Wednesday , July 17 2019
Home / economy / Why life raspberry not for us

Why life raspberry not for us

Почему жизнь-малина не для нас

First, the government raises the retirement age, because to work in Russia, no one, and then seriously discuss the reduction of the working week, because people with nothing to do.

The first of the Russian government about the possibility of switching to four-day working week spoke to Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Such a statement he made in Geneva at the session of the International labour organization (ILO), noting that technological progress allows to reduce working hours — and in the past, such decisions contributed to the increase in labor productivity.

The idea was picked up by Deputy Prime Minister Tatiana Golikova, who said that the reduction of the working week directly raises the question about the salary: will it be the same in the five days, or fall in proportion to employment. She stressed that the transition will require major changes in labour law, and before you realize it, it would be nice to estimate the impact of the four-day productivity.

So people’s imagination about how not to work on Fridays, have been discussed in the official plane. However further conversations business is not has gone: no bills, and all documents related to this account yet.

As shown by the poll, after the subject came from the government, the Russians, yesterday wanted to get an extra day off, was such a prospect is not very happy. The spoke almost half of the respondents, while they supported the idea of a little less than a third. The arguments are simple: the Russians are afraid that, together with the working time will be reduced and salary and rest is simply not what. How unfounded those fears, and as a four-day week, if it comes, will affect the work of enterprises and the economy as a whole, ask the experts.

Former Deputy Minister of labour of the Russian Federation, associate Professor, HSE Paul Kudyukin:

“Because he was thrown in a bare idea without going into detail, it is unclear what is actually meant. As a rule, the reduction of working time themselves struggling workers or trade unions. And then they clarify: when you save the wages. When such a proposal from the top down, we can expect that at least in proportion to working time, and maybe more, will cut wages.

In support of this idea in the government say that through technological progress we will soon have a surplus of workers, and to prevent unemployment, we reduce the working time. And this despite the fact that raising the retirement age argued what we have here-that there is a labor shortage.

In fact, it is not clear how to arrange this technically. All to make moving graphics? Then the question arises — when people see your family?

In addition, many don’t work for five days, and “two by two” or “day — three”. These charts also have to count it if you reduced the working week instead of 40 hours would be 32. In that case, if the transition to a four-day period in the company is impossible, employers will have to either find new employees and increase payroll, or to pay for those who have, overtime for “extra” day. At the same time impose additional day will not be easy, and will need to justify and agree on the decision. Purely logistical problems arise, in order to organize it all.

It’s hard for me to say now that it is a populist statement or syllogism and this idea can turn into something completely different. But the lack of wording already says that the government still do not really understand what you say”.

Economist, Director of the Centre for labour market studies HSE Rostislav Kapelyushnikov:

“At a time when the population of the world ages, and people of working age will become less and less, to tell stories about the transition to a four-day week is only big dreamers utopian dreams. This proposal has nothing to do with reality.

They tell us about the technological revolution that will eat jobs. But is it really? The arrival of robots means increased productivity. Productivity growth means growth in revenue. Growth of income means increasing demand for products and services. The growth in demand for products and services means growing demand for working hands. The circle is closed. The view that technological progress leads to unemployment is a purely theoretical possibility that never in economic history has become a reality. We have no reason to believe that something will change this time. Now, even the OECD, which had also succumbed to these phobias, says bluntly: this kind of thing is extremely unlikely.

In France the socialists 25-30 years ago decided to fight unemployment by reducing the working week from 40 to 35 hours, has created a lot of problems still are unable to power through. No one now among serious researchers do not consider this reduction in the duration of the working week in France as a successful experiment.

Do not forget that the introduction of new technologies takes place against a background of catastrophic aging of the population, and this contrast actually makes all of these crazy predictions.

Just people like to discuss utopia. One thus attract attention. Other genuinely do not understand the problem.

Of course, in conditions when the state is the apparatus of violence, and the state gets some kind of eccentric dreamer, everything is possible — on a short distance. But the economy of such a decision is just going to break”.

Director of the RAS Institute of Economics Ruslan Grinberg:

“In principle this idea is right. In civilizational terms all this is because labor productivity in the world has increased dramatically the last decade, and are already talking about the introduction of a unconditional basic income. In the future simply will not need as many people who will be engaged in simple kinds of labor. That is, in the long term care from five days — a very sensible idea. In developed countries this may happen fairly quickly — in 10-15 years. But that’s another story. In our case, when half the population is barely making ends meet, about any reduction of the working week cannot be considered.

If we do decide, it will only preserve stagnating, if not — will lead to a recession. We don’t have any technological breakthrough, all the equipment for a long time did not change. So, production will be reduced, and the need for more working hands will only grow. In this case the demographic situation is unimportant, missing the connectedness of territories, transport corridors are not developed, and per square kilometer to seven people. I mean, right now all it’s more like a gamble.

In addition to reducing production enterprises, which can not go to the four-day session, will have to pay employees for overtime, which will lead to additional costs. But if the four-day week will be introduced without reducing income. Otherwise it will just perpetuate mass poverty. So, I’m afraid that kind of talk for our country to run too far ahead”.

© 2019, z-news.link. All rights reserved.

Check Also

Why increase the salary is not possible!

Imagine a wonderful situation, the government decided to increase wages in the country to the …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *