This is so interesting. I wonder if they designed the system this way. Like, let people automate their jobs so that they can basically earn a passive income, and then the company gets to inherit that automation when that person retires. It's kind of like a one time sacrifice to get an Infinity of automation.
I love this hypothesis, but I can't say I've ever worked for a corporation this thoughtful or with that long of a planning horizon. Pretty sure it's totally an accident! I assure you 90%+ of corporate management is a mostly-blind shitshow, it's an absolute miracle of bottom up organisation that anything works.
We're a lot closer to UBI anarchy-lite than is obvious at first glance...
Very thought-provoking. Maybe a solution is to offer a salary based on the totality of accomplishments an employer expects from his or her employee each pay period, then as long as that gets done, the number of hours the employer works shouldn't matter, or be tracked.
I think that’s kind of how it works now. Yes, salary jobs are “based off” a 40-hour work week. But really salary jobs are for a set of responsibilities not a set of hours, which is why the flexibility exists!
Another question is how do the different generations view this? A Baby Boomer or Gen Xer may feel like employee work time should be tracked, while the younger gens are OK with just assignment-based salaries. I'm a Gen Xer who definitely subscribes to the assignment-based salary concept (and love it), but I work remotely with a full-time national media job while also running two Substacks. Working remotely definltely makes this feasible, while working in an office would prevent that. Thanks for your response Elle!
This might be true within the bubble of profitable (tech/finance/fortune 500) companies, where there is a money fountain and it doesnt matter if the marginal employee does not contribute to their fullest potential.
Work in a startup (or in a devloping country) and you will find a lot more pressure for each employee to contribute, as the money fountain still has to be built.
Workers in developing countries often waste huge amounts of time. Go to any office in non-tech India and tell me the people there are 100% for eight hours.
I've been the sucker on the opposite end of this trade as described in the article: doing three people's jobs (the other two left and weren't replaced) with no increase in salary.
I have been that sucker too. I used to take on other people’s work just because I’m ambitious and was happy to help, until I realized my coworkers were working way less than I was! (And being paid more!)
For sure. Every company starts with a small group of hungry individuals, but as they grow larger they become a a funding mechanism for less hungry individuals.
I’m sure we’ll always have a small dedicated few and a less motivated many.
The “standard work week” should absolutely go down as productivity through technology has improved output! It hasn’t, but it should if we put human wellbeing over profits.
Well that's what I'm saying—it already has. Many are already working fewer hours at their salary jobs. It might seem like hours haven't gone down "officially", but "unofficially" they already are!
Meanwhile in Mexico politicians and businessmen are reluctant to approve a “novel” reform that would reduce the workweek from 48 to 40 hours. Go figure
This is so interesting. I wonder if they designed the system this way. Like, let people automate their jobs so that they can basically earn a passive income, and then the company gets to inherit that automation when that person retires. It's kind of like a one time sacrifice to get an Infinity of automation.
I love this hypothesis, but I can't say I've ever worked for a corporation this thoughtful or with that long of a planning horizon. Pretty sure it's totally an accident! I assure you 90%+ of corporate management is a mostly-blind shitshow, it's an absolute miracle of bottom up organisation that anything works.
We're a lot closer to UBI anarchy-lite than is obvious at first glance...
Very thought-provoking. Maybe a solution is to offer a salary based on the totality of accomplishments an employer expects from his or her employee each pay period, then as long as that gets done, the number of hours the employer works shouldn't matter, or be tracked.
I think that’s kind of how it works now. Yes, salary jobs are “based off” a 40-hour work week. But really salary jobs are for a set of responsibilities not a set of hours, which is why the flexibility exists!
Another question is how do the different generations view this? A Baby Boomer or Gen Xer may feel like employee work time should be tracked, while the younger gens are OK with just assignment-based salaries. I'm a Gen Xer who definitely subscribes to the assignment-based salary concept (and love it), but I work remotely with a full-time national media job while also running two Substacks. Working remotely definltely makes this feasible, while working in an office would prevent that. Thanks for your response Elle!
This.... was VERY encouraging for me.
Thank you Elle
This might be true within the bubble of profitable (tech/finance/fortune 500) companies, where there is a money fountain and it doesnt matter if the marginal employee does not contribute to their fullest potential.
Work in a startup (or in a devloping country) and you will find a lot more pressure for each employee to contribute, as the money fountain still has to be built.
Workers in developing countries often waste huge amounts of time. Go to any office in non-tech India and tell me the people there are 100% for eight hours.
I've been the sucker on the opposite end of this trade as described in the article: doing three people's jobs (the other two left and weren't replaced) with no increase in salary.
I have been that sucker too. I used to take on other people’s work just because I’m ambitious and was happy to help, until I realized my coworkers were working way less than I was! (And being paid more!)
For sure. Every company starts with a small group of hungry individuals, but as they grow larger they become a a funding mechanism for less hungry individuals.
I’m sure we’ll always have a small dedicated few and a less motivated many.
The “standard work week” should absolutely go down as productivity through technology has improved output! It hasn’t, but it should if we put human wellbeing over profits.
That’s good to hear. I’ve not seen it but feel it’s long overdue:)
Well that's what I'm saying—it already has. Many are already working fewer hours at their salary jobs. It might seem like hours haven't gone down "officially", but "unofficially" they already are!
Meanwhile in Mexico politicians and businessmen are reluctant to approve a “novel” reform that would reduce the workweek from 48 to 40 hours. Go figure
Is work there typically hourly or salary?