You would get a kick from reading about Industrial Engineering, specifically the parts which relate to ratings and method study. This also explains a basic fallacy with regard to Americas apparent Job Vacancies- Amazon, for example, is in the habit of listing a huge number of vacancies at the same time that a particular regional centre has reduced headcount. That's because most American corporates are no longer looking for workers, but rather they are only looking for the right workers for the right jobs.
This is a problem with most Western employment markets- the incentives don't stretch far enough down, to the shop floor level. A worker who is reasonable fit, and performs at the top of the ratings performance curve, is innately valuable- and, provided that good method study and high morale systems are employed, can easily outperform the median worker by a factor of four, in terms of productivity.
Most employers realise this, but don't want to pay for it. The amount of profit which is extracted from the labour of a median basic skilled worker is a pittance, whilst the amount of profit extracted from workers in the top 10% of the ratings curve can be quite substantial indeed- at least at scale. It's also true, at least from my experience, that high ratings workers tend to be less prone to workplace accidents and possess fitness levels which argue against long-term sickness and absence. And let's not forget the overhead reduction.
In my honest opinion, workers who fit this category should be paid around twice the basic wages. It doesn't have to be set in stone, but could be more of a sliding scale. They can perform four times the work of most people, and are saving substantial costs for their employers in other ways. It's a way for people who perhaps haven't been lucky in the distribution of heterodox natural talents and innate abilities to receive dignity and a sense of personal worth in the 21st century, and could be a major stabilising influence in Western societies which are rapidly losing social cohesion.
If you want talent, you usually have to pay for it. This is simply a type of talent which is overlooked in our current economic paradigm, and often deliberately so.
Lol. I'm sure you do deserve to be paid more. No, I thought my post was simply more interesting from the point of view of economics. Labour is a commodity of variable quality. With the case of any other type of commodity this variability in quality would usually be reflected in pricing.
But labour behaves oddly in terms of pricing. My point would be this- incentives are perhaps the strongest form of matching the right person to the right job. Because of the current cultural paradigm within the West, labour is no longer being allocated with the efficiency typical of the market. At least half of high productivity workers are probably working of areas of similar labour value to the types of work which prize high productivity, but for which the high productivity doesn't matter, because of other limitations within the work environment.
Anyway, the Industrial Engineering bit at the start of my point goes to your point about specialisation. In the market Jane makes lemonade because she's good at it, and Jill sticks to cakes for the same reason. In non-market systems both would do each.
“At least half of high productivity workers are probably working of areas of similar labour value to the types of work which prize high productivity, but for which the high productivity doesn't matter, because of other limitations within the work environment.”
It would be any job where workflow isn't constant (particularly true in the service sector), or capacities are machine limited, so a huge portion of the economy. If you look at companies like Amazon, you will see that great pains have been taken so that workers aren't machine limited- and is also true of jobs like pickers for online supermarket shopping in the UK.
Take your pick- barista, service station worker, bartender, waitress, call centre operator, admin, retail assistant- all are examples of areas where high productivity workers allocation can be suboptimal, where labour allocation isn't allocating the right people to the right jobs. For some of these jobs high productivity can occasionally be of marginal benefit, such as baristas, and it's also true that there are high volume restaurants and bars which can make best use of waitresses and bartenders for significant chunks of their work week, but in a high efficiency, high productivity world, the top 10% of workers by rating should automatically be allocated towards workplaces which can make best use of their talents. People who are good at what they do and feel valued in their workplace tend to be happier, and this is particularly true of men.
You'll probably disagree with me on baristas, but it's a highly machine limited job. I've watched the process with an Industrial Engineering eye. The faster ones might seem like they are working at pace, by attending to tasks while they wait for machines, but the productivity gains for a high productivity worker in such a role is probably no more than an added 10% to 20%- that's nothing by comparison to the x2 to x4 productivity they might achieve in other areas of the economy.
I've thought of ways this might be rectified. I think we're moving towards a more psychometrically validated world with the rise of online applications. Manual speed and general fitness testing remain a hole in the market, especially given how vital this area can be in relation to economies with large parts of their economy in the service sector. Perhaps there is room in the market for a franchise model performing work trial-type tests to people in economically deprived areas, utilising empty schools at weekends- with the aim of identifying high productivity workers and taking commissions from both ends. The franchise operator would charge for the work trials accreditation and own the employer referral infrastructure, providing a cut of commissions to its franchise operators.
The UK loses a day in productivity a week compared to many European countries. Part of this is regulatory, but another part is poor worker allocation. If the money a worker gets from tending bar is only slightly worse than a worker might get from working a picking line, what are their incentives to allocate into the right job?
Amazon, logistics, 3PL and grocery/supermarket deliveries are all areas where employers have started to increase productivity-based incentives again. The other big area such a franchise business could make lots of money is through occupational health, a distributed physio network an chiropody. There are huge sums of money to be saved in terms of civil liability and risk reduction for employer liability insurance. The chiropody factor is particularly dark- people often find out they are diabetic through their feet. Diabetics who work on their feet all day are huge future liabilities for their employer in many countries.
You would get a kick from reading about Industrial Engineering, specifically the parts which relate to ratings and method study. This also explains a basic fallacy with regard to Americas apparent Job Vacancies- Amazon, for example, is in the habit of listing a huge number of vacancies at the same time that a particular regional centre has reduced headcount. That's because most American corporates are no longer looking for workers, but rather they are only looking for the right workers for the right jobs.
This is a problem with most Western employment markets- the incentives don't stretch far enough down, to the shop floor level. A worker who is reasonable fit, and performs at the top of the ratings performance curve, is innately valuable- and, provided that good method study and high morale systems are employed, can easily outperform the median worker by a factor of four, in terms of productivity.
Most employers realise this, but don't want to pay for it. The amount of profit which is extracted from the labour of a median basic skilled worker is a pittance, whilst the amount of profit extracted from workers in the top 10% of the ratings curve can be quite substantial indeed- at least at scale. It's also true, at least from my experience, that high ratings workers tend to be less prone to workplace accidents and possess fitness levels which argue against long-term sickness and absence. And let's not forget the overhead reduction.
In my honest opinion, workers who fit this category should be paid around twice the basic wages. It doesn't have to be set in stone, but could be more of a sliding scale. They can perform four times the work of most people, and are saving substantial costs for their employers in other ways. It's a way for people who perhaps haven't been lucky in the distribution of heterodox natural talents and innate abilities to receive dignity and a sense of personal worth in the 21st century, and could be a major stabilising influence in Western societies which are rapidly losing social cohesion.
If you want talent, you usually have to pay for it. This is simply a type of talent which is overlooked in our current economic paradigm, and often deliberately so.
This is an interesting comment, but I’m not sure exactly how it relates to my post. Maybe you see me as someone who should be paid more?
Lol. I'm sure you do deserve to be paid more. No, I thought my post was simply more interesting from the point of view of economics. Labour is a commodity of variable quality. With the case of any other type of commodity this variability in quality would usually be reflected in pricing.
But labour behaves oddly in terms of pricing. My point would be this- incentives are perhaps the strongest form of matching the right person to the right job. Because of the current cultural paradigm within the West, labour is no longer being allocated with the efficiency typical of the market. At least half of high productivity workers are probably working of areas of similar labour value to the types of work which prize high productivity, but for which the high productivity doesn't matter, because of other limitations within the work environment.
Anyway, the Industrial Engineering bit at the start of my point goes to your point about specialisation. In the market Jane makes lemonade because she's good at it, and Jill sticks to cakes for the same reason. In non-market systems both would do each.
“At least half of high productivity workers are probably working of areas of similar labour value to the types of work which prize high productivity, but for which the high productivity doesn't matter, because of other limitations within the work environment.”
Examples?
It would be any job where workflow isn't constant (particularly true in the service sector), or capacities are machine limited, so a huge portion of the economy. If you look at companies like Amazon, you will see that great pains have been taken so that workers aren't machine limited- and is also true of jobs like pickers for online supermarket shopping in the UK.
Take your pick- barista, service station worker, bartender, waitress, call centre operator, admin, retail assistant- all are examples of areas where high productivity workers allocation can be suboptimal, where labour allocation isn't allocating the right people to the right jobs. For some of these jobs high productivity can occasionally be of marginal benefit, such as baristas, and it's also true that there are high volume restaurants and bars which can make best use of waitresses and bartenders for significant chunks of their work week, but in a high efficiency, high productivity world, the top 10% of workers by rating should automatically be allocated towards workplaces which can make best use of their talents. People who are good at what they do and feel valued in their workplace tend to be happier, and this is particularly true of men.
You'll probably disagree with me on baristas, but it's a highly machine limited job. I've watched the process with an Industrial Engineering eye. The faster ones might seem like they are working at pace, by attending to tasks while they wait for machines, but the productivity gains for a high productivity worker in such a role is probably no more than an added 10% to 20%- that's nothing by comparison to the x2 to x4 productivity they might achieve in other areas of the economy.
I've thought of ways this might be rectified. I think we're moving towards a more psychometrically validated world with the rise of online applications. Manual speed and general fitness testing remain a hole in the market, especially given how vital this area can be in relation to economies with large parts of their economy in the service sector. Perhaps there is room in the market for a franchise model performing work trial-type tests to people in economically deprived areas, utilising empty schools at weekends- with the aim of identifying high productivity workers and taking commissions from both ends. The franchise operator would charge for the work trials accreditation and own the employer referral infrastructure, providing a cut of commissions to its franchise operators.
The UK loses a day in productivity a week compared to many European countries. Part of this is regulatory, but another part is poor worker allocation. If the money a worker gets from tending bar is only slightly worse than a worker might get from working a picking line, what are their incentives to allocate into the right job?
Amazon, logistics, 3PL and grocery/supermarket deliveries are all areas where employers have started to increase productivity-based incentives again. The other big area such a franchise business could make lots of money is through occupational health, a distributed physio network an chiropody. There are huge sums of money to be saved in terms of civil liability and risk reduction for employer liability insurance. The chiropody factor is particularly dark- people often find out they are diabetic through their feet. Diabetics who work on their feet all day are huge future liabilities for their employer in many countries.