Étiquette : économie

Semaine de 4 jours et productivité

Gérald Fillion nous explique que ça peut être bénéfique:

Pour compenser la perte de 20 % du temps de travail, il faut augmenter la productivité d’au moins 25 %. Du côté de Microsoft, d’Uniqlo et dans des entreprises en Islande, au Japon et en Nouvelle-Zélande, avec une semaine de quatre jours, la productivité a augmenté en moyenne de 25 à 40 %. Autrement dit, la réduction de 20 % du temps de travail est venue apporter un bénéfice net à ces sociétés. Fascinant, n’est-ce pas? La raison en est simple : 78 % des employés se disent plus heureux et moins stressés, donc plus productifs, alertes et créatifs au travail. De plus, 63 % des entreprises disent que cela permet d’attirer plus de recrues; elles observent une hausse de la rétention du personnel, ce qui veut dire moins de coûts de formation, une baisse de l’absentéisme ainsi qu’une diminution du nombre de congés de maladie.

François Legault, fan de productivité, devrait lire ça.

Difficile d’être un lanceur d’alerte

L’histoire des Pandora Papers m’a rappelé cet article de cet été sur les lanceurs d’alerte:

We should be outraged that elected officials are angrier that the tax-rigging of the ultrarich has been exposed than that it’s going on at all. Whether by pressuring social media companies or throwing the book at whistleblowers, the Washington establishment would love to make sure you don’t hear about financial crimes and misconduct. At the very least, we shouldn’t help them do it.

The Political Establishment Doesn’t Want You to Know the Economy Is Rigged

Les robots ne volent pas nos jobs, ils les rendent moins agréables

Grosse semaine pour les robots. Dans cet article, on explique que l’automatisation et la robotisation n’ont pas vraiment amélioré la productivité puisqu’ils se sont attaqué surtout à des tâches triviales.

Tracking software for remote workers, which saw a bump in sales at the start of the pandemic, can follow every second of a person’s workday in front of the computer. Delivery companies can use motion sensors to track their drivers’ every move, measure extra seconds, and ding drivers for falling short.  Automation hasn’t replaced all the workers in warehouses, but it has made work more intense, even dangerous, and changed how tightly workers are managed. Gig workers can find themselves at the whims of an app’s black-box algorithm that lets workers flood the app to compete with each other at a frantic pace for pay so low that how lucrative any given trip or job is can depend on the tip, leaving workers reliant on the generosity of an anonymous stranger. Worse, gig work means they’re doing their jobs without many typical labor protections.  In these circumstances, the robots aren’t taking jobs, they’re making jobs worse. Companies are automating away autonomy and putting profit-maximizing strategies on digital overdrive, turning work into a space with fewer carrots and more sticks.

La robotisation augmenterait les inégalités

Ça m’arrive de m’inquiéter de l’avenir de l’organisation du travail. Quand je lis des trucs comme ça entre autres:

There’s an interesting, compelling and alternative explanation. According to a new academic research study, automation technology has been the primary driver in U.S. income inequality over the past 40 years. The report, published by theNational Bureau of Economic Research, claims that 50% to 70% of changes in U.S. wages, since 1980, can be attributed to wage declines among blue-collar workers who were replaced or degraded by automation. 

Artificial intelligence, robotics and new sophisticated technologies have caused a wide chasm in wealth and income inequality. It looks like this issue will accelerate. For now, college-educated, white-collar professionals have largely been spared the fate of degreeless workers. People with a postgraduate degree saw their salaries rise, while “low-education workers declined significantly.” According to the study, “The real earnings of men without a high-school degree are now 15% lower than they were in 1980.” 

C’est pour ça qu’il faudra revoir nos habitudes pour réorganiser le monde du travail.

Revoir les temps, lieux et manières de travailler

Selon cette chercheure, il faut cesser d’organiser le travail selon les prémisses du siècle dernier.

Take the “when” of work. By default, our days are organised around 9-5, a system that was formalised for factory workers by Henry Ford in the US in 1926. Many of us do not work in factories however. Why are we hanging on to this linear day as the only schedule in which work can be done? More importantly, the linear day is unsuitable for the remote environment where we do not have concrete signals to start or end our work day, such as the commute or the dress code: 40% of the remote workforce are working longer hours as a result. What would happen if organisations looked outside this way of working, and trusted employees to set a non-linear schedule, based on their individual circumstances, that kept them healthy, sane and productive?

How about the “where” of work? It is apparent just from the language we use that the office is still viewed as the headquarters for work. Even the term “remote” implies that you are away from the place work is usually done. The dominance of the office was necessary in a time without home internet or laptops, but we are long past needing to prove that work can be done outside an employer-owned space.

The “how” of work was perhaps the most worrying discovery of our research. There is a long-held assumption that the hallowed meeting is the best way for us to collaborate. This culture of meetings was established in the 1950s, before methods of work that allowed us to collaborate outside meetings (back then, that meant memos passed from one secretary to the next) had today’s speed and efficiency (email, instant messaging, shared drives).

C’est le moment d’arrêter de dire: ç’a toujours été comme ça, on va continuer comme ça.

Les États qui ont pris au sérieux la pandémie auraient mieux fait économiquement

Les gens qui se sentent en sécurité en raison des mesures seraient plus portés à participer à l’économie. C’est ce que disent les données:

“California had more stringent interventions and a lower infection rate than either Texas or Florida, two states to which it’s often compared,” Nickelsburg said. “Yet California also performed better with respect to GDP than either Texas or Florida. Second, the same pattern showed up across all big states: On average, the ones with more stringent interventions had both better health outcomes and better economic outcomes.” Two states bucked this trend, however, with New York and Michigan enforcing strict NPIs yet still ending up with poor showings financially. “Michigan was all about supply chain interruption in the automobile industry,” Nickelsburg told Yahoo. “This had nothing to do with interventions. Factories were forced to close for part of the year.”

New York serait l’exception.

Il n’y aurait pas tant que ça d’emplois « factices »

Les « bullshit jobs », ces emplois qui sont qualifiés par ceux-là même qui les ont, d’inutiles, seraient moins nombreux que ce que certains croient:

Jobs that Graeber described as bullshit (BS) jobs range from doormen and receptionists to lobbyists and public relations specialists through to those in the legal profession, particularly corporate lawyers and legal consultants. Dr Magdalena Soffia from the University of Cambridge and the What Works Centre for Wellbeing, one of the authors of the article, said: “There’s something appealing about the bullshit jobs theory. The fact that many people have worked in such jobs at some point may explain why Graeber’s work resonates with so many people who can relate to the accounts he gives. But his theory is not based on any reliable empirical data, even though he puts forward several propositions, all of which are testable.”

One in twenty workers are in ‘useless’ jobs – far fewer than previously thought

Un emploi sur vingt serait en réalité de la « bullshit ».

Les nouvelles économiques ont un biais en faveur des plus riches

Aux États-Unis du moins, selon cette étude.

Drawing on a large new dataset of US news content, we demonstrate that the tone of the economic news strongly and disproportionately tracks the fortunes of the richest households, with little sensitivity to income changes among the non-rich. Further, we present evidence that this pro-rich bias emerges not from pro-rich journalistic preferences but, rather, from the interaction of the media’s focus on economic aggregates with structural features of the relationship between economic growth and distribution. The findings yield a novel explanation of distributionally perverse electoral patterns and demonstrate how distributional biases in the economy condition economic accountability.

C’est sûr qu’il ne doit pas y avoir tant que ça de travailleurs au salaire minimum qui lisent le journal Les affaires.

Le revenu minimum garanti encouragerait les gens à travailler

Je ne connais pas assez le concept de revenu minimum garanti pour me faire une opinion, mais cette nouvelle tend à démontrer que les effets pourraient être bénéfiques.

The most eye-popping finding is that the people who received the cash managed to secure full-time jobs at more than twice the rate of people in a control group, who did not receive cash. Within a year, the proportion of cash recipients who had full-time jobs jumped from 28 percent to 40 percent. The control group saw only a 5 percent jump over the same period. The researchers wrote in their report that the money gave recipients the stability they needed to set goals, take risks, and find new jobs.

When a California city gave people a guaranteed income, they worked more — not less

Partenaire économique: Évolution de l’influence de la Chine sur le monde depuis 1992