So... uh... how do you multiply the job market by a factor of 1.4x and expect people to spend more money? Where is this surplus capital coming from?
There's a lot of weird assumptions with this post but that's a good duality to start with, I guess.
There's a lot of weird assumptions with this post but that's a good duality to start with, I guess.
I know, that sounds weird. I did not study economy in university, so apologies if I'm covering well trodden ground or not using the right terminology, but, reasoning it out:
Something like an excellent michelin-star level experience in a a restaurant is some serious luxury and it shows: People pay through the nose for it. And yet, you don't really need more capital (if that is the right word) to make this a reality for far more people: You CAN have everyone work far less and yet have far more people eat like this, simply because a very large part of the resources required to make this dining experience happen, is manpower. I know I said that unemployment is vastly reduced so you'd expect the costs of this experience to go way up, given that i.e. the kitchen cleanup staff, currently paid next to nothing, would become far more expensive, _BUT_, that just means that in the short term this restaurant (A) has a much bigger % of the total running costs dedicated to salary now, and (B) because everyone is still spending a larger % of the fewer dollars they made, is richer and looking to invest in the future.
Add to this the fact that society is busy embracing the idea that nobody should work a minute longer than absolutely necessary, and no longer obsessed with trying to ensure work exists for all able-bodied adults, and... robots!
I reread what I've written and it comes across as rather dramatic, but efficient cleaning machines already exist, and a couple of high-caliber restaurants already have them. They are just expensive, and in the current climate, not worth it because you can get any sap working nights and overtime for the change in your couch cushions right now. But not in this new model. And _THAT_ is eventually how everyone works less and yet gets more luxury: More efficiency.
Everywhere I look, I see rampant opportunities for orders of magnitude improvements in efficiency, and yet at the same time a society and workforce model that actively resists the change. We can automate deliveries easily, but, there's resistance. Tesla and google auto-drive cars are being bound by laws, some no doubt because of honest questions about their safety, but a lot of them, I bet, due to some lobbying by various interested parties. Manufacture of goods could be far more efficient, but there's simply no drive to invest in any of it. Everyone drives a car, and yet even in places where you could feasibly move to a society where almost nobody owns a car and all you got is a very expansive public transit system and a couple of ZIP-car / greenwheels / etc style locations... that change is not happening. It would be more convenient for all and cost far less (i.e.: big society wins by way of orders-of-magnitude improvement in efficiency), and it should be possible in dense urban areas like Paris, the greater metropolitan triangle of Rotterdam-The Hague-Amsterdam, London (which is probably the closest to the ideal due to the congestion charge), etc.
Also, a lot of expensive hobbies exist, but there are even more cheap hobbies, which provide just about as much happiness for far less cost. The internet leads the way in this: The very act of writing this response is effectively a hobby, and it costs basically nothing.
Because it's rare and cannot be copied that easily. A lot of special talent is needed for this. Not only in cooking, but also in perfect management.
What you are describing in this post is usually driven by growth, especially productivity improvement. This happens continously accross the world, but at a "limited" pace, not 1.4. So things like 35 hours produce suddenly a bump that may be hard to digest, especially for company owners. Efficiency improvement means new market, means investment opportunities, so whatever is possible will be done.
Car sharing is another thing... People like to own cars. This is cultural, not economics, so just changing a policy won't change it. The question is rather what would be more appealing than a car? Currently mobile devices and computers seem to take over that role, but let's see how it develops.
Where do businesses get this free money?
The argument "where does the extra money comes from?" is looking at it the wrong way. The right question is: does it stimulate the economy?
Currently, people do not spend, and accumulate as much as they can, because they are being told there is a crisis (not for the richest). In Western Europe, governments generally agree to make "reforms" destroying all social advantages inherited from the reconstruction after WWII. In France in particular, the biggest investor if the "local communities" (cities, departments, regions), but the national governement now lowers the money affected to them, leading to less investment from these public investors, killing a lot of jobs.
So we don't care where money would come from. What we need is somethin that gives people confidence in their future, like a stable job. If you have a job but feel threatned in it every day because your boss can replace you with the "reserve army of labour", you tend to let your social advantages go away, and earn less. Collectively, this profits to the richest who drain huge parts of the economy to use it in bubble speculations - which also profits them even when the bubble explodes.
Besides, we had to transit in a few decades from a social model where women did not work to a model where women now are an active force. Couple that with huge productivity improvements... and we don't need a full time job for everyone, for everyone to live correctly.
So where does the money come from ? Last of the question to ask. First question : what do we want to do with our society, what do we want to do collectively to stop having the poor constantly fighting each other ?