducing everyone’s working hours by using the job-to-applicant ratio as a multiplier on current hours. So for a ‘standard’ 40 hour week, multiply by 0.77 and you get 30.8 hours/week.
Put everybody on a new ‘standard’ of 31 hours/week and you have (OK, only arithmetically, but in principle it works) full employment, no unemployment benefits to pay – plus people suddenly busting a gut to be better than the ’other’ person sharing their job.
Obviously ridiculously under-stated in terms of management and overlap and unforeseen complications and obviously not thought through at all, but with the right incentives to business (e.g. not to increase administrative overhead and reduce taxation overall [which the government could afford as tax receipts would increase overall through 100% employment and effectively 0% unemployment benefits]) I can’t see any major flaw in this calculation. Of course, there will potentially be labour, social, legil;ative, tax et al issues. But…any thoughts? Be rough with me, I like a tussle….