First, Chinese displays of implementing world-class labor-saving technologies only showcases the absolute irrationality of the Chinese Communist Party: in a country with a vast excess of skilled, low-wage labor, replacing workers with machines is the height of stupidity if the aim is to maximize the general welfare of the country as a whole.
Second, searching for new high-tech ways to boost output per man hour looks pretty silly when you consider there are fairly low-tech ways to achieve the same result, namely, by radically reducing the workweek and tying wages to output. Why do I say that? For two reasons:
First, because workers can work faster for shorter periods of time than for longer, just as in track-and-field the short-distance runners always run faster than the long-distance runners.
And second, because if workers working only part-time are given slightly fewer hours in the week than they might voluntarily prefer, they will be incentivized to exert themselves to the maximum degree possible. I actually tried this in my own small company and got an immediate forty percent increase in output per man hour.
Granted, this whole idea only makes sense if the workers have something to look forward to when they are not on the job. I write about that in a short book for which I am searching for a publisher. Does anyone have any ideas?
Surely, the fact that the ROIC on manufacturing investment in China is pushed below zero and the state subsidizes the debt service to permit this also plays a huge role here, both in facilitating adoption of technology by Chinese manufacturers and in their foreign competitors' avoidance of major up-front expenditures?
Can I comment? Apparently yes, so two points:
First, Chinese displays of implementing world-class labor-saving technologies only showcases the absolute irrationality of the Chinese Communist Party: in a country with a vast excess of skilled, low-wage labor, replacing workers with machines is the height of stupidity if the aim is to maximize the general welfare of the country as a whole.
Second, searching for new high-tech ways to boost output per man hour looks pretty silly when you consider there are fairly low-tech ways to achieve the same result, namely, by radically reducing the workweek and tying wages to output. Why do I say that? For two reasons:
First, because workers can work faster for shorter periods of time than for longer, just as in track-and-field the short-distance runners always run faster than the long-distance runners.
And second, because if workers working only part-time are given slightly fewer hours in the week than they might voluntarily prefer, they will be incentivized to exert themselves to the maximum degree possible. I actually tried this in my own small company and got an immediate forty percent increase in output per man hour.
Granted, this whole idea only makes sense if the workers have something to look forward to when they are not on the job. I write about that in a short book for which I am searching for a publisher. Does anyone have any ideas?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
Surely, the fact that the ROIC on manufacturing investment in China is pushed below zero and the state subsidizes the debt service to permit this also plays a huge role here, both in facilitating adoption of technology by Chinese manufacturers and in their foreign competitors' avoidance of major up-front expenditures?
Excellent article. Would like to learn more about the specific Chinese companies themselves and how they coordinated amongst each other.