Efficiency vs providing employment.
Discussion
I'm sure most businesses out there would cut there spending and employment to an absolute minimum if they could, especially in these more austere times?
But at what point can the country as a whole become overly efficient that there are simply not enough jobs to go around?
IMO this is equally applicable to both the private and public sector.
For example a car plant could become almost entirely robotised, causing the loss of XXX amount of skilled jobs, however if this were to be repeated across a great deal of industry then nobody would be able to afford the cars in the first place.
But at what point can the country as a whole become overly efficient that there are simply not enough jobs to go around?
IMO this is equally applicable to both the private and public sector.
For example a car plant could become almost entirely robotised, causing the loss of XXX amount of skilled jobs, however if this were to be repeated across a great deal of industry then nobody would be able to afford the cars in the first place.
Is this not exactly what mechanisation has done for us?
The number of employees goes down which means the cost to manufacture goes down which means the cost to the buyer goes down...
So the unemployed employee can still have the product he did before due to "benefits" but now has no obvious purpose in life.
Meanwhile the people who build machinary begin to employ so the number of more specialised roles increases?
The number of employees goes down which means the cost to manufacture goes down which means the cost to the buyer goes down...
So the unemployed employee can still have the product he did before due to "benefits" but now has no obvious purpose in life.
Meanwhile the people who build machinary begin to employ so the number of more specialised roles increases?
Mojooo said:
what if they build up and stash all their money?
Where would they "stash" their money? If in a bank then it will be invested employing bankers and companies that they invest in.If they stashed it under their mattress, as well as being daft it would be losing value all all the time. I'm not sure I know any business that would do this.
Isn't that a different question altogether in context of this thread?
Anyhow, it's possible to retain (or even improve - e.g. robots less likely to make errors if setup/programmed correctly than humans.) quality even if costs are reduced.
Some will take it too far and quality will suffer (e.g. merc back 10 years ago) if they try to produce things too cheap without retaining quality standards.
Anyhow, it's possible to retain (or even improve - e.g. robots less likely to make errors if setup/programmed correctly than humans.) quality even if costs are reduced.
Some will take it too far and quality will suffer (e.g. merc back 10 years ago) if they try to produce things too cheap without retaining quality standards.
Edited by Dracoro on Friday 10th September 14:29
I work in designing and implementing more efficient methods and processes, 'lean' in corporate buzzspeak, and so regularly introduce new methods that technically require less people.
Yet in five years, not one person has been made redundant due to my efforts.
I'd attribute two reasons for this:
1. By improving production capacities and speeds, and removing wasteful activities, the cost is driven down normally by around 15-20%. All the companies I have worked for have split this in two, half of the saving increases profit, the other half is used to reduce sales prices. This tends to increase demand, and so often we end up needing more people, to run for example a second line, working in the new manner, in order to meet orders.
A recent project I did increased a single line's capacity by 30%, yet after 3 months the company needed to buy in two additional lines to meet the increased demand. Total effect to the business was an increase in turnover for that product of just under 250%, with an increased profit per unit of 10%.
The second reason is partly psychological, partly good business: you need the individuals working in the area to support the project, otherwise it simply will not work. Little creates resistance as much as seeing other projects of the same ilk causing redundancies!
So I'd generally shift those now redundant people into different roles, usually, but not exclusively, with the aim of improving quality.
Of course, the fundamental thing is that these efforts must be a differentiator to your competitors (unless the product is protected), and so the toughest tasks are always those where the competition is also engaged in Lean projects. The key factor then is doing it better!
Yet in five years, not one person has been made redundant due to my efforts.
I'd attribute two reasons for this:
1. By improving production capacities and speeds, and removing wasteful activities, the cost is driven down normally by around 15-20%. All the companies I have worked for have split this in two, half of the saving increases profit, the other half is used to reduce sales prices. This tends to increase demand, and so often we end up needing more people, to run for example a second line, working in the new manner, in order to meet orders.
A recent project I did increased a single line's capacity by 30%, yet after 3 months the company needed to buy in two additional lines to meet the increased demand. Total effect to the business was an increase in turnover for that product of just under 250%, with an increased profit per unit of 10%.
The second reason is partly psychological, partly good business: you need the individuals working in the area to support the project, otherwise it simply will not work. Little creates resistance as much as seeing other projects of the same ilk causing redundancies!
So I'd generally shift those now redundant people into different roles, usually, but not exclusively, with the aim of improving quality.
Of course, the fundamental thing is that these efforts must be a differentiator to your competitors (unless the product is protected), and so the toughest tasks are always those where the competition is also engaged in Lean projects. The key factor then is doing it better!
Sway said:
I work in designing and implementing more efficient methods and processes, 'lean' in corporate buzzspeak, and so regularly introduce new methods that technically require less people.
Here's where they all go;)In the early 90s a mate had been signing on for 5 years since he left school, so the Job Centre gave up and employed him to help others find jobs
R1 Loon said:
Sway said:
I work in designing and implementing more efficient methods and processes, 'lean' in corporate buzzspeak, and so regularly introduce new methods that technically require less people.
Here's where they all go;)In the early 90s a mate had been signing on for 5 years since he left school, so the Job Centre gave up and employed him to help others find jobs
Sticks. said:
R1 Loon said:
Sway said:
I work in designing and implementing more efficient methods and processes, 'lean' in corporate buzzspeak, and so regularly introduce new methods that technically require less people.
Here's where they all go;)In the early 90s a mate had been signing on for 5 years since he left school, so the Job Centre gave up and employed him to help others find jobs
R1 Loon said:
Poor them, he'd never found a job for himself, how was he going to find others some work?
On the flip side, he probably knew every single trick there was for staying signed on long after you should be - and as a result must have known exactly when someone was trying it on.If you've ever dealt with a debt collection agency you might be surprised to find that some of their best collection staff are people with multiple CCJs, etc. themselves. It's the same thing of knowing all the tricks people use to keep debts spun out on that narrow line between arrears and going to court.
R1 Loon said:
Sticks. said:
R1 Loon said:
Sway said:
I work in designing and implementing more efficient methods and processes, 'lean' in corporate buzzspeak, and so regularly introduce new methods that technically require less people.
Here's where they all go;)In the early 90s a mate had been signing on for 5 years since he left school, so the Job Centre gave up and employed him to help others find jobs
I signed on even though I was not paid any cash (too much in savings) on the advice of a friend who is an accountant, it keeps the tax man off your back and retains continuity of your NI.
In my dealings with the DHSS and associated jobcentre I formed the opinion that their staff must be drawn from the pool of unemployable idiots they could not otherwise remove from their books.
Glad to see I was not mistaken.
Engineer1 said:
a machine will replace 2 out of 3 jobs but not every job, some things are best done by hand or eye.
For example...............http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy5g33S0Gzo
Dr Jekyll said:
Engineer1 said:
a machine will replace 2 out of 3 jobs but not every job, some things are best done by hand or eye.
For example...............http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy5g33S0Gzo
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff