Comments
Google CEO: Fight Unemployment With Job Sharing
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
RogerWLars
50%
50%
RogerWLars,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 9:30:52 AM
Yeah Sue...
"In the future, we will work less and enjoy more leisure time, while being shuttled around in self-driving cars, attended by artificial intelligence that makes better decisions than we do."

 

Sure. And unicorns will fart candy-coated rainbows on all of us....  weeeeeeee!
PuebloP813
IW Pick
100%
0%
PuebloP813,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 9:31:43 AM
Re: Yeah Sue...
Sure Brin and Sergey will be driving around in driverless cars but the rest of society will be struggling to make mud pies for dinner.  
CraigC950
100%
0%
CraigC950,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 9:35:57 AM
Re: Yeah Sue...
I notice there was no suggestion that, to help with ongoing diminution of pay for the average worker, the CEO's should pay share.  Is there a bit of hypocricy here?
JasonO599
50%
50%
JasonO599,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 12:57:54 PM
Re: Yeah Sue...
"I notice there was no suggestion that, to help with ongoing diminution of pay for the average worker, the CEO's should pay share. "

Market forces say that a CEO is harder to replace than a worker bee. And if you add all the IP and secrets in the mix, a company that does not pay its CEO riskes the danger of losing serious competitive advantage. 

I am not a big believer in such a pay disparity and it does seem unethical, but large companies do have a dilema if they want top leadership talent. The best solution is that consumers stop buying products for these type of companies and patron other companies. 
CraigC950
0%
100%
CraigC950,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 3:32:09 PM
Re: Yeah Sue...
The whole thing about companies need to pay these unconscionable rates to their execs is a fraud, perpetrated by the CEOs and high executives who sit on each others boards of directors, and religiously vote in the pay "requisite" to retain their "highly skilled" managers.  In fact, they are simply lucky people, who had connections, and who vote for each others' pay hikes, effectively screwing their shareholders as well as their employees in a demonstration of demented greed. 

 
Alison_Diana
50%
50%
Alison_Diana,
User Rank: Author
7/9/2014 | 5:08:19 PM
Re: Yeah Sue...
One trend I've noticed too is an increase again in middle management. After all the layoffs in the 90s, i'm seeing several companies pad their management layers again. 
Brian.Dean
50%
50%
Brian.Dean,
User Rank: Ninja
7/10/2014 | 4:50:19 AM
Re: Yeah Sue...
Interesting point about the trade-offs that companies need to make in deciding the salaries of their CEO. I guess, as the job of the CEO becomes diluted and other C-suites become an absolute necessity in every company, this could cause the average salary to increase, while decreasing the CEO's salary -- much like splitting the CEO's job responsibilities from a one person show to a team effort.
Gary_EL
50%
50%
Gary_EL,
User Rank: Ninja
7/13/2014 | 11:55:03 PM
Re: Yeah Sue...
I sometimes watch Bloomberg business late at night, when the British TV journalists on the air. When they discuss business pay, it seems that European CEO's with responsibility equal to their American counterparts make maybe 10% as much.
Michael Endler
100%
0%
Michael Endler,
User Rank: Author
7/9/2014 | 4:51:20 PM
Re: Yeah Sue...
@Craig,

I'll actually give Google credit for setting a good example in this regard; it compensates its employees well.

But I sympathize with your overall sentiment. The notion that wage stagnation is merely a byproduct of a self-regulating free market is pretty quixotic. Still, even if Page wasn't having the conversation you might have preferred, he's raising an important question. I'm not sure I have much enthusiasm for Page's solution, but technology will certainly obviate many jobs among both low-wage and high-wage earners. Assembly line workers will be replaced by robots, doctors will be forced to adapt to algorithms that diagnose diseases better than they do, and so on. It's important for the present that we get on the right page socially regarding the Randian ideals currently governing wages, but it's important for the future that we think about the logical extension of technology's accelerated pace.
Lorna Garey
100%
0%
Lorna Garey,
User Rank: Author
7/9/2014 | 10:06:43 AM
Re: Yeah Sue...
I do think that in future we can't all have as much STUFF as we do now. It's not sustainable for the planet, much less dwindling income. Instead of buying a few new pairs of shoes every season because some designer says heels are out and flats are in, why not just have a couple of pairs that you really like? Instead of buying a new PC or car or tablet every year or two, buy good quality and use it for a long time. 
Michael Endler
50%
50%
Michael Endler,
User Rank: Author
7/9/2014 | 5:03:38 PM
Re: Yeah Sue...
I concur, Lorna, though I think you bring up another quandary: While our current rate of material consumption isn't sustainable, a lot of people's jobs rely on that stuff. If we lose some jobs to technology and other jobs to environmental sustainability or the results of wealth polarization, the social implications can't be overstated.

That said, a lot of people dismiss the "tech will eat jobs" argument by pointing out that new technology also breeds new jobs. For at least the short term, this trend will clearly continue. There were no smartphone app developers when I was in college, but now it's what half the students out there aspire to be. Page seems to think technology will accelerate to the point that this is no longer the case, hence his argument for shared work, but I wonder if his vision is a legitimate eventuality, or a sign of a lack of imagination on his part.
Brian.Dean
50%
50%
Brian.Dean,
User Rank: Ninja
7/10/2014 | 5:12:53 AM
Re: Yeah Sue...
Good point, the planet does not have infinite resources to produce an infinite supply of shoes. I think as new materials are discovered shoes might become hybrid, for example, a flat would be able to convert into a heeled shoe and vise-vasa. There are already Nano materials that are being applied to the exterior of shoes, this helps to keep the shoe to look like new and makes cleaning it easier. However, such advances are just going to decrease long term demand for new shoes.
PedroGonzales
50%
50%
PedroGonzales,
User Rank: Ninja
7/13/2014 | 7:21:28 PM
Re: Yeah Sue...
I think companies will always try to find a way to reduce cost and decrease the number of employees needed for a task.  In these cases, rather than automate, government should work with schools to provide young people with the skills needed to survive in this new job market where new jobs are created.
Brian.Dean
0%
100%
Brian.Dean,
User Rank: Ninja
7/14/2014 | 6:55:36 AM
Re: Yeah Sue...
Agreed, educational institutions at both sides of the spectrum, i.e. public and private, should take a lead role in providing students will the skillsets that will be in demand after their 4 year degrees, etc. It is a difficult task, considering the current state of technological progression -- it would be difficult to predict the services that would be in demand 4 years from now. However, if the institutions implement techniques from big data, etc., I feel that the challenge can be met. 
yalanand
50%
50%
yalanand,
User Rank: Moderator
7/30/2014 | 4:45:43 PM
Re: Yeah Sue...
@brian.Dean: That is true. New topics like automation, IOT, big data and cloud computing should be added in the syllabus as subjects and not as projects. If a student doesn?t know the subject inside out, then how can he hope to work well when given a project?
Gary_EL
50%
50%
Gary_EL,
User Rank: Ninja
7/13/2014 | 11:51:05 PM
Re: Yeah Sue...
Unfortunately, planned obsolesence makes that impossible. There was Absolutely NOTHING wrong with my old XP computer - other than the fact that Microsoft stopped supporting the OS. There's even planned obsolescece in men's clothing. Working at home, I almost never have to wear a suit. A few months ago, I did. When my sister saw my suit, she broke out laughing and told me I'd be hooted out of the room if I showed up with lapels that size.
BillyJ115
100%
0%
BillyJ115,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 10:29:21 AM
Here's Reality For You
This talk topic is something they were probably talking about over several beers at the local bar because that's all it is, drunk talk.

 

Reality is this: cost of living is rising and employment and salaries are declining fast and have been for quite some time now. The rich get richer or stay rich, the poor stay poor and the middle class went extinct.

 

Greed comes in many forms, from the politicians to the CEO's of corporations to the lobbyist that keep technology at bay to keep their cash flow coming in (example: oil companies keeping hydrogen power technology locked down and unavailable to the public to further keep the world dependent on oil).

 

When will change come to these issues???? Never in our lifetime.
JasonO599
100%
0%
JasonO599,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 12:46:45 PM
Re: Here's Reality For You
"Greed comes in many forms, from the politicians to the CEO's of corporations to the lobbyist that keep technology at bay to keep their cash flow coming in "

 

What is so damaging is that technology has allowed those that have money to invest in high return businesses without making a commitment to hiring labor. In fact, a VC can invest in tech and hire a handful of people, then the business could fail, and they sale the IP in parts, and still make a decent return (Not one in VC standards, but a decent return for a blue collar standards). 

Never since legalized slavery has labor been in such a disadvantage. It is not because VC's are evil and just want to shut everyone out, it is because no one hires labor out of the goodness of their heart, they have to have a strong return for that investment. This is captialism at its core. 

Until we as a society open our eyes and work together for a better solution, we will end up with a really bad solution. 
Brian.Dean
50%
50%
Brian.Dean,
User Rank: Ninja
7/10/2014 | 5:51:02 AM
Re: Here's Reality For You
Interesting dynamics at play -- a few companies have an interest in technology to be implemented, while on the other hand, a few companies don't want technology to be implemented because it might hurt their profit margins.

Economics solves many of these problems, it allows for a process to bring into widespread adoption the technologies that are cheaper for everyone. Fuel Cells are good but when compared to Natural Gas, it can cost around three times as much to produce hydrogen that can be implemented in a Fuel Cell to deliver energy, infrastructure (filling stations, etc.) requirements that would be needed to support a Fuel Cell automotive industry is another concern.

Sometimes it is easy for the incumbent to advance to a more efficient technology, but decides not to because they fear that their customers will not be able to match the investment needed from the customers end. For example, 220v AC distribution systems are more efficient compared to 110v, and power distribution companies would only need to upgrade their last mile (transformers). However, consumers will have to convert all of their appliances that run on 110v into appliances that accept 220v.  
ReverendKyle78
100%
0%
ReverendKyle78,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 9:33:29 AM
Not exactly...
"That might sound like the setup for an episode of Star Trek, but it's the world Google's founders see ahead of us."

 

Actually, it sounds a lot more like "I, Robot".  And anyone who has read it knows that it doesn't exactly end well for us humans.
rradina
100%
0%
rradina,
User Rank: Ninja
7/9/2014 | 9:37:40 AM
Disconnected...
I think billionaires are disconnected from reality.  If you cut the work week to 20 hours and halve the salary, the talented will just get two jobs.  Effect on unemployment -- zero.

It probably won't work even if you double salaries before cutting the work week.  The talented will get two jobs and double their income unless this is outlawed.  If not outlawed, a doubling of salary would drive jobs in the service industry as the talented enjoy more disposable income.  Travel would grow meaning lots of new unskilled service jobs.  Of course if corporations were forced to double salaries, the commensurate inflation would decimate all of this theory.

Perhaps Google should start this experiment to see what happens.
anon1342122408
50%
50%
anon1342122408,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 11:46:01 AM
Re: Disconnected...
absolutely
JasonO599
50%
50%
JasonO599,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 12:49:49 PM
Re: Disconnected...
"If you cut the work week to 20 hours and halve the salary, the talented will just get two jobs.  Effect on unemployment -- zero."

Some will get a job, but many will freelance and start their own business, so the effect is much greater than you illustrate. 
Paul987
100%
0%
Paul987,
User Rank: Strategist
7/9/2014 | 2:21:15 PM
Re: Disconnected...
"Some will get a job, but many will freelance and start their own business, so the effect is much greater than you illustrate. "

The idea that a significant number of the population can or will start their own businesses is as naive as Mr. Pages comments.  We used to live much closer to that ideal... until the rise of enormous corporations.  The likes of Walmart, Target, ShopRite, Stop & Shop and others put countless small stores out of business.  Newspapers and the media industry as a whole has been consumed by 2 to 3 vast conglomerates.  

For any of these things to actually come to fruition would almost necessitate the dismantling of the very structure which has allowed people like Mr. Page to accumulate such wealth and power - our ultra-capitolistic economic system.  And since the very people who the current system benefits almost exclusively, hold almost exclusive controll over every aspect of our government, that is unlikely to happen.  

 
Michael Endler
50%
50%
Michael Endler,
User Rank: Author
7/9/2014 | 5:16:44 PM
Re: Disconnected...
" And since the very people who the current system benefits almost exclusively, hold almost exclusive controll over every aspect of our government, that is unlikely to happen."


Bingo. For example, how do you like your chances of starting, say, a streaming video service if Verizon gets its way? And even if the net neutrality issue gets favorably sorted, it's only one example.
Banker666
0%
100%
Banker666,
User Rank: Strategist
7/9/2014 | 5:30:21 PM
Re: Disconnected...
"Bingo. For example, how do you like your chances of starting, say, a streaming video service if Verizon gets its way? And even if the net neutrality issue gets favorably sorted, it's only one example."

 

Absolutely right, look what happened to Aereos who got spanked by the SCOTUS or Kim Dotcom when the storm troopers raided his residence.     

 
cafzali
50%
50%
cafzali,
User Rank: Moderator
7/9/2014 | 2:49:31 PM
Re: Disconnected...
@Jason The issue that people often overlook with entrepreneurship is, while it's easy to start your own business, replacing the income that you had at your full-time job including benefits, with the income from your own enterprise is extremely difficult. 

Small businesses are hamstrung by a lot of factors, including pricing pressure, higher costs, and on and on. While you certainly do get some benefits from running your own business, a suggestion that entrepreneurship is an answer to our economy's ills is short-sighted. Yes, it's a great thing, but starting a business for the sake of it solves nothing until it's successful and is responsible for innovation. Since two thirds don't make it past five years, it's easy to see there's not the success and innovation coming out of small businesses en masse that some would have you believe.
Michael Endler
50%
50%
Michael Endler,
User Rank: Author
7/9/2014 | 5:12:28 PM
Re: Disconnected...
"I think billionaires are disconnected from reality." There's actually a fair amount of research to that effect. Also, I agree with your overall sentiment.The most ambitious people would absolutely hold multiple jobs in this new Page-inspired society. Even today, I know a lot of well-educated people who, out of finanical necessity, have spent the majority of their 20s and early 30s working multiple jobs. In the Page vision, that effect would only be greater.
GAProgrammer
50%
50%
GAProgrammer,
User Rank: Strategist
7/10/2014 | 3:51:44 PM
Re: Disconnected...
Actually, this is the same empty argument that is being put out about the $15 minimum wage. if you double the salaries and halve the work, then the cost and price of everything will necessarily go up. Therefore, the "working poor" will still be working poor - but now they have to pay $4 for a hamburger instead of $1 hamburger. All you do is move the scale without effecting any real change and you end up hurting the ones you meant to help.

The other thing the authors ignore is the fact that there are PLENTY of things that people want to buy, not that they need. They probably read some academic (and very flawed) study of how "rich people don't really feel better about things" that was published for social engineering purposes. An overwhelming majority of people ALWAYS want shiny things, especially ones that they don't NEED to survive.
zerox203
100%
0%
zerox203,
User Rank: Ninja
7/9/2014 | 9:39:34 AM
Re: Fight Unemployment With Job Sharing
Interesting Concept, Thomas, but as you say, it sounds a little more sci-fi than reality - at least for the near future. Most companies (not to mention employees) will scoff at the idea as a real solution, and most job regulation seems to have some trouble hitting it's intended target. For example, the recent healthcare act which mandated that employees who work over 30 hours must get health insurance casued only one outcome many places - reduce everyone's house to exactly 29. That's a bit too easy of a loophole, don't you think? We need something a little more comprehensive to fix employment problems in 2014.

Seeing the headline with 'Google CEO' affixed to the front made me thing "wow, what a strange idea... but maybe if someone like Google is behind it, it will pick up some steam." - after all, they've coined all kinds of strange employment rules, like their famous '20% rule'.  Of course, it turned out the reality is that this is not a real suggestion from the top at Google, just a pie-in-the-sky idea that was brought up during an interview; a thought exercise. If Google really adopts a policy like that, then we'll have something else entirely to talk about it, but as it stands, there's still some value in someone important bringing up the idea. At least it gets us thinking about something that's going to be a very real issue for us and our children.


Shane M. O'Neill
100%
0%
Shane M. O'Neill,
User Rank: Author
7/9/2014 | 10:51:04 AM
Re: Fight Unemployment With Job Sharing
An out-of-touch billionaire thinking out loud, and not thinking very clearly. I can't tell if this is his cock-eyed utopian vision where people will be happy with just the essentials and give up half their salaries for more free time OR if it's a last ditch scramble to create half-jobs as unemployment surges and social and economic circumstances deteriorate. Either way Larry, test it out at Google and let us know how it goes.
Paul987
100%
0%
Paul987,
User Rank: Strategist
7/9/2014 | 10:13:41 AM
Utter nonsense
Oh how easy it is to envision a utopian future when one is so disconnected from the realities imposed on the masses by a predatory capitolistic economic system.  

What makes professments like this even more condescending and offensive is that it's the very nature of our ultra-capitolistic system that has afforded Mr. Page the ability to be so disconnected from the conditions it imposes on the rest of us.  

So, Mr. Page, instead of talk, how about taking some steps to bring this future you talk of to fruition.  Maybe you could start by eliminating your off-shore tax shelters which has enabled corporations like Google to shovel so much of the tax burden onto the commoners that they HAVE to work 24/7 just to survive, regardless of how much they may or may not want to.  

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting *really* tired of the demonstrated ignorance of the conditions the masses live under by the very people this society, for some reason, rewards with untold riches.  

Revolutions happen when the disconnect between the ruling class and the commoners gets to the levels we see today.  Mr. Page and his ilk would be wise to tred very lightly...  as evidenced by many of the comments lately, the smell of revolution is in the air.  
sk8sonh2o
IW Pick
100%
0%
sk8sonh2o,
User Rank: Strategist
7/9/2014 | 10:27:47 AM
Propagate wealth at the low end of the income scale
Some innovations concentrate wealth, and some propagate wealth. It's important to have a pretty wide definition of wealth, to include health and family time, access to education, and opportunity, and to include externalized costs and carbon footprint. So the bicycle propagated wealth. The sewing machine destroyed some jobs, but Singer's micro-financing initiative to help women buy sewing machines mitigated the problem for a while. The I-phone as a piece of hardware concentrates wealth, but the App Store propagates wealth.  MOOCS propagate wealth. High School robotics programs probably concentrate wealth in the long run. The current romance with innovation should be looked at as a two-edged sword and subsidy programs should try to distinguish between propagation and concentration. People should try to buy more services and less stuff, eg hire someone to mow the lawn instead of buying a lawn tractor. 
JasonO599
100%
0%
JasonO599,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 12:53:17 PM
Re: Propagate wealth at the low end of the income scale
"Some innovations concentrate wealth, and some propagate wealth. "

Great point, thanks for that. The not so humorous thing is that laize faire types always talk about the latter but not the former. I am pro technology and a capitalist, however I do realize there are limitations and if we aren't open about these limitations and how they effect our society in the next 10 years, we may be in for a rude awakening. 
sueinphilly
100%
0%
sueinphilly,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 10:33:15 AM
Job sharing could work in some instances
Re; Job sharing.  I make more money than I need.  I have a friend who has been mostly out of work for a year.  I could EASILY live on 2/3 of my salary.  If I job shared with my friend and she earned 1/3 of my salary, she would be thrilled as it would be as much money as she has ever earned in her life.

I'm not a millionare and I make less than 100K a year

 

 

 
anon6027605817
50%
50%
anon6027605817,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 12:57:43 PM
Re: Job sharing could work in some instances
Exactly.

The model I'm thinking of is you have 2 100% unemployed people.  If the job is right, they both could work 50% which is better then 0% and still come out ahead and bring in more than an unemployment check. This also gives them the opportunity to get their foot in the door.  This is also attractive to stay at home parents who want to ease back into the workforce.

I can see how employers could abuse this and make all jobs 50% to save on benefits. That would suck, but they would run the risk of losing their entire employee base.

Make it an option like 4/10 and 3.5/12
anon0211825281
50%
50%
anon0211825281,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 11:02:39 AM
Nice Joke
Why is that always this ultra rich as holes always go behind people living to ends meets ?

Why can't they reduce reduce their FAT and ugly CEOs, CTO, CFOs and white color criminals salary and share their fat pay with 100s of people.

 

They can easily manage unemployment. No wonder why this country is creating United states of Poor Land of America,
projectjavelin
50%
50%
projectjavelin,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 11:44:57 AM
Re: Nice Joke
You don't want to share your job or your income. I don't either.

Why should CEOs be forced to? Isn't that the opposite of freedom?

I mean, people making close to, and over, a million dollars a year are already taxed close to 50% between state and federal. How much more do you want going back into the system?
Paul987
50%
50%
Paul987,
User Rank: Strategist
7/9/2014 | 12:02:43 PM
Re: Nice Joke
"I mean, people making close to, and over, a million dollars a year are already taxed close to 50%"

I'm sorry, but this is precisely the type of ignorance that keeps us facing the problems we face.  

There's been a number of prominant, wealthy individuals who have revealed that their total tax rate (that of their salary AND investemnt income) is well under what the average American pays, some as low as 11%.  

If you seriously think the wealthy are paying 50% of their income in taxes, you're a fool.  The tax rate on income over $375,000 is 35%.  But considering people at that level make a significant proportion, if not the majority, of their income from investments, NOT salary, and capitol gains taxes rates are 15-20%, their effective tax rates can be much less than 35%.  

50%... what a fool.  Keep drinking the koolaid.  
Thomas Claburn
50%
50%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Author
7/9/2014 | 5:06:53 PM
Re: Nice Joke
>The tax rate on income over $375,000 is 35%. 

I believe it has risen to 39.6% but nonetheless the wealthy tend to have ways to reduce their income through deductions that aren't available to the less affluent.
Michael Endler
50%
50%
Michael Endler,
User Rank: Author
7/9/2014 | 5:27:48 PM
Re: Nice Joke
Indeed. I know some affluent people who profess to know nothing about taxes or stocks, but who nonetheless do very well because they pay the right people to handle their finances. A person of lesser means can still make his or her own opportunities with this sort of stuff, but speaking on the whole, to pretend that someone making $50,000 or even $150,000 is living in the same tax reality as someone earning $10 million is bonkers.

 
eagle94
0%
100%
eagle94,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 9:22:40 PM
Re: Nice Joke
I did very welll the last three years,averaging over 800,OOO. Approximately 4% came from investments while the remainder from my small business I pay 9% state and 39.5% federal. I write off my home mortgage and a couple of other minor deductions. Maybe 40k when all said. Please explain how I can get to an effective tax rate of 11%. Because I feel very foolish paying so much.
JasonO599
50%
50%
JasonO599,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 12:38:46 PM
Re: Nice Joke
"Why can't they reduce reduce their FAT and ugly CEOs, CTO, CFOs and white color criminals salary and share their fat pay with 100s of people."

Companies don't decide to hire or not hire based on money. (Money is a factor but never the reason). A company hires when demand increases and labor is less money than technology to meet that demand. This is it, the bottom line. 

We are in a world where technology is much cheaper than labor and as long as that is true, labor will be in less in demand unless labor reduces its cost, which it is doing. 

Sharing makes a lot of sense, if the majority did it. People could work for basic necessities and housing. Of course wages would go down as would aggegrate demand for things like housing. But as prices go down, more people could afford. Once the market adjusts and reaches more of a homeostasis things would be better because people could have their own side business to follow their passions, including freelance and consulting work, and have a for sure income to take care of necessities. 

This could seriously reduce government subsidies and the need for government borrowing and have other major postive impacts. The hard sell is to convince those that have a lot to take less for the betterment of the whole. This is probably going to be the reason it will never happen. 
laserwolf
50%
50%
laserwolf,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 11:34:54 AM
ancient greece
Back in ancient greece, advanced thought and philosophy was cultivated because slave labor provided non slaves with leisure time to sit around and think. With google's robot army, we could be entering a new era of leisure. This time around we will spend the free time watching kitten videos on youtube and posting pictures of our half eaten big mac on instagram.
Bowl2300
50%
50%
Bowl2300,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 12:21:38 PM
College Grads--Zero future
If I was an ultra rich I would make sure my home was very well guarded. I am not sure how many more graduating classes, whom have massive debt, and only find $30M a year jobs out there or part time work; are going to sit around prior to rebelling against the current system.

While they seem distracted by the internet and so on and so forth. The time will come when the Mommies and Daddies can cover them anymore due to lack of money. They will then relaize that their future is quickly being denied to them by the current greed presiding over this country.

Young people start revolutions and I don't know how many of them will abode by this toning down of their dreams.

 
cafzali
50%
50%
cafzali,
User Rank: Moderator
7/9/2014 | 2:55:31 PM
Re: College Grads--Zero future
@Bowl2300 In theory, you're right in that the current system does make conditions that are ripe for a "revolution" of sorts. But, quite honestly, people today are too lazy to start a revolution. They want to do it Tea Party style, which is complain about how bad you've got it, blame it on someone else and not really solve anything. 

We are where we are for a lot of reasons, including the fact that a lot of wealth building models just don't work anymore. But a key reason is the fact that a lot of people failed to keep their skills current, ran out of opportunities and are now angry about it. Add to that, a lot of people who did play by the rules, got a college degree and tried to better themselves, are finding themselve subject to immense wage pressure that makes it hard for them to keep pace with cost of living rises. 

For better or worse, one of the few things that we can control that will help get control of this issue is reducing the growth of certain costs, including health care and taxes. But we've got to do it in a thoughtful way that's about more than just screaming about what someone else has. Perhaps it's penalizing people for leading unhealthy lifestyles, dramatically retooling the cost structure of our education systems, etc. Really, this is our only option at the moment because while economic growth has certainly improved, it's not keeping pace at the rate we need to remove the slack in the labor market.
Revolution = Non-Participation
50%
50%
Revolution = Non-Participation,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 4:05:35 PM
Revolution = Non-Participation
"Americans are too lazy for revolution"

Wrong!

They need our online input to survive.

Non-participation doesn't require physical effort, just a little organization.    
cafzali
50%
50%
cafzali,
User Rank: Moderator
7/9/2014 | 10:59:41 PM
Re: Revolution = Non-Participation
A revolution takes a ton of organization -- so much so that we haven't had anything resembling it since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.
HansO602
100%
0%
HansO602,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 12:23:12 PM
Job sharing doesn't have to be 2 for 1
Why do they jump to job sharing as 50/50?  I'm sure there are departments that have 3-5 people doing the same basic work.  How about job sharing represent 3 people doing 2 jobs?  I work as a programmer and there are 12 of us that have the same base skills.  Why not have 15 people doing those 12 jobs?  I would love to work 30-35 hours per week instead of 40-50.  Happier employees = more work and more quality work.

 

Just my 2 cents.
JasonO599
50%
50%
JasonO599,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 12:40:42 PM
Re: Job sharing doesn't have to be 2 for 1
I don't believe they were fixed on 2 to 1 but just gave an example to illustrate the benefits. Obviously, sharing is far from being able to be implemented as many people would lose out, the housing market could see a record fall if you reduce everyones wages across the board. It is a great idea, but maybe more idealistic than realistic.
Henrisha
50%
50%
Henrisha,
User Rank: Strategist
7/9/2014 | 1:24:32 PM
Re: Job sharing doesn't have to be 2 for 1
It is more idealistic than realistic or practical. In this day and age where you can get cheaper labor elsewhere, where jobs and money and budgets are tight, and everyone is just looking to scrimp. Don't even get me started on outsourcing.
Henrisha
50%
50%
Henrisha,
User Rank: Strategist
7/9/2014 | 1:23:36 PM
Re: Job sharing doesn't have to be 2 for 1
Unfortunately, for most firms, higher revenue > happy employees, so unless some great shift comes that'll convince upper management to sign off on that and get more people for job sharing, then I don't see that happening just yet.
zaious
50%
50%
zaious,
User Rank: Moderator
7/9/2014 | 1:37:40 PM
Re: Job sharing doesn't have to be 2 for 1
A copmay might offer, "Look, I cen get another employee to work with your group of 5 people. Your workload will decrease, but your pay will go down by 20%" Will anyone agree? It is getting difficult for people to save for retirement funds these days. Creation of jibs has to come through some other way.

Again, it is true that many companies reduced theri workforce but the workload is , essentially, the same. This is a kind of burden on existing emplyees.
anon8304916915
50%
50%
anon8304916915,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 1:22:37 PM
Obstacles to Techno-Utopia
So the only obstacle to job-sharing and techno-utopia is the high cost of housing?

Even the Soviets were able to provide affordable housing to their workers.

Unfortunately though, it isn't an engineering problem.

It is a political problem called Proposition 13.
AlanE728
50%
50%
AlanE728,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 1:42:31 PM
Who pays my mortgage?
This is from the leader of one of the largest corporations in the world?  So I do half my job, get paid half my salary, does that mean Mr. Page will pay half of my mortgage and half of my bills?  Or do I get foreclosed, evicted from my house and live on the street so Mr. Page's Utopian vision can proceed? Can I get half of a McDonalds job then?  I guess Mr. Page doesn't really mind because if he shares his job (yeah I'm sure that will happen) he still will bring in HALF a gazillion dollars, so why should he care?  I'm really trying to get out from under Google's thumb, but it does seem near impossible
MarylandMike
100%
0%
MarylandMike,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 1:42:59 PM
Job Sharing is not the answer
At first, I thought this article was a throw-back from 1955 when computers would make 'ordinary' work disappear.  That didn't happen and neither will the current evolution of job sharing.  I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US, when you hire someone part-time (e.g. 20 hours/week) they are not eligible for 401k, vacation, paid sick leave, or medical/dental/vision insurance.  So, not only have you cut my salary in 1/2, you have removed any incentive that companies now offer.

CEOs can talk about this new model but they seem to forget that not everyone is a 'desk' job.  The plumbers, electricians, service workers of the world will still be working full time because anything less puts them at a poverty level.

 
BSDunn
100%
0%
BSDunn,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 2:05:47 PM
Typical out of touch corporate exec
Dear Mr. Page,

Let me put this in a vernacular that you may better understand. While you have reached the Self-actualization level on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, most of your employees barely make it into the Love/Belonging level. It is not your fault, it merely is what it is when it comes to corporate employment.

Only an uber rich corporate executive would make a statement like you have. All of YOU people have nothing in common with the rest of us little guys. YOUR dorm days of trying to make $5-10 last a whole week ended a LONG time ago and YOU simply do not remember that experience.

Don't take this the wrong way, you run a great corporation well, please continue to do so. But please do not tell us how you would cure all the social ills you simply have no concept of any longer.
anon9241502685
50%
50%
anon9241502685,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 2:43:14 PM
Job Sharing already tested - didn't work
France tested that in 2000: lowered the working week from 39 to 35 hours. It didn't add more jobs, and the unemployment stayed at the same level.

What's interesting about this experiment is that France's economic growth didn't slow down, on the contrary...
nostriluu
50%
50%
nostriluu,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 2:59:19 PM
With progressive taxation
those working half time won't be so badly dinged. Combine it with some (not all) of the collaborative consumption ideas, such as carsharing services and less expensive travel, and you've got a pretty decent lifestyle, though it may be more difficult to save.

That's the red herring in all this, part of the goal should be more public participation with some of that freed up time, but we seem instead to be heading to a plutocratic world. 
oligarch
50%
50%
oligarch,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 3:25:10 PM
Reality Check!
You want to lower the Non-Livable wage even more?  People can't even afford their own residence as it stands now.

America = Powerless People with Zero Independence

This economic system is a long-term joke.  So are the economists that support it.

Let this priviledged oligarch cherish their partnership with the federal government.  

Hope for non-participation and social unrest.
blasphemy
50%
50%
blasphemy,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 3:51:57 PM
Non-Participation = No Profits
Revolution does not require action, it requires inaction.  They need our digital input and participation to survive.

Our lazy society is definately capable of non-participation.  The people have the power to do nothing.

Non-Participation = No Profits!

 

 
Banker666
50%
50%
Banker666,
User Rank: Strategist
7/9/2014 | 5:16:26 PM
Sure thang
I thought I was already doing job sharing by training this H1-B replacement for me.  Nothing new about this idea. 

I'm okay with this so long as they make prostitution legal so I can have a dependable source of income.  It shouldn't be too hard to find some wealthy C?O needing my services.   After all they are professional about screwing people over.
Banker666
50%
50%
Banker666,
User Rank: Strategist
7/9/2014 | 6:25:14 PM
Re: Sure thang
From USA Today "'Practical' Google exec caught in tangled sex web"  See what did I tell ya!
Christ!
50%
50%
Christ!,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2014 | 6:06:29 PM
Livable Wages or Adult Dependency?
He wants to lower the Non-Livable wage even more?  

People can't afford their own residence as it stands now.


Charlie Babcock
50%
50%
Charlie Babcock,
User Rank: Author
7/9/2014 | 6:33:15 PM
Sharing work a future necessity
In the future people will share work both by necessity and choice. They'll try to compensate for the limits on income by finding ways to forestall some of the costs of modern life. They will barter for skills and services with friends and through online exchanges. They'll use more computer skills to attend class, shop and recreate. They'll also spend more time training youth to use components to build their own basic electronics -- computer, music player, phone. They'll work growing food, fixing bikes, repairing a window or roof, generating energy. In the necessity of doing so, they'll end up doing something else they always meant to do -- live and work more closely together, proliferating local skills and founding neighborhood businesses. But it probably won't work out without first encountering painful disruptions and lessons.
Stratustician
50%
50%
Stratustician,
User Rank: Ninja
7/9/2014 | 6:47:45 PM
Re: Sharing work a future necessity
It's a unique concept, not totally new when you think of shift work where many folks share responsibilities.  I wonder if this will change the overall business hours, since when you think about it, we are going to be moving towards a truly global economy, which means supporting all time zones.
Whoopty
50%
50%
Whoopty,
User Rank: Ninja
7/10/2014 | 10:52:52 AM
Removed
As trend setting as a lot of the businesses these guys head are, the problem of being so far removed from everyday financial worries is that you simply cannot appreciate the day to day hardships of people that aren't in your bubble. 

As idealistic as the idea of having more time off and onyl working part time, as the article points out, unless we're suddenly earning a lot more per hour than before, I don't see how it could ever work. 
wnsrfr
IW Pick
100%
0%
wnsrfr,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/10/2014 | 11:28:11 AM
All you that are hating on this present no alternatives
I've read Lights in the Tunnel and many other books like it.

In 1977 an art professor of mine and Vermont philosopher that I highly respected suggested job sharing as something in our future--always remembered that.

There are obvious challenges, most highly our competitive nature that makes reduced hours a difficult proposition along with the need to maintain free market effectiveness.

But the "free market" still operates within many rules and boundaries today...our future challenge is to find a way to reduce hours (to facilitate job sharing) while maintaining income levels and encouraging competition and success.

One piece of the puzzle may be to tax automation much like value added taxes are employed in other countries.  But the tax will not go to the government but will be earmarked to all employees of the company taxed. 

Another piece--recognizing the value of job sharing on a social level.  Sure, pie in the sky, but it has worked to increase our recycling rates and over time being someone that participates in job sharing may be the new cool.

Something is needed.  Classic economic theory that automation just shifts jobs to new opportunities is like the frog in the pot at minute 5..."the water got warmer earlier, and no harm resulted, so no harm will occur in the future!"
mak63
50%
50%
mak63,
User Rank: Ninja
7/10/2014 | 6:41:28 PM
leisure time
"In the future, we will work less and enjoy more leisure time, while being shuttled around in self-driving cars, attended by artificial intelligence that makes better decisions than we do"
 
I wonder if leisure time for Mr Page is similar to the leisure time that Mr Hayes was enjoying when he died for a heroin overdose on his yacht.
In any case, like someone mentioned below. unless we have 2 jobs, the job sharing won't work.
impactnow
50%
50%
impactnow,
User Rank: Ninja
7/12/2014 | 3:21:42 AM
Sharing not for the young

While job sharing may be an option to combat unemployment and underemployment -it may be best suited to more established workers who have a better financial base and need flexible hours to meet demands in their private lives. For younger workers who honestly need the experience and the income it's really not the solution. Our younger generations are saddled with more education debt earlier in life and need full time incomes to be able to move forward with their lives and support our overall economy. The work share issue also doesn't address worker benefits-- this would create a large portion of uninsured workers.

hho927
50%
50%
hho927,
User Rank: Moderator
7/15/2014 | 12:46:39 PM
Ironic
Isn't it ironic? Google CEO grabbed more power and money. Google Shareholders have little or no power at all. If you were owned 90% Google shares you can't take your shares to Google and do anything with it.

How about google CEO share his jobs and take 50% less bonuses?
yalanand
50%
50%
yalanand,
User Rank: Moderator
7/30/2014 | 4:44:57 PM
Hard sarcasm
It's really a bad thing to share jobs which ensures salary cuts. This is really easy for a billionaire to say, but with the new projects coming up in Google which ensures Taxi Drivers would cease to exist after 30 years (and what not, which means many people would lose their existing jobs). How will people support a family if all they have is less money and even less time for their family?


The Business of Going Digital
The Business of Going Digital
Digital business isn't about changing code; it's about changing what legacy sales, distribution, customer service, and product groups do in the new digital age. It's about bringing big data analytics, mobile, social, marketing automation, cloud computing, and the app economy together to launch new products and services. We're seeing new titles in this digital revolution, new responsibilities, new business models, and major shifts in technology spending.
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest - August 27, 2014
Who wins in cloud price wars? Short answer: not IT. Enterprises don't want bare-bones IaaS. Providers must focus on support, not undercutting rivals.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Archived InformationWeek Radio
Howard Marks talks about steps to take in choosing the right cloud storage solutions for your IT problems
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.