Williams Rogers Butter Knife

ANALYSIS OF WORK

The most important parameter to explain the quality of life of the adult population is work. Scientific studies have shown that most important variable to explain the longevity of citizens is the type of work they do. The better the quality of work (that is, the greater the opportunity to demonstrate in their workplaces, the creativity that the whole human being has, the greater control of its working environment and working conditions and greater satisfaction with his work), the greater the number of years of life of a citizen. In fact, the work is 24 hours of the day, not just the eight-hour workday. And the weakest of our society is that, for most people who work, work is not in itself, a means of entertainment, creativity and satisfaction, but a simple tool to reach the half-money-so that those 'made in individual feels world consumption.
The consumer society makes the world work a simple tool to consume.
What the person (the consumer) depends on what he does (the job). Thus, the common people, in the great wisdom that gives his daily experience, when a person wants to know, after having asked his name, usually asks: "And you, who do you do?". And when given the answer to this question already know a lot of the other person, including the level of consumption, the kind of house he has and the type of neighborhood where she lives, as well as his lifestyle and so on.
But the work is not only a good individual but also collective. That is, many people work (and with a good job), greater wealth resides in a country. In reality, the fact that in Spain we less rich in most countries of Europe is due to the fact that we have less than their employed. However, to get a good job must first have a job. And this is not in abundance. And that's where the problem begins. If all these people who want to having a job could find and there was full employment, the application would only work, but good job. A good job would be the main focus of most of the adult population. But when there is so much unemployment, demand fell and just work wonders.
Unemployment, however, occur where there is less work than offer the people who want to look for work. And that can respond to several reasons. One is that the economy is strong and there is sufficient demand for products and services, and companies reduce their production and lay off their workers. This is what is happening now. But beyond that there are structural causes that have existed for many years. One is technological change, which allows a worker to do what they did in the first twenty. Another is the shift of firms in other countries, where they also bring jobs. And still another is immigration, which increases the amount of people in search of work. Each of these structural causes can vary depending on policy decisions.
Another way to reduce unemployment, which is investigating not so much as on previous ones, is to increase labor supply by reducing the number of hours worked. This is indeed what the Roosevelt administration did with the New Deal, when unemployment rose dramatically during the Great Depression. In 1940, Roosevelt issued a law establishing the working week of five days, when it was six days. This change was very important, not only increased the quality of life of the working population (and that of his family), but significantly increased the offer to work. Hence a measure of efficiency to create great work would be to reduce the working week to four days, a change which, of course, should be done slowly without adversely affecting the production of goods and services. It is probable that the company initially are reduced, which explains the huge opposition to this measure of the corporate world. In fact, his last question, the proposal for the European Commission, the neo-liberal sensibility, was to increase the working week from 48 to 65 hours.
Income working however, would increase, and from this point of view of economic efficiency is a positive outcome, because part of the financial and economic problems is based on the excessive polarization of incomes, with enormous exuberance of the benefits capital with a consequent reduction of the benefits of work. The enormous increase in productivity that has occurred during the twentieth century in most OECD countries brought major benefits to income from capital to income from work. From there, the importance of reversing this, both for reasons of fairness and economic efficiency!