Main Site | Join Robin Hood Coop | Projects | Events | Blog | Media | Forums | Mailing List | Twitter | Facebook

Global 12 hour working day rule - why not?

Work is becoming increasingly scarce because of automation, robots are doing work instead of humans and automation is increased throughout society in place of human workers. Then unemployment rises. Those who have work, work overtime and then get tired of the burden. Only solution is to dived work, but how? The french and german 6 hour models try maintain salary level of 8 hour work in 6 work day, and are expensive to state because state of France and Germany pay extra money to employer to compensate losses (dozens of billions of euros each year). But it is utopistic to demand that employer should pay 6 hours the same as 8 hours, so it is not gonna happen. What is only solution? To divide worktime. Model of 20% worktime given to other (otherwise unemployed) worker is in very limited use in Finland, and results are mixed, some voluntarely change 20% of their salary to extra free time, others not. But how about 12 hour working day? 12 hour day is same as 6 hour day but now only 6 months in a year is worktime, 6 months is leisure time. Now salary is only 75%, but instead of about 1 month leave there is 6 months free time in a year, spread perhaps one day 12 hours work, second day free, third day work, fourth day free etc. and one or two months longer leave and similarly inceased working days in working months (so two days work, one day holiday in limited time) to compensate. 25% of salary is exchanged to 6 months avarage free time and increased working day of 12 hours in avarage 6 months in a year. 12 hour working day can have two 10 minute tea breaks and one 20 minute lunch, total 12 hours 40 minutes, not 9 hours total time like 8 hour working day. Workplaces are “marked” so when for example worker is using some machine 8 hours a day for a year, if now employer uses 12 hour 6 months working time and then uses this new 6 month empty time to hire other worker to do job for those other 6 months (or days when the other workes is not working, in day in day out sheme), employer must pay overwork payment for this extra working time like the machine is used in 8 hour working day / year shift. This is because worker must get the same salary per working hour as normal 8 hour worker per workhours per year. That overtime payment is shared between those two workers working in that one machine in same year. Trade unions can however decide if they give employer opportunity to hire two workers in the place of one in 12 hour days per year work without overtime payment (each worker works 6 months). This even if employer has hired only people who are not in trade union. Final decision is so made by trade union, not employer if work terms violates 8 hour working day / year laws of worktime. Each employer are treated individually by trade union, and in limited time, and situation revaluated then again. Now when each workplace is shared between two workers, two times workers are needed than are working today. Even if employer does not hire people for extra work, employer must hire more workforce because that one worker of global 12 hour/6 month rule works 75% of normal 8 hour worker, 25% more workforce is needed. So unemployment disappears, because there is very few countries with more than 25% unemployment rate. Unemployment benefits are not needed anymore, and when people can have job anytime all those negative aspects of unemployment, like increased crime rates, drug dealers in the streets, cost of putting large amount of population to prisons etc. would disappear. When employment is 100% guaranteed continuous refusing to accept work offers can be punished under criminal law, criminals now must go to “real work”. No unemployment benefits anymore, no paid holidays either, money from them can be given to emplyers of 12 hour / 6 month shift as extra salary like french / german model does for 6 hour work, money from discontinued unemployed benefits comes from state, discontinued holiday payments money from employer, divided between two workers if two workers are in same workplace instead of one 8 hour / year worker. No maternity leave money either, if someone goes to maternity leave for 6 months or more, that is her normal holiday shift, someone else is doing work in her place, when she returns to work that someone else leaves for 6 months or more holiday. Maternity leave money is shared between workers of the firm (employer must pay maternity leave money like normal in normal maternity leave, but now this money is shared between every employer of the firm, including men), or then statistical values how much women take maternity leave in each year are used, and every employer pay according to this statistical median value maternity value wages, but money is shared between every worker of the country. No paid day care for children either, one of two parents is in home always, so no extra day care for children are needed, single persons are exception. If a couple are using work shifts that makes possible always one of them to stay at home, normal children day care benefits can be paid directly to that family, not for children day care unit. So no unemployment benefits, paid holidays, children day care costs or maternity leave payments, instead money is paid in cash to workers directly. Altough 12 hour / 6 month shift makes only 75% of wages of 8 hours / year shift, this extra money compensates losses, and now people have 6 months of leisure time in a year. Best deal of the century. This 12 hour / 6 month working time can be made to global working day law like now 8 hours are used globally. In poor countries there are less extra benefits for workers, and wages are small. But still almost 100% employment would help enormously, if looking at crime rates of south america etc. when drug dealers and criminals are away from streets (doing work). And in poor countries usually only one person in family has a job, now can two persons in family have job in some cases, altough wage is 75% of normal 8 hour / year salary. In high paid white collar jobs this divided work scheme does not bring any significant decrease of living standards. So 12 hour / 6 month model brings 25% more jobs, or perhaps even more. Other models can be used: 10 hour / 6 months when two persons share one job, employer must give 1,25 times working time if two persons are using the same workplace instead of one 8 hour / year worker. That 25% extra worktime is paid according to overtime work payment or then just ordinary payment used, so overtime when compared to 8 hour working time is not paid, but again trade union can decide which of the two options are used, even in the case that employer has not any worker that is member of trade union. When employer cannot offer 1,25 times more work compared to one 8 hour / year workplace, those two workers must take extra leave. Also now wage is only 62,5% of normal 8 hour wage, so those costs that are paid as extra to salary, like pension and sick-leave payments must be reconsidered and instead of some sick-leave or pension payments they are paid in cash directly to worker. So social security payment share of sum that employer pays for worker are less than before, worker gets money from them directly as salary. And then 12 hour day / four month year scheme. This is simplest of them all, it is simple 8 hour day split in two and then 4 hours increased to 12 hours, only 4 months work in a year, 8 months is leisure time. Because this model is derivate of 8 hour model, overtime payments etc. can be simply exactly similar as 8 hour model / year, but now worktime is not a year but only 4 months per year. Two workers in same workplace doing same work as one 8 hour / year person, now wage of those two workers is only 50% of that one 8 hour worker. In Finland extra payments of employers reach about 1,8 times of salary or even higher, in some cases even 2 or 2,2 so when employer pays to worker 9000 euros, actually worker gets 5000 euros only, 4000 euros goes to pensions, sick-leave payments, paid holidays etc. if ratio is 1,8. Some of this extra money, 4000 euros per month, can be given to worker directly as salary and less to social benefits. This compensates low salary of shared workplace. In 12 hour / 50% / four months work during year model: 1,8 (social security wage ratio) X 0,5 = 0,9. Then 0,9:0,74 = about 1,22. Now salary is 74% compared to 8 hour / year worker, and social benefit ratio per wage is 1,22 which is small but enough for pension etc. Then 63% worktime of 10 hour model X 1,8 = about 115% salary without social security benefits. With 83% salary compared to normal 8 hours worker, social security payments are 1,4 ratio (115:0,83=1,4 about). And worker still gets extra money from state compensations that come from discontinued employment benefits avarages and maternity leaves and child care etc. discontinuation compensations and more extra money from employer from discontued paid holidays. Two workers are having 5/6th of salary of one person doing normal 8 hours / year job, plus additional extra money mentioned earlier. Those models of shared work now look interesting. If employer pays those 1,25 times worktime with overtime payments in 10 hours model, so 25 % of worktime is paid with 56% overtime payment (in this case overtime payment is 56%, I just take an example), so 25% overtime becomes 40% payment (1,56 X 25 = about 40%). Finnish social benefits to wages 1,8 times model are used. 1,4 X 1,8 =2,52. Divided in two = 1,26. If 92% wage of normal 8 hour worker is used, wage to social benefit ratio is almost 1,37 (1,26:0,92= 1,37). Two workers share one job. It is also possible even 12 hour / three month a year model, now three worker shares one 8 hour / year workplace and gets 37,5% of salary of normal 8 hour / year worker, 1,8 times that is 63% (social benefit payments from employer), when combined worktime is 112,5% if 12,5% is overtime paid salary is 72%. If only 3% goes to social benefits such as sick-leave or other, no pensions because there is no money to pay for them), that is about 4-5% of salary to social benefit ratio if about 70% or 65% is wage compared to 8 hour worker instead of regular 80% or 1,8 wage / social benefit extra ratio in Finland (about 73:70= 1,04 and 68:65= 1,05). So worker gets only 70% or 65% of salary compared to 8 hour worker, but worktime is only 3 month / year, 12 hour / day, and if worker wants pension he must himself donate from his small salary to his personal pension fund. But leisure time is more than enough and worker gets compensation money from state and employer according to aforementioned things. And now one workplace can be shared between three workers instead of one. White collar jobs and other high paid jobs can be divided between three workers, they have such high salary that this 70 or 65% rate without any significant social benefits does not affect their lifestyle. 100% is ordinary 8 hour year model. Also “overtime” (overtime work) here means overtime always compared to 8 hours / year model. Working hours are counted in yearly basis, not by day, so 12 hour / day is possible workers to do if they have for example deal that three workers share the same vacancy, but they work only three months each during year. This is 37,5% salary model, if ratio of salary (1) + social benefits (pensions + sick-leave payments etc.) is 1,8 like in finland, employer must pay 1,8 times salary to worker which worker gets 1 (100%) and other 80% (1,8 ratio) goes to extra benefits (pension, social security payments etc.). When only about 5% goes to them, even one job shared with three workers is able to reach about 70% salary for each of them three (70% of 8 hour / year model salary for one worker only). But overtime work is ALWAYS meaning overtime according to 8 hours / year level, altough worktime is shared everything must be compared to normal 8 hour model, and paid to worker according to workhours per year of 8 hours model. Workhours are counted yearly basis and compared to normal 8 hours five days a week model. 12 hour 6 months (actually in 8 hour model one month is holiday in a year, so actual worktime must be 12 hours / less than 6 months work / five days a week avarage) makes 75% of yearly salary of normal 8 hour model. But if 1,8 is ratio of wage / pension and social benefits, now 1,8 X 0,75 = 1,35 wage level. If worker gets 92% of normal 8 hour salary level, he gets 1,47 wage / social benefit ratio (1,35: 0,92), that is enough. Restrictions of sick-leave payments must be made, and if worker gets so sick he cannot work and must take pension, that money is now limited. But pensions are in normal level. Also wage is better to split through year, so holidays are paid, altough I peviously proposed that no paid holidays. When wage is spread through year taxation is lower. So wage level is 11/12th of normal 8 hour work spread evenly through year, every month worker gets paid, working hours are only 75% of normal 8 hour yearly work. That 12 hour / about 6 month month model can be made to global standard. Employers are forced to hire 25% more workforce globally. In poor countries both wage and social benefits are small, but overcoming unemployment is better (crimes, street gangs, drug traffic by enemployed people) altough now already small salary per worker is even smaller (about 25% smaller). Also employer must always pay for overtime work according to overtime work law if working hours are more in yearly basis than normal 8 hour / year model, so that people in poor countries are properly paid. 10 hour model is 62,5% worktime compared to 8 hour year, two people in one job, worktime 125% compared to 8 hours model, employer pays 25% overtime wage, overtime wage ratio 1,56, so 25 X 1,56= 40%, 1,4 X 1,8 (social benefit wage ratio), end result = 2,52 . Diveded by two workers= 1,26. If wage is 92% of 8 hour model, 1,26 : 0,92 = 1,37 wage to social benefit ratio in use, enough, so 11/12th salary for two workers instead of one worker. Even without overtime payment for 25% “overtime” but normal wage for this 25% overtime work compared to 8 hour model, and 83% salary level compared to 8 hour model, it is still about 1,4 times wage / benefits. So two workers get both 11/12th or 5/6th of wage of one worker (normal 8 hour year worker) in same job, and almost same social benefit level, this is the “magic model”. If employer has no work to offer 25% “overtime” and workers must stay to 100% workhours level or same as one worker of 8 hours, and those two workers must take extra leave instead of work this conceptual 25% “overwork” time, this is not magic model anymore but bad model for those two workers. Other and simple model is 12 hours / about 4 months, worktime 50% of 8 hour model in yearly basis, 1,8 X 0,5 = 0,9, if salary is 74% social benefits are 1,22 level, enough but perhaps small (0,9 : 0,74 = 1,22). Pension / wage level is about 1,16 to 1,22 or 1,25 in Finland so pensions are still almost normal level, if salary for two persons each is 74% of one person in the same vacancy doing 8 hours / year. Accoding to work available workers can shift between 10 hour/ 6 month “magic model” and 12 hour / 4 month model through year, when overtime work is not available they have to do 12 hour but only 50% avarage workhours in year model in some months, if employer gets large order of some product two workers shift to 10 hour 62,5% workhours a year with “overtime” work (compared to normal one worker 8 hour workhours per year model in one job, so 8 hour / year worker does 100% workhours, this is the base and those other two workhour levels, 50% and 62,5% are compared to this, two workers in one job so 100% and 125% workhours). Overtime is here always meaning overtime compared to normal 8 hour / year yearly avarage workhours, and if normal 8 hour model workhours per year level is surpassed, employer pays overtime work payment whatever shared work model is in use (but perhaps trade unions can give permission to firm which is in bad shape to use 10 hour model 25% “overtime” with normal salary without extra overtime payments, in limited time when firm recovers). Main point is that everyone can make their own shared work models, only calculator and basic information of wages and social benefits (pensions etc.) / wage level is needed. If someone is a mathematician he can make optimized shared work / wokhours / year models. But everyone everywhere can make these shared work models, in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Brazil, Poland, Russia etc. Everyone everywhere, is anybody reading this? If my writing was messy you can figure out your own models of shared work, one model where work shared by 0,25 level (Worker does only 75% workhours of normal 8 hour year model, my 12 hour / 6 month model, actually 12 hours / less than 6 month work because one month holiday in 8 hour model must be counted), then other model where one work shared by two persons, and then one work shared even between three persons. What are the results? If worktime of these models get more workhours per year than 8 hour / year workhours workers should be paid for this yearly workhours “overtime” using standard overwork law (with some exceptions I wrote before). In Finland overwork is about 50% extra wage, I use 56%, and sunday work 100% extra wage. If work is done in sundays this 100% extra rule is in shared models also. 10 hour / 62,5% model has same system 12 hour / 75%, workdays are just shorter. 12 hour / 50% model has only about 4 months worktime during year (if five day working week statistical avarage is used in calculations), so even more spare time. Those 75%, 62,5% and 50% are workhours per year compared to normal 8 hours / year 100% model. It should be noted in 10 hour / 62,5% model that combined worktime of two workers is 125% compared to one 8 hour/ year worker, so those two workers must be paid for their “overwork”, that percentage which goes over 50%, so 62,5% model has 12,5% section that is paid 56% higher wage (ratio 1,56) which is overwork payment rate about in Finland. Trade unions can offer some firm possibility that this “overwork” is paid according to normal wage, not extra 56%, if firm is in bad shape. In high GDP countries like Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, Norway etc. Finland has not so high GDP when counting GDP (PPP). How about dividing one job between three workers? It can be done in Finland also, altough Finland has less GDP than aforementioned, almost every job in Finland can be divided between three workers if pension/social benefit ratio is 1,8 to wages, every 100% that worker earns other 80% goes to social security payments, and so employer must pay 180% for worker and worker gets only about half of that money, other goes to pension, sick-leave funds, paid holidays etc. Mathematician can calculate different shared work models where overtime work (of workhours compared to normal 8 hours / year), social benefit payment rate, and workhours of shared work together taken concern and then building different optimal “magical models” of highly optimized shared worktime can be done. For different countries, and two or three persons for one job models, and global 12 hour / about 6 month model where 75% of worktime is instead normal 8 hour model. What is cost to employer for using these shared work models? The cost is NOTHING. Employer pays exactly same as one person doing the same job. In 62,5%/10 hours model 25% overwork time is counted, but cost is same as one person doing 25% overtime. And trade unions can grant permission for employer to use normal wage for this overwork time so actually employer sometimes pay LESS wage than using normal one person / 8 hour worker through year. What are the cost to pension payments if shared work is used? The cost is almost NOTHING. In Finland pensions are about 16% - 22% per wage so 1,16 -1,22 ratio. Those shared models where two people share same job reach same levels or are even about 1,4 rate, so no difficulties. When two person share same job their wage is smaller and this pension rate adapts to that. Some slight downward correction must be made, but government of Finland has stated that pensions are too high in Finland and must be downgraded in the future, so if work is shared this slight correction can be done in shared work pension models. Even three person can have same job. Trying to improve three worker model: 12 hours three months avarage worktime is 37,5 compared to 8 hour model. If slightly upwards 38,5% worktime 3X that is 115,5%. 16% overwork time wirh 1,56 times extra payment is 25%. Now 125% payment X 1,8 social security benefits is 2,25. 0,75 or 75% for one of three workers. 75% : 68,5% = 1,1 about. About 70% wage for each of three workers with only 1,1 pension / social security ratio. It is not much pension but about 60% pension if about 9% from wage goes to pension not 16%, one percent goes to other social security. However in Finland some professions have between 1,8 -2,0 social security payment ratio and some even 2,2 and even 2,25 is mentioned. 2,2 X 1,25 is 2,75, shared between three is 0,92, then 0,92 : 0,79 is 1,17 ratio about. So wage is about 80% with 1,17 social security ratio. 2 X 1,25 is 2,5. Divided in three is 0,84. 0,84 : 0,71 = 1,185 social security ratio. 0,71 or 71% is 5/7th of wage of normal 100% / 8 hour worker, and social security level is best of those three workers in one job models. So one job can be divided between three workers and still have some pension and social security. Even more is possible if same 25% “overwork” that is in use in 10 hour model is used. 25% X 1,56 = 1,4 about. 1,4 X 1,8 = 2,52. This is the same model as 0,84 : 0,71 or 71% wage and 1,18 -1,19 social security level. 2 X 1,4 = 2,8. Shared in three 0,94, then 0,94 : 0,8 = 1,18. So 80% wage 1,18 social security ratio. 2,2 X 1,4 = 3,08. shared in three 1,03, then 1,03 : 0,87 = 1,18 -1,19 social security level, now wage is 87% or 7/8th of normal 100% 8 hour one worker in job level, about 1,19 social security ratio, but now there is three workers in one job and each of those three earn 7/8th of one worker that works 8 hours a year. NO EXTRA COST TO EMPLOYER, payments from employer to worker(s) for this job is exactly the same as one person doing he same workhours, altough there are now three workers doing the same workhours as one person in 8 hour / year work would do and these three workers share this one man s job (8 hour day / year). Have anybody ever counted how much unemployment cost to society in crimes, alcoholism and sickness etc.? In my personal observation unemployed people are source of almost all misbehaviour. There is also huge welfare system with unemployment benefits etc., designed to help unemployed. All this can be discontinued when 100% employment rate is achieved, and this saved money given to people who share their job as compensation, low wage jobs are targeted to main benefiaciry of this compensation system, high paid shared jobs less or not all compensation by state. If person does not accept job after several job offers, his housing benefits are stopped if he has any, and if this person still refuses to go work he can be send to jail. Refusing to accept job can be made a crime. Because there are plenty of jobs available anytime, jobs that only are waiting to be shared. Universities everywhere in the world and higher education institutions can now triple their student amount, because every highly paid expert job is shared by three workers. Tragedy of western world is that we have highly efficient educating system for expert jobs, universities etc., but only limited amount of jobs for these experts. So highly trained experts from unversities go straight to unemployment line everywhere. But now every white collar job can be shared with three workers. Number of “better people” in the society triples suddenly. Low wage jobs can be done by foreigners from poor countries, where extreme poverty is affecting 766 million people, living with 1,25 -1,9 dollar a day, and some of them ultra poverty, 0,59 - 0,55 dollar per day. Now jobs are available in westen countries. Local inhabitants in western countries can go to better high paid jobs which are shared like every job in western world in the future. However not everyone is forced to take job in shared work society, women who live in registered relationship or live in someone else s apartment, or are married, or are supported by their parents, or are wealthy (fortune by heritage etc.) and who have no profession or job are free of that “forced labour” rule that everyone must have job. However this privilegy is only for women, not for men, every adult men must have work if they are not disabled. If they are disabled all health related benefits are so small in shared work society (because there is no much money left for sickness social security benefits, that money is dispersed through every salary) that nobody wants to be put into disbaled person category, because they receive little if any financial support from society. Every men must have job because of crime rates in south america and USA. If there is oppurtunity that men could avoid work, criminals would use it. Of course criminals under this forced labour rule would all become “businessmen”. But they must register their firms, so their “business” can be observed and regulated that way. Not only white collar work, also blue collar work has many high paid expert jobs, because blue collar workers work in their hands even without much education, not even high education is needed to high paid shared work for people. That extreme situation where 2,25 ratio is wage / social security was a blue collar work, construction worker specialist or something like that who had 8000 euro salary but employer must pay 18 000 euros for his job because of extra benefits, so employer pays him 18 000 euros per month but worker receives only 8000 euros of it. Those jobs can easily shared between three workers when that ratio is radically moved towards more salary and less social security benefits and extra bonuses like paid holidays etc. So even blue collar work can offer oppurtunity to social rise and prestige to masses if those works are shared. Perhaps the driving force behind crime in western world is the lack of social prestige, not so mch poverty. People see that they have no oppurtunity for social rise and become criminals to get respect, if social rise is offered to them in the form of respected professions open to all, they might choose that profession instead of criminal life to get social prestige. So shared work would help to lessen crime rates radically. Basically there would be no working class anymore, everyone becomes bourgois in respected white or blue collar work, everyone becomes “better people” and traditional working class disappears. In the case of three people sharing one work in 12 hour working day only 3 months in a year is work (avarage working days per year) and 9 months is leisure time. So every person lives in holiday from cradle to grave and does work only in 1/4th of working time of his/her life, if work is shared between three people. This would be real worker s paradise and almost utopia on earth, the same utopia that Marx and every utopist have ever dreamed. And high prestige and respected jobs are open to enyone, both white collar and also blue collar jobs. But who do the jobs that nobobody wants to do? Foreign immigrants collected from poorest countries of the world, who would otherwise live in extreme poverty. So working class still exists, but that working class is foreign immigrants. How much foreign immigrants are needed if almost any job in the society is shared between three people, and some low wage jobs between two people? A lot. European union can collect 1000 million new people to do new jobs, population increases from 500 to 1500 million. USA can increase from 340 million (329 million + 11 million illegal immigrants) to 1000 million people of which 660 million new people, Canada future population 115 million, Japan 400 million, South Korea 150 million, Australia 75 million. These new inhabitants are people who otherwise live in extreme poverty in third world. If in some country exteme poverty is over 50% of population only 50% is the maximum of any country s population ferried overseas. How to build infrastructure for all those immigrants? Answer is simple, it is not needed. They can build their shaky huts in forests and wastelands, they can live in empty industrial halls, or even in sport arenas, only stay out when there are sport events and come back again. For them to have decent housing can be long term project that lasts up to 50 years, modern consruction technoloy can build cheap blockhouses cheaply and fast. Population growth can be blocked using simply thing: if new immigrants have more than two children that family is deported back to where they come. This even if this family has gained citizenship of some western nation. Simple. If some immigrant woman gives birth of three children, this woman and his children, and his husband or partner if he has one, are deported. So there is no poverty in the world anymore and also population growth problem of the world is solved in the extreme poverty areas, where population growth must be regulated most. So two problems solved in one solution, and that new population also solves workforce problem of western world where almost every job is shared between three people, so three problems solved in same time. Marx in his wildest dreams never dreamed this kind of workers paradise where only 1/4 worktime (days) in five day working week in year (three months) is enough to decent and good living. End result is that western world will be “americanised”, every large western city is surrounded by large ring of favelas or shanty towns occupied by immigrants, like in south america. But people of those favelas have much higher paid jobs than in their home countries, and live in western welfare, altough their housing and infrastructure is much less than people living in cities proper. And western world is americanised also that way that there is not much money left for public health care anymore, if every work is divided between three people and some kind of pension remains, health insurance is first to go. So this paradise-like society comes with a catch: sick people must be left for their own, because there is no money anymore for sick-leave, and if he becomes so sick he cannot work and needs pension due to sickness, that pension is no more. All kinds of public health care faces great problems because money is short to support them. So if unemployed people are now outcasts of society then in that future worker s paradise sick people are outcasts. But that is reality in USA already now and has been always. So western world will be “americanised” that way also. In USA if shared work becomes reality, even private health insurances almost disappear, because money from them is needed in shared salary between workers when workhours in shared work are much less than one person doing 8 hours / year. Middle class workers would not have private health insurances anymore, that money is given away in salary. Only rich millionaires have then salary high enough to buy private health insurance. So about 95% or more of USA population drop to situation where they have not health insurance of any kind. But that is the price of shared work workers paradise in the USA. Other western world with comprehensive public health care, some form of public health care remains, but if person becomes sick he must himself pay much higher portion of his medical treatment than nowadays, and such things like sick-leave payments are in the past.

Hi there, this is possibly very interesting but would you mind structuring the text a bit better as it is nigh on impossible to read and understand when everything is bunched together.

Thanks for understanding and look forward to reading more of your contributions in future!

Other possibility if aim is to prevent immigration population growth, they often have many children when they arrive. If one family has 4 children, rule can be that when those 4 children grow up, they are allowed only to have one children, so that population growth / workforce parity remains. When this family of 2 parents and 4 children arrives, shared jobs are destined for them 2 open jobs now (parents) and later 4 jobs (children, when they grow up). This immigrant family is given 2 shared jobs now and 4 jobs years later, when their children grow up and parents themselves leave for pension. Parents can give up their workplaces to their children when they grow up, how is pension etc. organized in this case I don t know. Another way to control immigration population growth is forbide immigrant people to have more than 2 children altough they have gained citizenship. Time limit may be 60 years back, so every family lineage which has come outside EU and gained cizenship in some EU nation after year 1958, is limited to two children family in the future after this law becomes reality. There are several generations of immigrants that have gained citizenship in some EU nation (dozens of milions such immigrants), so no matter that their grandfather get citizeship, he got it after 1958 everyone in this family lineage must obey this law. If someone in this family lineage gives birth to three children or becomes biological father of three children, he / she and spouse and children are deported back to country from where grandfather once leave for EU nation. Also if someone have criminal record in this family lineage after 1958, this person can be deported. EU gets rid off criminals that have EU citizenship but are non-EU background, and immigrant population growth. Such laws can be applied in situation when shared work becomes reality and millions of new immigrants are needed in western countries to do shared work jobs. Time limit is 1958 in this example, and goes forever, so every family lineage that has come outside EU borders and gained citizenship after 1958, are under this law, their childern, children s children etc. to the end of time. This is the way to control immigrant based crime and population growth. If criminal has citizenship like his father and grandfather also, but his granfather got it after 1958, this criminal can be deported back to his grandfather s country. Is work sharing where three person do one man s job possible? I found this information: in Finland ratio of wage / other costs to employer (pension, social security like sic-leave and maternity payments) is between 1,57 - 2,2, and statistical median is 1,74. But almost universally employers in Finland consider 1,8 ratio for wage and extra payments be truthful. Altough only 1,25 - 1,28 /1,32 about rate is enough for pension and most important social security, avarage sick-leave payments, paid holidays, extra paid holidays (called Pekkaspäivät), maternity leave payments etc. make up the rest of cost. Is it possible to share work in three if ratio is 1,7? Three month / 12 hour workday model per year. Actally even less than hree month work is needed because every year of normal 8 hour day work has one month holiday. Shared worktime 37,5% compared to 8 hour / year. Trying to get slightly better 38,5% worktime, 3 X = 115,5%. So about 15% “overwork” employer must offer compare to 8 hour model. Employer not necessiraly pay overwork payment for this “overwork” but normal wage if trade union accepts that. 1,7 X 38,5% = 0,66 about. Every calculation in this and in previous text is coarse estimation, I am trying to round numbers upward. 0,66 : 0,565 = 1,17. So wage is about 60% (actually 56,5%) of normal 8 hour worker and ratio 1,17 wage / pension and social securilty. 1,16 is enough for pension in Finland, in his case ratio can be 1,14, rest 0,03 goes to other social security. This is the minimal case, if employer pays for “overwork” or simply gives more work, to 125% workhours (shared between three workers) compared to one 8 hour worker, figures are more positive. Also governement can give compensation like discontinued unemployment benefits and children s day care benefit costs (only single mothers have right to children s day care in shared work society, in two parent family always one parent is in leave at home taking care of children) directly to wage, and aim these compensations to lower wages. If “overwork” is paid with overwork payment not just normal wage or worktime is 125% compared to 8 hour worker (8 hours / year means 100% level, like every %-level of worktime in my text is 100% for 8 hours / 11 month, and shared work can go about 15 - 25% more “overwork” worktime from that, wage is %-level compared to 8 hour model, always less than 100% wage because when work is shared / divided of course shared worktime worker gets less wage than one worker doing the job) even 1,6 ratio or minimal that is in Finland, is possible to share between three workers. So almost every job, from humble cleaner to rich businessman, is possible to share between three workers, so that decent salary and pension is possible, at least in Finland. But is it possible in other countries? Sharing one job between two workers is even more possible, and with good salary and pension and social security. No paid holidays naturally (when more than 9 months in working year is holiday already, three month working time payments can be spread evenly through year however so that every month worker gets wage of his less than three month / 12 hour day / five days a week job workhours, yearly basis this is 38,5% of one 8 hour worker, wage with 1,7 ratio of wage / pension etc. is 66% or 65,5% of one 8 hour worker year, now worker works only less than three months not 11, in 12 hour workdays, and is paid for those workhours only altough his salary runs through year when his three month wage is divided for 12 month period) and no sick-leave payments. Even public healthcare system can be retained in both two and three workers for each job models, but with increased level of own payments for medical treatments and medicines. If immigrant workers are accepted to do low wage shared work jobs, and hundreads of millions new immigrants are needed in western countries, perhaps poor countries in return can accept prisoners from western prisons as return. For example USA uses 63 billion dollar each year for prisons. That money could be saved if criminals do time in foreign prisons, for free. If exchange deal where western prisoners are changed for imigrant workforce- system is in use. No high cost for crime penalty to society anymore. Western criminals can be send to already overcrowded prisons of south america and africa. Of course hundreads of millions of new immigrants would be accepted in western countries in return. Instead of building wall against Mexico Trump should send american criminals to third world countries and accept immigrant flow from these countries to USA, 63 billion dollar saved each year, more than enough to cover costs of immigrant flow, if there are any. Every prison in USA can be closed. If foreign population is seen as threat to local culture it can be protected for example writing comprehensive constitution law where every aspect of society is written in constitution law, in every western country, and making this constitution time limit to forever, so it cannot be never changed again. Local population rights now preserved. Or simply limiting new immigrant population to below local population level. In maximum that would mean 51-52% majority for old population and 48-49% of new imigrant population to do low class shared jobs. When immigrant population growth is controlled by law it never exceeds 50% level. 40-45% of new immigrant population can be also and 55 -60% old local. Anyway population of western countries doubles almost overnight. No such things as infrastructure is needed in first phase, they can live in self-build huts so no rent to be paid to anybody, and no housing costs to society. It means large favela-type slums in western countries but those immigrants are used to bad housing conditions. New immigant population can be put in railway stock cattle cars and send to long journey to western countries. In return criminals from western world can be send to prisons in India, south asia, prison camps of China and North Korea, not just to south america or africa. Those new immigrants are people of otherwise living in extreme poverty and ultra powerty around the world. When they get their western destination and get job they are not even “poor” anymore, not even western standards. So if about 1000 million people of extreme poverty move to western countries as workforce, world poverty (or extreme poverty) is solved. If they live in selfbuild huts they don t need to pay rent, so actually are richer than western workers in same (shared) job. If one job is shared between three, worktime 126% compared to 8 hour model, 126 : 3= 42%, 0,42 X 1,7 = circa 72, 72% : 61,5 = 1,17. Salary about 2/3th of normal 8 hour worker (actually 61,5%), wage to social security 1,17 (wage is 1, pension and sickness security 0,17 that employer pay). 0,12 can be pension instead of 0,16 pension standard in Finland, only 75% of normal pension, but 0,05 goes to sickness etc. security. This same salary model goes for 38,5% X 3 = 115-116% worktime model, but now “overwork” is paid with normal overwork payment (56% or 1,56 extra), 1,56 X 16% = 25% about, so about 125-126% : 3 again = 0,42 again. When worktime is 125% and overwork paid: 25% X 1,56 = c.1,4. Then 1,4 : 3 = 0,47, then 0,47 X 1,7 = 0,8. 80% : 68,5 = 1,17. So wage is about 70% (actually 68,5%) of 8 hour model with 1,17 ratio. All this without state extra salary compensation for shared work. France and Germany are spending dozens of billions of euros each year for 6 hour workday compensation to 8 hour salary. So France and Germany are best places to start shared worktime model (one job shared between two or three people). In my examples there is 8 hour / 11 month job shared between three people, each of three workers work three month / year (about three months, this model has 8 hour / 12 months : 4 = 3 months, but one month is holiday in 8 hour model so actually less than 3 month work, or with “overwork” about 3 months) and 12 hour / day work in 5 day working week instead of 8 hour day. Worktime is 37,5% of normal 8 hour working year, and three workers 3 X 37,5% = 115,5% compared with 8 hour model. But I use 38,5% per worker to slightly improve wage. So rest of year, 9 months is just holiday in every working year. Not bad deal for slighly smaller wage and pension. And if ratio of wage / pension etc. gets higher than 1,7 (2,25 is maximum in Finland) figures are more positive. But in this shared model wage / pension etc ratio drops from 1,7 to 1,17. So less pension and other benefits. But 1,25 ratio in Finland is enough to maintain about normal pension and social security (sickness) levels, pension about 1,16 - 1,22 and other to other uses, 0,08 - 0,05 or even less needed to maintain sickness security (public healthcare system) in standard model without sick-leave payments (?). Everyone can build their own shared work models, only calculator is needed. In old tsarist russia prisoners were send to siberia (from Finland etc) and when their sentance was over they must stay in siberia either their whole life or certain amount of years. Such system would be good for criminals that are send to third world prisons. When their sentance is over they must stay in that country where their sentance was, in limited time, or some of them forever. In USA crime is not crime anymore but lifestyle of certain classes (blacks and latinos). If black prisoners would be send to african prisons and after their sentance is over they had to stay in that african country certain time before returning to USA, and latinos in south american prisons and then they must stay in that south american country some years before allowed return to states, that would help bring crime rates down in USA also. That in such situation when hundreads of millions of new immigrants can go to USA for shared work. Sharing work between two people is easy, 1,8 ratio of wage / pension etc. is 0,9 when shared. 90% : 77 = 1,17, so wage is now 77% (7/9th) of two worker doing the job of one, but wage to pension etc. ratio is 1,17 not 1,8. If ratio is 1,7 then 85% : 71 = 1,2. Two workers each get 71% (5/7th) of one worker salary but wage to pension etc. ratio 1,2 which is quite good (in shared work models). If ratio is over 1,8 like 2,0 or 2,2 in some cases results are even more positive. If ratio 2,0 then 100% : 83 = 1,21 about (rounding upward). So wage 83% (5/6th) and 1,21 wage to pension etc ratio. I always try to round numbers upward. When two people share one job model is 12 hour / 5 day working week / 4 month working year. So only 4 months work, 8 months is just holiday. And salary is quite good. If employer has more work to offer these two can switch to 10 hour / 6 month model and earn more money. In 10 hour model worktime is 125% compared to one 8 hour year model (shared between two workers) so 25% is “overwork” and those two workers can earn from that. I do not count one month holiday which must be counted when compared with 8 hour / year, and I used 8 hour / 12 month as comparison and made calculations on that basis, but it must be 8 hour / 11 months. So less than 4 months and less than 6 months working time in shared models when two people share one job. If ratio is minimal 1,6 (in Finland) then 80% : 68,5 = 1,17. So wage about 70% (it is 68,5%) and 1,17 ratio. Those couple previous wage models do not count “overwork” or state compensations to salary (from discontinued unemployment benefits and child care benefits, only single mothers are allowed child day care by state, and discontinued housing benefits for unemployed, several billion euros or over ten billion euros in Finland each year? That money can now be given straight to salary as low wage compensation in lower wages). In many third world countries land is owned by feudal landlords (Pakistan, some african countries etc.). If immigration to west from those countries with feudal land ownership is forbidden, until land reform is in use and feudal landlords must give most of their lands to farmers. Land reform has been proposed in Pakistan etc. long time ago, but not done. If millions of new imigrants are allowed to go to west to work, those immigrant workers can pay something for landlords for their loss of land using money that they earn in the west, or then land of the landlords is taken by state (as in those previously proposed land reforms). So land reform in those countries that need it, can be connected to possibility that millions or tens of millions people from those countries can go to do shared work in western countries. Feudal land ownership is most important factor of poverty in many underdeveloped countries. Several land reforms have proposed but not proceeded, because powerful landlords oppose them. Connecting right to enter west when shared work needs hundreads of millions new immigrant workers to land reform solves both land unequality problem and gives work and prosperity to poorest people of those countries. If landlords try to block land reforms still, pressure from people if they are forbidden to go to west when rest of the world sends hundreads of millions of people there, is enough that it is impossible to maintain previous feudal situation in land ownership due to public outrage. However there is also foreign “investors” that buy land from their third world owners, China and western firms like Farmfolio which grab lands, “Agricultural land grabs in developing countries?” Peter Singer 2013. There is so called universal income principle tested in Finland. That is strange, people are rewarded with money for not go to work. Instead of transferring money from those who work to people who not work, that universal income principally is, work should be divided. Those universal income projects just make unemployed people passive, they get free money from those who work (who pay that universal income) and so never want to go to work. So unemployment just rises when money for free is offered to people who have no work. Instead of transferring money from working people to unemployed, work should be divided, no free money and everybody have work, no unemployment. It is bit absurd that so much is done to provide free money to unemployed people, and almost nothing in theory and in practise for shared work models, at least in Finland. Shared work solves so much problems that it is shared work what must be tested, not universal income, in Finland and everywhere. In book by Rutger Bregman “Utopia for realists” is both 15 hour working week (shared work) principle and basic income / universal income. But basic income or unemployment benefits and other social benefits like maternity leave payments is not needed in shared work situation, because everyone have job, and in shared work model every working year has 6 - 9 month holiday time. So that social benefits money can go directly to salary as extra compensation for shared work. And how both 15 hour working week and basic income can be true simultaneysly? Where the money is taken for basic income when working week is just 15 hours long? I haven t read the book. There is another book "“A fair share - towards new collaborative economy” by Vesa-Matti Lahti and Jenni Selosmaa, about new economic model also. If one job is shared between 2 people that is 20 hour working week without possible “overwork” and shared between 3 people 15 -16,7 hour week depending how much “overwork” is done, so it is almost same as Bregman s model (3 workers model has about 1/8 more working hours minimum compared to one worker hours shared in three so it is 13,3 X 1,125 hours or more = 15 or more hours per week). If 12 hour working day is used only about 2,5 months is work in working year, rest is holiday compared to 11 month / 8 hour model if one job is shared between 3 workers (11 : 3 = 3,65 about, 12 hour day versus 8 hours is 3,6 :1,5 = 2,4 months work per year). Without “overwork”, if overwork is done 1/8 to 1/4 more working days are needed in year, and worker gets more salary per year because he/she is doing “overwork”, which is paid in shared model exactly same way like one worker is doing the job altough there is now two or three people in one job, they however get paid for “overwork” altough they work only 15-20 hour avarage week per year, if their combined workhours are over 40 hour / week / 11 month model. So it is no difference in how workhours are paid if the same work is done between one, two, or three workers, employer always pays the same per workhour no matter how many workers are doing that one job. Exception is case where trade union can give permisson to “overwork” without extra overwork payment to some firm in limited time. If overwork is done at 25% like some shared work models, now 1,25 X 2,4 months = 3 months is worktime in working year with 12 hour working days. Bregman s book has inspired people to demand basic / universal income scheme. But why it is not inspired people to demand shared work? Basic income just makes everybody lazybones and nobody wants go to work when money for free is offered to people who do not work. Bregmans basic income is suicide for society, the more free money is offered the more is those population that is not willing to go to work when they get basic income for free. But if every work is shared between two or three people and everybody must go to work and unemployed are classified as criminals under criminal law when everybody can be employed, that is solution for almost every mishap of modern society (alcoholism, drugs and crime). There is also helicopter money / quantative easing for people. 2015 european union try to put it on use but instead chose ordinary buying bonds for deflation rejection, but buying bonds was not succesful way to defeat deflation. If work is shared and deflation is in EU or in some country, helicopter money can be given for people who share their job. Those who do not share their job are left without. Also helicopter money should no be given to rich people, they don t spend it like poor people, so quantative easing for people must be limited to poor people (and those who share their work). If everybody goes to work social benefits can be directly given with salary as extra to salary. Those who not go to work have no social benefits. Women are free of “forced labour rule”, it is only for men. Bregmans book has inspired people to start political groups that demand basic income. Why they do not demand shared work? Instead of rewarding people for unemployment nations should take the opposite direction, no country can support increasing amount of unemployed, so shared work is only solution. Bregmans view that immigration can increase wealth of nation is thing that I agree. In shared work situation immigration is needed anyway because there are suddenly hundreads of millions of job vacansies in EU and north america without workers. Helicopter money and job sharing can be connected, in deflation situation helicopter money can be given to people as extrra to salary so that drop of salary is not so much compared to 8 hour / year model. Also unemployment benefits, altough no unemployed are no more, similar amount of money that society spends in those benefits can be given as extra to salary to shared work jobs, divided between all shared jobs, and housing benefits, often connected to unemployed benefits, similar amount of money can be given also as extra to salary, to same poor people that had those housing benefits when they were unemployed. Now they have work but they get that money as extra with (shared work) salary. Also immigration can be controlled, EU has received millions of refugees uncontrollably, but in shared work situation countries can select immigrants and filter out unwanted people in immagration population, so those new immigrants are totally different from chaotic refugee flow to EU couple years ago. Anthony B. Atkinson in his book “Inequality: what can be done” is 15 part list about things that can be done, and that includes basic income model. If work is shared that amount that now is paid as social benefits or basic income can be paid in salary, except child benefits, and child day care (the llatter for single mothers only). Like basic income model that extra to salary is paid to everyone who does shared work and money from several social benefits is distributed to everyone who do shared work, so shared work plus extra salary is “basic income” model, but that basic income is not paid to unemployed but people who have work, and in shared work society everyone has work if he/she wants it. Earlier I mentioned that employer must pay overwork payment if one machine is used more than 8 hour day / year model permits, but in those jobs where two- or three shift is regularly used so workday is 16 or 24 hours per machine, employer pays normal salary per machine so no overwork payment is needed (actually if shared work is used, now there is not 2 or 3 workers doing 16 or 24 hours per machine but 2 or 3 X 2 and 2 or 3 X 3 so now there is from 4 to 9 workers doing job that previously was done by 2 or 3 shift workers). In those jobs where 2X8 or 3X8 hours is not used per day regularly, employer must pay for “overwork” if over 8 hours / day workhours are in working year, like employer would pay if one person is doing 8 hour / year and then some overwork with overwork payment. Altough work is shared employer pays always the same per workhour as normal one worker or two or three shift workers per job.

Basic income models are models that shift money from those that do work to those who don t work and so get money for free. Instead of sharing money for free, sharing of work must be done. There are words like “access society” and other fancy things, often together with basic income model. True access society is that where everyone who wants it has job, not society where ever increasing amount of money goes to “basic income” to those do not do work. So instead of sharing (shifting) money from those that do work to those who do not work (they get money for free due social benefits etc.) it is work that must shared. Now people work hard and then they have to pay large amount of tax for their salary because money is shifted from them to those who have no work. If instead of money, it would be worktime that is shifted from workers to those who have no work, those who work would had then much more spare time to use. And those who now do not work, must do work to earn money, instead of getting social benefits for free. So sharing of work is much better solution for unemployment than situation now where those who have work must give their money for free to those who do not work, and those get money without work. If every workplace is divided between 25% / 75% basis (workers give 25% of their worktime to those who are now unemployed) or every workplace is shared between 2 or even 3 people, there would be no unemployment. People would have more spare time than ever, but also enough money to live, and drop in slary would not be big even in situation where one job is shared between 3 workers. But then instead of unemployment is huge amount of open vacancies. Solution is to have immigrants to do the open jobs. From poorest countries of the world where extreme poverty is today can millions of people enter job market in western countries. Controlling immigration rate of birth is then needed. For example only 2 children per immigrant woman is allowed, otherwise they are expelled. Also altough 18 years is minimum age for marriage, pregnancy is allowed only from 21 years old, so women would give birth in minimum age of 21 years and 9 months. This 21 year law could be for every person, not just for immigrant population. Again if pregnancy is earlier than 21 years woman and her whole family is expelled. Triple pregnancies etc. if three children are born in same time are not counted as violation of 2 children only law, so if three children are born in same time woman is not expelled. European Union can have population of 1000 million people then, and USA 650 million. Also criminals cannot in current situation be expelled if they came from country where their life is threated, but if for every criminal that is expelled back to his previous home country another person from that counry is allowed to enter, criminals that are send back can be changed to fresh immigrants without criminal record. Allowing imigrants to enter west must be tied to right to send criminals back to where they came from. If immigrant population birth rates can be controlled immigrants are not anymore threat to native population. This 2 children only law can be also for immigrant population that has gained citizenship earlier. Time limit from year 1950 would be suitable, people that have gained citizenship before 1950 are not affected with 2 children per woman law, and are therefore similar like native population. But if someone is ancestry of someone who gained citizenship in EU after year 1950, they must obey 2 children per woman law, and that goes forever. If someone has grandfather and grandmother who gained citizenship in EU country from country outside EU, 2 children law they must obey and also his/her children and grandchildren etc. to forever. Now when immigrant population birth rates can be controlled immigrants of 40 - 49% of native population level can be in every western country. Also EU can be expanded to much larger than EU nowdays, if free movement (Schengen treaty) is not for countries outside “continental Europe”, which means that Ukraine and Turkey can be part of EU, but people from those countries need visa to enter “continental EU”. Even rich Middle East countries like United Arab Emirates or Qatar or Kuwait can be in EU, from those countries EU would get money. Israel can then be in EU also. Middle East countries are also outside “continental EU”. Nowdays when people do work they must give away money from their salary to taxes (actually employer pays most of taxes, employer takes that money from worker s salary, so money employer must pay for one job is 1,6 times or more money worker actually gets in Finland. That means that from 1600 euros employer pays 600 euros goes to taxes and other payments, and worker gets 1000 euros, and from that 1000 euros also worker must pay taxes, so worker actually gets less than 800 euros from 1600 euros employer pays for one job). So people work hard and then they have to give their money away for free to those people who do not work. This is “basic income” for unemployed model. But what if instead of money, worker gives his worktime away? Worker now has much more spare time, and unemployed must work to earn his/hers money, and not get money for free. Situation is almost same as nowdays, now worker gives away money which he/she has earned doing hard work, but much better would be if he/she gives away worktime, not money. Extra spare time would be welcomed among workers. If work is shared, no social benefits for unemployed is needed, and no unemployment benefits, because everybody has work. Every day job can be shared with 25/75 model where worker gives 25% of his worktime to unemployed. Less taxes and other extra costs so actual payment for workhours is not less than 50% like nowdays, when over 50% of job payments goes to extra costs, taxes etc. Actual paid sum after taxes and ofter costs can be closer to 100%, not less than 50% like nowdays. Also part-time jobs can be shared using 25/75 model, and almost every day job can be shared between 2 or even 3 workers, and those still would earn enough money to live. They also would have huge amount of spare time, most of year would be holiday, not worktime like nowdays. So their life would be just long holiday from cradle to grave with few months of work in each year. Minimum social security is 240 - 250 euros per month after housing costs are paid in Finland, so if worker gets that 250 euros per month after taxes and then enough money for housing costs, even doing shared part-time job is possible (part-time job here means that three part-time jobs that three workers usually does nowdays, is now shared between four workers, one worker does three “part-time jobs of part-time jobs” if he does 25% worktime part of three part-time workers that give 25% of their worktime away. None of those three does full 8 hour daywork, even before that 25% is shared. Now part-time jobs can be divided to even smaller part-time jobs, like here three part-time jobs are divided to four part-time jobs). Society does not have to pay social benefits for unemployed anymore. So sharing work is ideal solution to unemployment, social unrest and crime rates. Because there will be enermous amount of free vacancies, immigrants must be brought to westernt countries to do shared jobs. The whole idea is birth control, if immigrant women are only allowed 2 children, and allowed age of pregnancy would be 21 years (for native population also), immigrant population would not be demographic threat to native population, and 40- 49% of any western country can have immigrant population that does jobs that native population does not want to do. Countries that suffer extreme poverty or ultra powerty can be sources of workforce needed. If 1000 million or more poorest people of the world are transferred to west (Europe, North America, Australia, Japan, South Korea etc.), there would be no more poverty as we know it in the world. Also if year 1950 is limit in western countries that seperates immigrant population from native population, even those immigrants from after 1950 that get citizenship in EU, USA etc. must obey that birth control law. And criminals if they are from family line whose parents or grandparents had citizenship after 1950 can be expelled back to country where their parents / grandparents come 1950 or later. From that country new immigrants, that are not criminals, can be brought as exchange. That means that if someone makes crime in USA, and his grandparents are from EU country, that criminal is expelled back to EU from USA because his grandparents were from EU. If EU citizen that has american or norwegian grandparents, does crime in EU, after that he is expelled to America or Norway. This law is suitable solution to end crimes that immigrants do in western countries, because if they do crimes thay are expelled. This law is also for people who have immigrant ancestry, because year 1950 is time limit that seperates immigrants from native population. West does not want immigrants because they are seen as demographic threat, and are seen also as source of increasing crime rates. But if demographic threat can be controlled, and criminals are simply sent back to where they came from, solution is simple. If possibility to send criminals back to where they come from is tied together with permission for immigrant population to enter west, crime problem of immigrants is solved. Also if someone is immigrant ancestry after 1950, and he makes crime before he is 21 years old, whole family (he, his sisters, brothers and parents) is expelled back to their grandparents country. 21 years can be dividing line, if criminal is older than that his family is not expelled. So if someone from norwegian ancestry in Sweden does crime before he is 21 years old, he and his family is expelled to Norway, if his grandparents come from there to Sweden after 1950. Also if woman of norwegian ancestry wants more than 2 children, she is expelled, with her family, to Norway if her grandparents came from there to Sweden after 1950. Law must be same for every immigrant, not just for them who came from poor countries. Norway is not EU country so people of norwegian ancestry whose parents or grandparents entered EU after 1950 are considered as immigrants. Law of 2 children per woman is for them who give birth after law is accepted, there are immigrants who entered EU after 1950 and have more children in their family three than just two per woman, but of course they are not expelled because law of 2 children per immigrant was not in existence when those children were born. If birth control is in force large amount of immigrant population can be accepted in any country, when they are no demographic threat anymore. Latinos are no demographic threat in USA anymore if similar birth control laws are accepted there. But immigrant birth control laws should always be connected to law that allows large amount of immigrant population to enter country, and legislation of worksharing also, after work sharing there is enormous amount of open jobs in western countries. Those immigrants can be cheap workforce, and at the same time if immigrants are from those countries that suffer extreme poverty or ultra poverty, world poverty problem is solved. Birth control solves demographic problem also. Text “Solution to poverty - zero interest loans” is continuation of this text about shared work. If social security is not was it used to be because money that previously went to social benefits now goes to salary as extra when shared work is done, state granted zero interest loans can help. Instead of sick- leave payment worker gets zero- interest loan from state which worker must pay back when he/she returns to work again. Also workers could individually choose how much money from their salary they want to give away as taxes, and in exchange get social security of different levels. He/she can individually decide how much social security he/she wants and then he/she gives that amount of his/her salary as taxes and other expenses from salary to state. So if he/she become sick, it depends of how much he/she has chosen to pay taxes how much sick-leave payments or pension due sickness he/she gets or he/she won t get any because he/she have decided previously that he/she does not want to pay money as tax for possible sick-leave payments from his/her salary. This is for shared work situation, where much more money that nowdays goes to taxes and other expenses from worker s salary worker now keeps himself/herself (in shared work situation).

In 1921 in Ford factory in USA (january 1921) when workers heard that factory is closed during one month, workers proposed that they would work during that one month closing time, for themselves. They proposed that they go to otherwise unused factory during that one month and then they would build Ford model T car for themselves. After everybody get their car workers would clean the factory and pay any expenses that this extra T model building would cost to Ford. Workers gathered outside factory gate but Ford alarmed police forces and they drove workers away. So workers did not get car for themselves. After one month closing time ended workers again continued working, but if they wanted a car they had to buy that from car dealers like anybody else and had no right to build car for themselves. But if workers would had right to build for themselves the product they are making in the factory, paying material expenses that employer must pay for that product, and taxes if product is taxed. So chinese iPhone workers would get iPhone with factory price plus possible tax (one iPhone costs about 25 dollars to make, rest is profit for Apple and dealers). That right that factory worker can have one piece of product he/she are making in factory, can be in almost any factory made product except most expensive ones like Rolls Royce car. Modern cars are largely build by robots, but workers of car factory can build themselves a car in modern times also. They would pay material costs and other costs to employer what that building one car for every worker costs, but not the profit that employer gets when making those products, and also workers must pay car tax when cars are ready. That car would still be much cheaper than one bought from car dealer. Any factory made product can use this principle, worker has right to made himself/herself one product that factory is making. This right can be made as a law that employers must obey. Altough workers would get that product cheaper than buying from shop, the loss that employer have when he have no profit from those products, is very little because those factory workers are just very small fraction of people that buy those products, so financial loss is almost irrelevant to employer. If in car factory for example is 1000 workers, one worker does 1000 times the usual spot welding or other job he/she is doing per car, so when manufacturing of a car is divided to 1000 litle parts for 1000 workers in factory, all 1000 would get their car when 1000 workers do their normal work routine 1000 times per car and 1000 cars are build. After everybody get their car they again start make cars for employer. Almost any factory made product that is made in the world, and if product is something that workers want also one piece from themselves, can use this principle that workers have right to build themselves product that factory makes, without usual profit for employer, so only material costs and other extra costs worker must pay (plus tax if product is taxed). Loss that employer suffers is almost neglible, factory workers are so small amount of customer base of any product. But the possiblity that worker gets one product for himself/herself would greatly improve worker s will to do job for firm, and more expensive the product is (for example a car) more they are delighted. Of course extremely expensive product like jet passenger aircaft is impossible to build for workers of the factory, they cost dozens of millions of dollars, so perhaps one jet passenger plane that all workers share and own, and then they sell or lease this passenger aircraft that they have made and own, to airline, arrangement is perhaps possible. Cheaper products that are mass produced in factories around the world, can use this worker has right to one product that he/she does in factory (or partially does, factory work is divided for small work parts between workers in almost every factory) is given to workers themselves, and workers pay material etc. expenses except profit to employer. In fact even Rolls Royce car is perhaps to be build for each worker of the factory, if they pay all expenses that this manufacturing will cost (material expenses) to employer. So every Rolls Royce factory worker can build Rolls Royce for himself/herself. But this must have legalized, a law that makes this possible, that factory workers have right to build product for themselves. Some factory products are not expensive, and cost only few dollars, so perhaps worker has right to build himself/hersef one piece of that cheap few dollar product one per year, so each year he/she can build one cheap product for himself/herself. Again financial loss for employer is neglible, product costs only few dollars and factory workers are very small amount of customer base. This right to build one product per year is for cheap products only, expensive products has worker right to build only once for himself/herself. Or in case of chinese iPhone workers, when iPhone model is chamged to new, factory worker has right to build this new model also. So when old models are changed for new in moderatly priced customer products worker has right to build himself/herself this new model also, if he/she has earlier build for himself/hersef earlier model already. When new iPhone worker get job in iPhone factory he/she has right to build one iPhone for himself/herself, and when model changes to new one also right to build the new model. Actually most chinese electronics workers are building cheap Android phones, but anyway this same right to build for own use can be applied to those factories also and in every electronics factory regardless of product. Military electronics etc. are totally different thing, of course worker has no right to builfd one of those for own use. Factory workers can use holidays or night time for building things to themselves, or when cheap few dollar mass products are build at great speed in production line, simply one of those products is given to workers once a year. Or even once a month. It may seem absurd that Rolls Royce factory worker can build Rolls Royce for his own use, but those factory workers do not otherwise have money to buy Rolls Royce anyway, so Rolls Royce (chinese) factory/firm owner does not suffer financial loss actually. If for example large passenger jet plane is shared between every worker of factory and then sold or leased, and money shared between every worker, workers can build one passenger jet each year for their own property, in addition jet planes they build for employer firm. Military fighter jets build in factory for government order can have one plane in each year that is build by factory workers and then given to government like other planes of that order, but profit in the case of that one plane goes to workers themselves. Same for building tanks etc. military material. It must be legal that workers themselves get opportunity to have products / goods that they build for employer firm (or in case of military material money/profit from it), and they can build those products in holidays or other spare time, or simply taken from production line if product is cheap and mass produced in great numbers, and workers get each year or each month one of these cheap goods / products for free or pay tax etc. or material costs. This law can be in almost any kind of manufacturing of almost any kind of goods or industrial products. In case of phones, PCs, television etc. worker can have one, and when phone or PC or TV model changes to new, worker gets this new model also (builds for himself/herself).
When work is shared, one job divided between two or three workers, wages per year are then less because worktime is less, but more spare time, actually almost all working year is holiday if working day is 12 hour long in shared work, so about 3 or 4 months work during working year, rest is free. When wages per working year are lower taxation can perhaps be adjusted. if yearly income to 10 000 euro limit is not taxed at all, in European Union, it would encourage people to accept shared work. So tax is 0%, not any taxes below 10 000e yearly earnings, or avarage 850 euros per month if shared between 12 months, better comparison would be 10,5 months because people have about 1,5 month holidays in a year, so about 1000e / month if normal working year is compared. From that 1000e people must pay taxes normally, but in shared work wage is free of taxation up to 10 000e / year. This zero tax could be arranged using so called “fair income tax” and “green production tax” proposed by finnish government s expert of taxation Pirkko Melender in book “Reilu verokirja” (“Fair tax book”, in finnish language only?). In her fair tax model also social security taxes are not paid by worker, but employer. In shared work model however social security is less than nowdays if there are two or three workers in every job so altough social security costs are paid by employer they are less than nowdays. However they are in fair tax paid by employer and not like nowdays when some are paid by employer (pension tax) and some by worker (other social security taxes). So wages if they are about 10 000e / year have 0% tax and worker still gets some social security benefits (for medicines if he/she becomes sick etc). In green production tax taxation is modelled so that it taxes less enviromental friendly production and if production leads to enviromental pollution it is taxed more. In that book is how tax base is rearranged so that this is possible and still taxes brings about the same amount of money to government, and even employers do not have any more taxation than they have nowdays, all is achieved simply rearring taxation base so that small wage workers and enviroment gets maximum benefit and nobody suffers from increased taxation except perhaps very rich persons whose taxation is slightly increased. Fair income tax that has 0% taxation in small wages and no social security taxes but still worker gets some, so fair tax is ideal in shared work. If fair tax and shared work are combined it would make shared work so popular that most workers would start doing it willingly, it brings so much benefits for them altough less money, but extra spare time and when taxes are 0% and social security taxes paid by employer, more money per working hour also for each worker is available than nowdays. Green production tax also replaces value added tax in goods so enviromental friendly products are cheaper than nowdays and those products that bring pollution are more expensive. Avarage taxation level is same as nowdays for government and employers. Green production tax also taxes whole added value of production, not just workers income like nowdays, so for example then is possible to tax robots, so another worry of future work, automation that replaces paid workers, is taxed. If I understand that book right. So employer must pay tax for using robots or automation in production chain? Green production tax replaces nowdays VAT tax, and taxes value addition of products, are they made by people or robots/automation. So green production tax is ideal for future work like fair income tax and work sharing. 0% taxation of low wages in Finland means that workers would get huge improvement per workhour wages because normally almost 25% from even lowest wages goes to communal tax etc. taxes. If they have 0% tax they would get that amount, about 1/4 to taxes, 3/4 actually paid situation changed to 4/4 actually paid, which is huge improvement per workhour salary. That for those who share their job. Those who do not share job will pay normal about 25% to taxes ratio. That extra money paid per workhour should be enough for people to change their full day job / year to shared work / only few months work during year (up to 12 hours working days) model. Many years ago Denmark tried to make production tax similar to green production tax, but the court of European Community made decision against it because it is illegal to change common VAT tax in EU. That danish production tax was intented to tax added value of production so that similar tax is in the product s price is it manufactured by men or machines (robots). Nowdays taxation rewards those firms that sack workforce and replace them with automation, more they sack people less thay are taxed, because robots are not taxed like people. Both green production tax and danish production tax intented to replace VAT in balanced way that if product is manufactured either with machines or men, tax level is the same, less taxation of work by men but more if made by robots if compared to nowdays situation. But EEC court ruled against that danish taxation reform that would make more equal balance of taxation of men and machines. That tax was VAT tax (production tax) but different than normal EU VAT tax. Nowdays taxation rewards those employers who sack workforce and replace them with automation. Instead of turning danish production tax down EU should have accepted it as new VAT-style tax in all EU countries, replacing nowdays VAT tax in EU. Or use proposed green production tax. Another idea for production tax is that production tax / VAT should be taxed on that land where production is, now products are made in some third world country and shipped to west where they are sold, so altough products are made in some poor third world country, using cheap labour and less taxation of business than in the west, finished products are taxed in rich westerrn country which not only gets benefit of cheap labour and minimal taxes of poor third world country, but also takes away benefits of taxes when VAT is paid in that rich western country. So (third world) country where those products are made loses in every way in business and taxation. But that is the way modern international trade and taxation works in world nowdays. That situation should be shifted using production tax so VAT (production tax) is paid in that same country where products are made, not just in the land where products are sold. Nowdays trade / taxation system just makes poor countries poor and rich countries richer, and takes every benefit of cheap labour and cheap cost of production to rich western countries, and benefits of taxes also, not much benefit to that land where production is, so poor third world countries remain poor because of this trade / taxation system.

In previous post I wrote that Rolls-Royce is owned by chinese. It is Lotus which is owned by chinese nowdays, Rolls-Royce is owned by BMW. I remembered this thing wrong.

There was “More taxes. Global tax workshop” in 2004, participants were Global Tax Justice Network, Attac Finland, Finnish Society for Futures Studies and Citizens Global Platform project. It studied currency transaction tax / CTT / Tobin tax, tax competition, and tax avoidance / evasion. It published a book, called “More taxes! Promoting strategies for global taxation”. Book was published by Attac Finland 2005 (edited by Penttinen et al.) . It was available for free short time, and available in internet also for free. I don t know if there still is some netpage where this book can be found. The book has contents like “Reactionary and progressive versions of the Tobin tax”, “Tax avoidance, tax competition and globalisation: making tax justice a focus for global activism”, “Reporting turnover and tax by location a proposed international accounting standard”, “A step forward: strategies for social movements to advance campaings on tax issues”. This is good book altough it seems to be forgotten by now 15 years later. However it is relevant to up this day, and even more relevant than 15 years ago.
Not perhaps anything to do with previous text, but millions of cell phones are discarded each year, because they have become obsolete. If instead of making phones industrial waste, phones could be shipped to third world countries and given to people in there. Phones do not even need SIM card or net or telephone connection. Phones can be used as cheap media players, playing music, videos, used like computer to write text etc., educational programs can be used in phones etc. Although phones have no SIM card they still have browser that can be used. browser does not open net pages but without SIM card still show browsing results with short introduction of netpages they browse. So without SIM card phones can still be used in “net surfing” although limited way, and they can browse information from the internet. Old phones (and laptops, tablet PCs, and PCs) are becoming industrial waste, but they can have new lease of life in third world even without internet connection.
Phones are small and light unlike PCs, and need only small amount of electricity. Outdated phones that otherwise go to electronic waste bin can be given to some third world country, and primitive but cheap cell phone charger that uses solar cell or Peltier element (heat) to charge phone. There is makezine netpage article “$3 solar cell phone charger”. If primitive but working charger is mass produced its price would be about 0,1 to 0,3 dollar (just guessing), using solar cell or Peltier element that can charge phone using body heat or heat from cooking etc. There are several “donate your old phone” organisations but they operate only inside some country, not giving international phone donations? They should give that phone to some of poorest of countries and from there poorest people of that country. Cheap charger with minimal price to charity organisation can be given with phone. Without SIM card (user does not have money to pay phone / internet connection) phone is used as media player only, using educational, information and entertainment content. Phones are also small and light so ferrying them to some third world country is cheap. Although internet connection is not used, information can be spread using “sneakernet”, automobiles, trains etc. carrying cheap memory cards, slower than internet but information and messages spread that way too, its like sending (electronic) letter to post. If cost free internet to end user becomes possible in third world, even better that they have phones already then, which they can use. Optical colour codes can be printed in paper, and camera of phone reads that code like QR code, few inches wide paper can include megabyte or more information, so not even memory cards are needed. But cheapest bulk memory cards are so cheap in factory order that their price is nearing the price of one sheet of colour printed paper.
Phones without SIM card have ability to make emergency call. That would be great help in some poor third world country, if they just would have phones, even without SIM card.