I was wondering, just how many working hours might we be looking at needing ?

I remember reading about how cooperatives generally managed about twice the output for the same hours as tradional business models, and I remember my time with Eve-Online when I was able to slave drive <g> my corporation to 10 times the output of tradional business models.

So perhaps once we take out all the fluff that clogs up society, we might reduce a 40 hour working week to only 4 hours per person, with everyone just working one morning or one afternoon a week!

Coupled with the idea that perhaps 20% of the population might not want to work at all, that would increase the working time from 4 to 5 hours needed per week, still only a morning or afternoons work.

Whilst that may sound too good to be true, I think in reality, it is still realistic.

(Based after all, on my own experiences of running an online simulation of a corporation where I did just that very thing for months on end, this was down to in my view, two main aspects, efficient lean admin, and heavy investment in equipment and skills.)

What does everyone else think, 5 hours each person per week a realistic figure to look at ?

That should really be a determination based on mathematical calculations for the proto-technate, namely level of automatisation. The work-hour model has never really been efficient, but in lack of better we should go for it.

At the moment we have an arbitrary figure of 16 hours a week spread over 4 hours for four days. However, we would aim to minimise (but not eliminate) work. In the end, exactly how many hours we need to work we will have to find out through experimentation.

.ui

Nanos wrote:


As a guesstimate it's quite realistic.



And then you have the fact that if we manage to make jobs satisfying a lot of people might want to work a whole lot more than those 4-5 hours a week.



Those two factors are important and when you add effective consumption and high load factors to the equation you'll drop the work needed to be done even more.



It sounds like a good guess, yes, but the exact figure isn't very interesting, the way I see it. If you manage to make all jobs attractive (and I'm talking about making the actual job attractive - not the trappings like paycheck, office, power that comes with it today) for enough people I'm thinking that many, perhaps even most people would want to work a lot more than an average of 4, or 5, or 16, or even 40 hours a week.

The moment you end up with people wanting to put in more workhours than needed for the material needs of the Technate I think we will see an absolute explosion of development in all kinds of areas, as quite a few of those extra hours can/will be put into making the nessecary work more efficient and more enjoyable, making consumption more effective and so on. To steal from Marshall Brains "Australia Project" - "Better and Better".

The making jobs attractive part I think is very much neglected in todays world I reckon, and is not something I would have thought much about myself at all, so I reckon that particular aspect is one that could make a big difference between our world and the current one.

Even though off the top of my head, I have trouble thinking just how various jobs might be made attractive, I get the impression its an as yet, very much an unexplored area.

And one we should document!

I'm reminded of the NET members who have given time and money to NET, yet their efforts are undocumented!

It is hard to determine time. And believe me, we have NET members who have given money and know who they are. That is an issue in complaints to the SeqFin.

As for technocracy, automatisation will solve a lot of issues. But the proto-technate will follow a whole different equation at the beginning.

I think the beneficies of being a part of the proto-technate will be higher consumer parity. That is because an individual living in a proto-technate would have no monetary income, and therefore will be equitted from paying taxes.

Thus, they will be able to divert a bigger part of their consumption to what they want to.

Enrique Lescure wrote:


I'd say it will depend heavily upon how successful and how evolved the Proto-Technate is. In later stages of a successful Proto-Technate I imagine that will definately hold true. In the earlier stages I think the main benefits will be satisfaction from working on something you find interesting and important.

Fredrik Jonsson wrote:


I think that is the major weakness, because it will probably be leading to many hippies joining us.

Enrique Lescure wrote:


I thought those were extinct in the late 70's? Another sacrifice of biodiversity on the altars of Mammon.

On a more serious note - at least in the early stages I can't see a prototechnate working much different from a company employmentwise, except that the prototechnate will be even leaner in the meaning of not employing people who doesn't perform a job that needs to be done.

Yes, I agree there. The question is how to do to move beyond that phase. I think this might be connected to the recent discoveries by our Librarian.

Enrique Lescure wrote:


You use any basic accounting system to determine what resources any surplus should be used to aquire.