Would love to reduce the number of hours worked while retaining same comp. However, I don’t think more workers is a viable solution, because that’d imply companies eating the 20% extra cost. Whether or not they can get it through shareholders and the board aside, fact that the amount of working aged adults are shrinking (due to boomers retiring and lesser children in later generations) makes it much harder to add more head counts. There must be ways to improve efficiency without corporate/shareholder greed, and that’s a tough pill for the world to swallow without very drastic changes (UBI for example).
But there it is… if the top took a hiar cut that would cover it. Lower entrance requirements to get the job… means more eligible works… it’s a tuff one yes. Is there enuff workers maybe. But it’s worth a try.
I’m stuck in middle management, and have many middle and senior management peers, so I see both sides of the arguments here getting pushed back hard. I cannot begin to imagine the top willing to take a cut, there’s no benefit for them what so ever. Anything lower tries to justify will just be brushed off. On the flip side, I definitely do not want to reduce entrance requirements… bad hires hurts my team’s performance in non linear fashion.
If meaningful changes were to happen, it would have to be mandated by laws and regulations, but I don’t see a path for those laws and regulations to change without drastic societal changes that would support such.
