Full employment will increase the demand for workers on the market, which will lead to higher salaries and promote decent capitalism.
Unemployment creates exploitation of workers
When a job position opens on the market during a period of high unemployment, a large number of candidates apply. The competition among workers may reduce their incomes to a level sufficient only for basic survival. Unemployed workers often have to accept poorly paid jobs to support their families. Unemployment has widened the gap between the rich and the poor, creating injustice and societal problems. I wrote more about it in the article: Let’s Remove Unemployment.
Employers favour unemployment. They can easily maintain unemployment because, most of the time, employers do not necessarily need to hire employees. Large employers support political parties that maintain unemployment through economic policy. It starts with importing cheap labour and ends with rising interest rates. This is how unemployment becomes state policy and how state policy maintains the exploitation of workers. To secure their privileges, the rich have imposed, believing that unemployment is an unavoidable price paid for technological development. They have pressured economic science to accept that 0% of unemployment is not a positive thing, which they accomplished.
The capitalists have found an unemployment rate of about 5% to be the most convenient for them, so that 5% unemployment has become a "normal" state in capitalism. This "normal" state made workers dependent on capitalists and led to exploitation, while the workers' total purchasing power generated enough profits for employers. The market economy should be compelled to value workers more, but capitalism resists this. Through a long struggle, workers have succeeded in getting some rights through laws and trade unions. Still, practice confirms that workers' interests are not adequately protected.
We may introduce justice in production processes by a fully employed environment through balancing the number of jobs with the number of workers. Reducing work hours will make full employment a reality. It will increase workers' demand and put them in a better position in production processes. Full employment will increase workers’ wages and reduce exploitation. However, no formula can precisely define what exploitation is. Only workers dissatisfied with their earnings may present it. The fairer the market of work is, the more satisfied workers are, and the less they are exploited.
We may increase worker satisfaction by further reducing work hours, which could lead to increased unemployment. Negative unemployment refers to a surplus of workers on the market. It will further increase workers' demand and incomes. Such a measure would require preventing work imports and regulating overtime work. Negative employment may put workers in a privileged position in which employers have been from ever. When workers are not available on the market, employers who need more workers will have to attract workers from other companies by raising their salaries. Competition among employers will initiate a chain reaction, leading to increased wages for workers and a more equitable distribution of benefits in production processes.
The rise of workers' salaries in the negative unemployment environment was proved in the 14th Century when the Black Death killed one-third of the European population. Suddenly, the crops in the fields perished because there were not enough workers to harvest them. "The shortage of servants, craftsmen, and workmen, and of agricultural workers and labourers, left a great many lords and people without service and attendance." Suddenly, workers and their labour were in much higher demand, enabling those who survived the Black Death to be in a much better position to negotiate work conditions. The shortage of workers led to increased wages for workers. The servants' higher salaries contributed to economic growth, but the employers were not happy with it.
At Cuxham (Oxfordshire, England), a plowman demanded from his Lord a payment three times greater in 1350 than in the previous year. (Routt, David. 2008, The Economic Impact of the Black Death, Economic History Association)
"In Parliament, in 1351, the Commons petitioned Edward III for a more resolute and effective response. They complained that ‘servants completely disregard the said ordinance in the interests of their ease and greed and that they withhold their services to great men and others unless they have liveries and wages twice or three times as great as [prior to the plague] to the serious damage of the great men and impoverishment of all members of the said commons’" (Bennett, Michael. 1995. The Impact of the Black Death on English Legal History. P 197, Vol. 11, New South Wales: Australian Journal of Law and Society.
Politics can create a better capitalism
According to this historical example, if a political party wins an election by offering a reduction in work to 5 hours per day, the lack of workers would increase the lowest workers' salaries by two to three times per hour in one year. The minimum daily wages of workers would increase 30-90% for just a 5-hour shift. The fair market of work is the best choice for bringing justice to the economy.
On the other hand, employers do not like to lose their profits by increasing workers' salaries. Furthermore, a negative unemployment environment may lead to excessive wage demands from workers, rendering the economy unsustainable. It may reduce employers’ interest in production and slow down the economy.
Unsatisfied employers may avoid paying higher workers’ wages in a fully employed society by relocating their businesses abroad. People must understand that capitalism has established laws that give more freedom to capital than workers, which need to change. At the very least, the laws must provide workers with the same rights as capital.
Any capital departure results in business closure and newly unemployed workers, bringing trouble to a domestic economy. Full employment would again require a reduction of work hours. Shortening working hours would reduce workers’ incomes in the short run. Workers would not like it. On the other hand, it is not easy for employers to organize a new production by finding new employees and new markets.
The optimal length of working hours in production processes should strike a balance between workers' demand for jobs and employers' demand for workers. The balanced work hours will create a fair labour market, optimally satisfying the needs of both workers and employers, thereby providing the best choice for establishing justice in the capitalist economy.
Today, people have adopted the 8-hour workday, first suggested by Robert Owen at the beginning of the 19th Century. There is no particular reason for an eight-hour workday. Society just took it and adapted to it. Besides providing full employment, the workday length should be a variable that coordinates the needs of workers, employers, and the entire society.
The length of a workday can be a potent regulator of the free market economy and a fundamental aspect of democracy in the economy. Political parties may propose the best full-time work period for workers and employers. It would probably be one of the most critical decisions of political parties, determining whether they are elected or not. On the other hand, the work hours can also be directly determined by the work needs of workers. Every worker may express their preferred work hours, and the average value will be determined. In both cases, democracy should determine optimal work hours to create a fair work market. Its success will present a turning point for capitalism, making it a decent social system.
The fair market of work will increase salaries for all lower-paid workers at the expense of higher-paid workers and employers’ profits. Minimum wages would no longer be needed. The fair market of work will balance an enormous gap between people’s salaries in the Western world. Besides, workers being able to purchase more will contribute to the economy’s growth. Employers will profit more from higher workers' salaries. A fair market of work would economically benefit all.
Capitalism has spent much energy on developing the consumer mentality, which is unnecessary. It also established an egotistical character trait in people, which is wrong. People today already have a higher standard of living than kings had in the Middle Ages. The kings did not have cars, phones, the Internet, modern medicine, or international food, among other things. Should people not be more satisfied with their lives today than kings in the Middle Ages? Are they? Hardly. Firstly, satisfaction does not depend solely on wealth. Secondly, the system in which people live today does not provide them with enough security, causing them to live in fear. The solidarity coming from a shortening of work hours will eliminate this fear. Only free people can discover what kind of life is best for them.
The conspiracy of the rich prevents a better capitalism
Nothing presented so far is rocket science. Shorter work hours are even a natural solution in the developed automation processes. Why has no one offered and fought for shorter work hours so far? The reason is that wealthy individuals have prevented every idea that might bring justice to society. The rich are supposed to take the main financial burden of increasing workers' salaries, which they do not like. However, there is worse than that. The wealthy people rule over workers by instilling fear of their existence. The less independent workers, the more power the rich have over them. Eliminating the fear of unemployment by shorter work hours means eliminating the power of rich people, and this is the worst thing that can happen to them. The rich have leveraged their influence in policy, science, and media to prevent progressive ideas, such as shorter work hours, from emerging.
On the other side, to secure privileges, the rich have helped support ideas that cannot improve society. For example, they supported the philosophy of Karl Marx. Karl Marx accurately defined capitalism and its contradictions. He recognized the problem with the exploitation of workers. He believed that the issues of capitalism could only be solved through the revolution and confiscation of private property.
The work of Karl Marx has received tremendous attention, which would not be possible without the approval of the elite. Violent revolutions are not allowed anywhere. In normal circumstances, every government would prohibit Marx's revolutionary theory. Marxists would not be able to participate in political elections. Neither would they be able to teach Marxism at universities and get media support. Why do the rich help the Marxist ideology, which promotes the violent confiscation of their property? The elite knew that they could keep domestic Marxism under control, which they did. They also saw Marxism as an excellent opportunity to inspire revolutions that overthrew non-cooperative leaders in non-cooperative countries. The first victim of Marxism was Russia in 1917. The elite are masters of deception. People would be very much surprised by the scope of their fraud if it could be easily identified. Their recent deceit is presented in the article "The Conspiracy of the World Exposed."
The rich knew in advance that Marxism had severe flaws and could not replace capitalism. History has proven it. Karl Marx's philosophy also prolonged the exploitation of workers. Marx's revolutionary theory diverted people from concluding that an escape from workers' exploitation lies in shorter work hours. That is why Marxism deserved a significant presence in science, media, and, consequently, in the hearts of Marxists.
If one searches for the "theory of alienation" on Google, only Karl Marx's theory appears, as other alienation theories do not exist at the political and economic levels. The question is, why? What is so incredible in Marx's statement that workers get alienated from their labour products, which alienates them from themselves? Why do other theories of alienation not exist? Marx's theory of alienation does not hold much weight because everyone who produces something becomes alienated from the product when they sell or exchange it. The rich support useless theories because they prevent the development of society. However, the elite do not allow the critical theories of alienation to appear publicly because such ideas may challenge their power.
The elite have deceived Marxists into putting the Left on the wrong path, which cannot solve the problems of capitalism and improve society. Most Marxists accepted Marx's ideology when they were young. Youthful rebellion, fueled by dissatisfaction and injustice in the world, and the tremendous support for Marx's philosophy, made the youth easy prey for manipulation. The rich have hidden the cause of workers' exploitation and promoted Marx's revolutionary philosophy to avoid finding the right solution to exploitation. Marx made revolution romantically desirable and scientifically acceptable. People acknowledged it through the study of his excessive work. By supporting Karl Marx, the wealthy have effectively prevented the establishment of a better society.
Now, capitalists know they cannot cheat people by supporting socialist revolutions and a planned economy anymore. However, they do not abandon Marxism because many people are romantically and emotionally connected to Karl Marx. Marxists acknowledge the shortcomings of Marxism, yet they continue to seek the most effective way to apply Marx's philosophy. Once people accept Marxism, they can hardly change their opinion, especially if a simple idea like shorter work hours contradicts it. When confronted with the facts, Marxists do not accept the possibility that they have been deceived; as Mark Twain suggested, "it is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." With the help of the rich, Marxists gained a strong influence on the political Left, and by promoting an ideology that does not work, they ultimately helped the rich.
The main point is, why would we need a socialist revolution when the exploitation of workers can be removed by shorter work hours? It is simpler and more rational to fight for shorter work hours than to ignite a revolution and completely change the production process. It appears that Marx's revolutionary theory was not sufficiently scientific.
***
On the other hand, if Karl Marx had proposed reducing working hours instead of revolution, the elite would have prevented his ideas from reaching the people, and hardly anyone would have known that Karl Marx ever existed. The elite would block him much more easily in his time than they can today with the aid of information technology. However, even today, the wealthy remain highly successful in preventing progressive ideas by leveraging their influence in policy, science, and the media.
I am living proof of it. I have dedicated ten years to defining a bright future for humankind. He presented his findings in the scientific book "Humanism - A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of the Society." This book defines the foundation of the political economy of socialism and the ethical philosophy based on equal human rights. Together, they define the bright future of humankind.
The book Humanism is based on an original theory of alienation. It states that “subjectivity alienates us from objective reality.” It starts with the psychology of alienation and expands to the sociology of alienation. I presented it more in the article The Process of Alienation. Subjectivity leads us down the wrong path, preventing us from forming and satisfying our objective needs. Unsatisfied needs are the leading cause of dissatisfaction and social decay. The escape from the alienation and problems of humankind lies in building an objective vision of reality. Democratic acceptance of equal human rights will make it happen. Nothing more is needed to build a good social life, and nothing less can achieve it. The implementation of equal human rights will address social problems and pave the way for a brighter future for humankind. I wrote more about it in the article Equal Human Rights will Build a Good Society Unconditionally.
Under the influence and pressure of the elite, the social sciences have not considered my philosophy. He had vast difficulties in publishing his writings anywhere. His work is invisible to the world and cannot contribute to the betterment of humankind. As a leading force on the left, Marxists have a problem accepting new left ideas that reject Marx's theory of social improvement. They have refused to consider my work, which would have led to a better future for society. By supporting Karl Marx, the rich have successfully prevented a bright future for humankind for more than 100 years, and continue to do so. I wrote more about this in the article Marx Still Prevents the Progress of Society.
The rich cannot hide the truth forever. It will break through one day. Then people will accept the benefits of full employment and request shorter work hours. This will serve as the starting point for achieving equal human rights and building a brighter future for humankind. Accepting shorter work hours will create good capitalism. Of course, the rich will resist it, but they cannot win against a united people who know what they want.
***
The main lesson of this article is not only about how easily we can solve society's economic problems, but also why it is so difficult to do so. This article was submitted to left-wing journals in the Western world, but none of them wanted to publish it. The reason is that the editors are indoctrinated with the knowledge they acquired through the system of education, like anybody else, and can hardly see the truth. If they see it, they ignore it while pretending to represent the interests of the deprived. They must be either controlled or financially supported by the elite and refrain from publishing new ideas that may challenge the elite's power. No wonder humankind cannot improve.