Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormieweather
Is your assumption that the unemployed accountant won't be able to find work, so he'll "innovate" and "create" and make some sort of opportunity for a new job?
|
That is one of over 100 different possibilities. After all, accountants are overhead. Do not produce a product. Less accountants needed in the world means a more productive world.
So how does an accountant handle more properties? Well, in the 1900s, we invented telephones. Suddenly the accountant could do most work from his desk. Not constantly travel the factory or streets to do his job. Innovation. The reason a job that once took four accountants now takes three? Innovation. The accountant is empowered to do less labor while managing more properties.
Why are banks adding service charges? They will not innovate. Banks have the same people doing the same job. And must now soak customers via service charges because they still using the same number of people. Are harmful to the economy.
It the accountant goes broke or destitute, then he is not the type of person that free market economics empowers. He should be moving on from accounting to something more productive. To take his accounting experience with him to a new job in another company. Or create a business. That never happens when jobs are done with the same people every year.
Meanwhile, bean counters at Exxon decided to do the work with less people. Their shipping division reduced employees from 180,000 to 80,000 in a decade. While not implementing necessary innovations. As a result, an exhausted crew eventually crashed the Exxon Valdez onto rocks. That happens when productivity is generated by spread sheets and bean counters. Not by people who come from where the work gets done.
If an accountant could only handle 7-8 properties ten years ago and can only handle 7-8 properties today, then the company may be approaching bankruptcy. Innovations were not implemented due to a business school 'cost control' mentality. A greatest impediment to innovation is management that does not come from where the work gets done. That, instead, comes from business schools.
GM once proudly announced that every part in a car was made and assembled in 120 man-hours. Meanwhile, Toyota and Honda were doing it in 60 man-hours. Why were the latter more reliable, cost less, and superior? Because latter manufacturers innovated. Therefore were the patriotic companies that America needed.
GM later announced they had gotten their man-hours down to 70. Meanwhile Honda and Toyota were believed to have been building and assembling every part in only 30 man-hours. Therefore GM (many decades ago) was obviously headed for bankruptcy (as I was so blunt about that long ago). Because GM was unproductive. They assembled a car with too many people. Then blamed unions for not working hard enough. Unions did not stifle innovation. Only reason for failure was top management - who did not even have driver's licenses.
You don't become productive by dumping more work on each employee - as business school graduates assume. Innovate so that each employee does more work using less labor. That, BTW, was the lesson from William Edward Deming's famous bead experiment. Now located in the Smithsonian.
That lesson was also from Frederick Winslow Taylor in the 1910s. By simply empowering workers with knowledge, then two men who once took eight hours to load scrap steel in a rail car, instead, did the job in only two hours. By simply taking breaks at specific times. Another example of innovation.
Jobs are only created only when existing work is done with less people every year.