Unemployment creates exploitation of workers
Employers favour unemployment because unemployed workers have to accept poorly paid jobs to be able to feed their families. A higher unemployment rate produces cheaper labour. Unemployment is not difficult to maintain because employers most often do not necessarily need to hire employees. Big employers support political parties that keep unemployment through economic policy. It starts with importing cheap labour and ends with rising interest rates. This is how unemployment becomes a state policy and how state policy maintains the exploitation of workers. All the exploitation of workers has its origin in unemployment. I wrote more about it in the article: Let’s remove unemployment.
The rich people have imposed believing that unemployment is an unavoidable price that must be paid for technological development. They have pressured economic science to accept that 0% of unemployment is not a positive thing, which they accomplished. The capitalists have found an unemployment rate of about 5% the most convenient to them so that 5% of unemployment has become a “normal” state in capitalism. This “normal” state makes workers dependent on capitalists. It allows the exploitation of workers through low labour costs, while the total purchasing power of workers is still large enough to produce profits for private companies. However, such a policy has enlarged the gap between rich and poor what increases problems in society.
We can eliminate unemployment
We may remove unemployment by shorter work hours. Reducing work hours by 5% should theoretically eliminate 5% unemployment. In this way, workers will become more demanded by employers. When workers are not available on the market, employers who need new workers will have to get them from other employers by raising their salaries. Competition among employers will start a chain reaction in which workers’ wages will gradually grow. It would create a fair market for work with a more steady demand for all workers. Removing of unemployment will remove the exploitation of workers.
We can reach even negative unemployment
Negative unemployment may accelerate the rise in worker salaries. Negative unemployment means creating a work environment with a permanent lack of workers. Reversing 5% unemployment with the same negative unemployment should theoretically mean the complete elimination of unemployment plus the creation of 5% work posts that cannot get workers because they do not exist. It would require shorter work hours of all workers for about 10%. Such a measure would require reducing 8 hours workday to approximately 7 hours (along with preventing work imports).
The practice may be different than what is presented above due to a large number of factors that determine worker salaries, but negative employment will certainly put workers in a privileged position, in which employers have been from ever. This will force employers to raise worker salaries. This would initialize a chain reaction in which workers’ wages may grow significantly.
History proved that negative unemployment rose workers’ salaries
The rising of workers’ salaries in the negative unemployment environment was proved in the 14th Century when the Black Death killed one-third of the European population. Suddenly, the crops in the fields languished because there were not enough people to harvest them. “The shortage of servants, craftsmen, and workmen, and of agricultural workers and labourers, left a great many lords and people without service and attendance.” Suddenly workers and their labour were in much higher demand, enabling those who survived the Black Death to be in a much better position to negotiate work conditions. The shortage of workers increased the workers’ wages. The higher servants’ salaries contributed to economic growth, but the employers were not happy with it.
At Cuxham (Oxfordshire, England), a plowman demanded from his Lord a payment three times greater in 1350 than in the previous year (The Economic Impact of the Black Death, Economic History Association).
“In Parliament, in 1351 the Commons petitioned Edward III for a more resolute and effective response. They complained that “servants completely disregard the said ordinance in the interests of their ease and greed and that they withhold their services to great men and others unless they have liveries and wages twice or three times as great as [prior to the plague] to the serious damage of the great men and impoverishment of all members of the said commons.”” (Michael Bennett, Australian Journal of Law and Society, 1995, The Impact of the Black Death on English Legal History, Page 197)
Politics can create a better capitalism
According to this historical example, if a political party wins an election offering a reduction of work to 5 hours per day, the lack of workers would increase the lowest workers’ salaries 2-3 times per hour in one year. The minimum daily wages of workers would rise 30-90% for just a 5-hour shift. All wages lower than the average will grow, and the limitation of money that companies earn will decrease the wages higher than the average. The fair market of work is the best choice for bringing justice to the economy.
Today we have accepted 8 hours workday suggested by Robert Owen at the beginning of the 19th Century. Is there any particular reason for 8 hours workday? No, it is just a constant value society accepted and got used to it. Besides providing full employment, the workday should be a function variable that determines people’s work needs. If workers would like to work less, then work hours should be shorter and vice versa. The length of work hours may de democratically expressed directly by people or by political parties. Political parties should offer the best period of full-time work for the people, and it would be one of the main factors which make them elected.
The length of a workday can undoubtedly be a very powerful regulator of the free market and the most important point of democracy in the economy. The minimum wage will not be needed. Full employment will increase salaries to all lower-paid workers until they reach a new average pay, after which there would not be enough money to pay salaries of today overpaid workers. They will have to decrease, making distribution of income more justified. It will result in higher purchasing power to those who need buying more, allowing the economy to grow, and the capitalist might profit more.
Democratically chosen work hours will create a fair market of work, which will balance the demand and supply of work and provide much more just incomes. Creating an ethical distribution of wealth in the economy will not need other regulations besides work hours. It will establish a good society as well and a much brighter future for humankind. It will become a turning point for capitalism, making it a decent social system.
Conspiracy of the rich prevents a better capitalism
Nothing that I wrote here is rocket science. Shorter work hours are even a natural solution in the developed automation processes. How come no one has offered and fought for the shorter work hours so far? That is because rich people are supposed to take the main financial burden of the shorter work hours reform, which might lower their profits, and they do not like it. So that, they prevent the idea of shorter work hours coming to workers.
The rich people rule over workers by imposing fear for their existence. The less independent workers are, the more power the rich have over them. Eliminating the fear of unemployment by shorter work hours means eliminating the power of rich people, and this is the worse that might happen to them. Rich people have used their power of influence in policy, science, and media to prevent progressive ideas from coming.
Now I will present how well organized and persistent rich people are in preventing a just society. The picture below shows one demonstration calling for the employment of people. The organizer was Bail Out People, which is presented on the paroles of demonstrators. The organization probably did not survive. However, their web site still exists, but now it is about cosmetics. It looks fake. The question is, why would a cosmetic magazine buy the name of an unsuccessful organization which has nothing to do with cosmetics? The answer is, there is no small thing the rich will hesitate to do to destroy an idea pointing to social justice.
All the knowledge we use today has been imposed on us by the power of authorities. This means all the knowledge we have accepted certainly serves the interests of the rich and not necessarily of the people. But there is worse than that, people have been systematically forced to accept knowledge all their lives so that most of the people have not developed the ability to recognize the truth if authorities do not support it. This means people cannot escape from an inferior position in society. People do what they are told to do thousands of times. This is how the rich build the so-called sheep mentality of people.
It is not that people who permanently accept imposed knowledge do not understand new ideas. The problem is they cannot reach the essence of the problem. They cannot distinguish important information which solves problems among million useless pieces of information. People do understand that shorter work hours would increase worker salaries. But they do not believe in it, otherwise “authorities” would undoubtedly implement it and “improve” society. Or, there must be some problems that prevent such an “improvement of society,” which I did not take into consideration. And by being incapable of searching for an essence, people give up before even tried to find an escape for the problems. Otherwise, people would implement shorter work hours a long time ago, which would improve their lives and capitalism itself.
What makes me capable of offering a better world?
I did not believe in knowledge imposed by authorities, which made me stop believing in authorities. I have searched for the truth and essence all my life. It was not my conscious decision; it was something built in me. The freedom of thoughts had given me a great advantage, which ordinary people who follow rules of authorities do not have. It helped me create the most significant social conclusion ever: “Nothing built on unequal human rights can work, and everything built on equal human rights will work perfectly.” This discovery was so vital that I decided to give up on my profession of architecture right after graduation and to work on building a bright future of humankind.
It took me ten years to develop how equal human rights will create a bright future for humankind. I presented my findings in the book Humanism – A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of the Society. The work developed my sense of righteousness. I can feel the right path, which makes me quickly eliminate unimportant information and not getting wrong. In the last 27 years, I have performed countless discussions about the bright future of humankind, and I never lost one. It confirmed my objectivity, which means my book most likely presents the bright future of humanity.
It helped me see that the rich not only prevent the truth from coming but also they deceive people by supporting ideas that could not improve society. For example, the rich have helped Marx’s revolutionary theory knowingly it could not improve society. Marx’s work was a much better solution to the rich than letting people come up with the conclusion that a real escape from the exploitation of workers lies in shorter work hours. By supporting Marx, the rich have successfully prevented a better society for more than 100 years, and they still do. Marxists cannot accept new left ideas that reject Marxism, and therefore, they prevent the bright future of humankind. I wrote about it in the article: Marx still prevents the progress of society.
Capital may depart from the fair market of work
The starting problem of eliminating unemployment and making the economy grow lies in the fact that employers do not like to increase worker salaries. Employers may escape from expensive workers in a fully employed society by the departure of their capital out of the country. We need to understand that capitalism has established laws that give more freedom to capital than to workers, and that needs to change. At least the laws need to provide the same rights to capital as to workers.
Any departure of capital brings trouble to a domestic economy, which will result in closing companies and more unemployed workers. To make all employed again, it would require an additional reduction in the workers’ work hours. Therefore, economic security would still be guaranteed to all people. The shortening of working hours will reduce the incomes of workers, but they would remain high enough to provide a decent life.
Capitalism has spent a lot of energy on developing the consumer mentality, which is very unnecessary. It also established an egotistical character trait of workers, which is wrong. Today’s workers already have a higher living standard than kings had in the Middle Ages. The kings did not have airplanes, internet, phones, bathrooms, medical healing, international food, etc. Should not workers be more satisfied with their lives today than kings in the Middle Ages? Are they?
No, they are not. Firstly, satisfaction does not depend on wealth only. And secondly, the system in which workers live does not let them feel secure. Losing a job might take all the benefits from workers, which concerns them permanently. The solidarity coming from a shortening of work hours will eliminate this fear and will let people live worry-free. Free people will discover what kind of life best benefit to them.
Developed market of work will create socialism
Will a reduction of work hours reduce the productivity of work? Hardly. Quantity of work hours is just one of the factors that determine productivity. A much more important fact is the quality of work, such as rationality and creativity of work. Can more equalized salaries destimulate work effort? Well, it can. Full employment may create boring stability in the economy. Then, people will spontaneously search for a new stimulation for work. They can easily find it in our very culture.
We are taught by capitalism to love competitions and to be the winners brings enormous satisfaction to us. People do not hesitate to involve an extreme effort to reach such a goal. Why would we not open competitions for every public workplace at any time? I know it sounds impossible because such a division of labour never existed. But the realization of it is just a technical problem.
I have developed an economic system in the book “Humanism” that will open work competition for every public work post at any time. It will effectively evaluate the productivity of work offers, define job responsibilities, and harmonize rewards for work. In short, the workers who offer the highest productivity and accountability, and demand the lowest salary will get any public job at any time. It would be nothing else but a developed market of work. However, it will require time for the market of work to develop enough and be accepted by people.
It will stimulate workers to work much more than capitalism may stimulate them by wages. The existence of workers would never be endangered because every worker will easily find a new job in a fully employed environment. It would establish the responsibility of workers with such a rigid form that no one would dare to offer work proposals they would not be able to meet. The market will also regulate worker salaries in the most objective way. The living standards for all people will increase in an unprecedented way. People will be very satisfied with their lives.
No economy can be more productive than the one where each job gets the best available worker. Public companies will become more productive than private ones so that capitalism will go down in history. Complete implementation of equal human rights should be called socialism. Socialism will come spontaneously as the final result of full employment. My book Humanism, available free of charge, scientifically presents how to achieve this goal.
The main lesson of this article is not just about how easily we can solve the economic problems of society, but also why it is so difficult to do so. This article was offered to left-wing journals in the western world, and not one wanted to publish it. The reason lies in the fact that the editors are indoctrinated with the knowledge they acquired through the system of education like anybody else and can hardly see the truth. If they see it, they ignore it while pretending to represent the interests of the deprived. They must be either controlled or financially supported by the elite and do not publish new ideas that may take power from the elite. No wonder humankind cannot improve.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.