class=”sc-3778e872-0 cKDKQr”>
In the 1960s it was still common for a single worker to support a family of five or even six working 44 hours a week. Of course, people lived modestly, but no one went hungry and everyone dressed properly. Since then, hourly labor productivity has nearly tripled. In addition, it is now common for both parents to take a paid job (which is mandatory) and work an average of 65 hours together.
Looking back: Until recently, unemployment was worldwide. the It was clear to everyone that the central issue of economic policy and technological progress – “Industry 4.0” – would exacerbate this problem. This much-cited study assumed that half of all jobs would disappear. And now suddenly we can only maintain our standard of living if we all work harder.
Why should that be?
Housing construction investments
An obvious suspect is expensive rents, forcing us to have correspondingly high incomes and job assignments. But this has nothing to do with the labor shortage. Investment in housing – the main cost of housing – accounts for less than 5 percent of GDP, and that share has nearly halved over the past 30 years. Construction became cheaper. We certainly don’t need to work for it anymore – at least not economically.
The assumption that the labor shortage is related to an aging population (more retirees, less active people) contradicts the facts. The current employment rate of 67.1 percent – thanks to the migration of young workers – is just slightly below 67.4 percent in 2000. It dropped significantly to 23.4 percent to 19.8 percent. The demographic load – for now – has become lighter, not heavier.
Do we have a part time problem?
Or is the problem because so many lazy workers only want to work part time? Also here: everything is clear. While the number of hours worked per employee has decreased by 3 percent in the last ten years, productivity has increased by 11 percent in the same period. In other words, we produce 8 percent more per person than in 2012. We also work, for example, about two more hours a week than the Germans. So it should be enough.
Our export surplus, which amounts to approximately 10 percent of GDP, shows that we are producing well above our own needs. But this may be the solution to the riddle. The Swiss economy is designed for export, not domestic use. But 70 percent of the one million jobs created since 1991 are for personal use, namely in health, social work, education and management. These are public services that must be financed by taxes, which we find difficult. Instead of training the necessary people and paying them decent wages, we brought in (cheap) workers from abroad, which led to corresponding infrastructure investments. In return, we want to demand cheap labor. In this way, “labor shortage” becomes a perpetual mobility or self-fulfilling prophecy.
Source :Blick
I’m Tim David and I work as an author for 24 Instant News, covering the Market section. With a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism, my mission is to provide accurate, timely and insightful news coverage that helps our readers stay informed about the latest trends in the market. My writing style is focused on making complex economic topics easy to understand for everyone.
