[didibus]

It does seem like we are in a strange situation where we can produce all essentials for everyone, and in fact, we can do so so efficiently that we don't need everyone in order to do so.

Imagine a scenario where 5 people can provide for 10. It seems we are in such a scenario. But it used to be that the 5 essential workers would take the surplus of their production and give it to the other 5 non-essential workers in exchange for non-essential things like serving them a beer.

Now that those activities are risky to the 5 who can provide, they don't want to catch Covid. As well as currently restricted by the governments themselves. The 5 who produce the essential in enough quantity for all 10 have no incentive to give their surplus away to the other 5.

So logically, if it is true that we produce a surplus from people still employed which could cover all people no longer employed, then it seems all we need is to figure out how to self-organize in a new way, so the surplus are still being distributed to those who are not currently producing. And to find a way which does so while still allowing for social distancing and lockdowns and all that.

This is the ideal, but I really doubt we will figure a way. Thus, the best way we know for now is the traditional economy, which requires people to continue to wilfully spend money on non-essentials. So somehow, we need to strike a balance between Covid protection and motivating and still enabling people to spend on non-essentials.

[js8]

> The 5 who produce the essential in enough quantity for all 10 have no incentive to give their surplus away to the other 5.

Maybe then, the other 5 should stop sitting on their asses and start contributing towards that "essential surplus". For example, they could divide the shifts in half and decrease the chances of getting COVID19 for everybody.

[didibus]

> For example, they could divide the shifts in half and decrease the chances of getting COVID19 for everybody.

That's one of the proposed alternative means of organizing that I've heard. Some of the criticism against it I've heard are the overhead logistically, like the follow up from one shift ending to the next beginning can slow things down. The other criticism I've heard is that the people currently working in those essential jobs don't want to let them go, even partially. There's a human instinct at play, those surplus are their retirement fund, they don't mind working the 40h a week to build it up. Another challenge is education and training, we didn't plan for this, we trained 5 people in essential work, and 5 other in non essential work, so its not like the other 5 can just pick up the work immediately.

I also heard some of the opposite happening, with Covid, essential workers are choosing to reduce their own shifts, to protect themselves, and that now causes a lack of surplus, because we reduced production from pre-Covid. Mixed with the lack of availability in people who have the training to take over their "missing shift", its a problem.

I still personally think it could be a good idea. As we drive up efficiency more and more with the use of technologies, automation, better techniques and processes, we'll just more and more face this problem, Covid or not. The 5 needed to produce for 10 might become 1 needed to produce for 10. I think we could solve the above problem if there was a political will and a populace movement behind it.

A good variant I've heard on it is to make the work week 10 day long, and split shift 5/5. So people work 40h on and take 40h off. That reduces the shift switch overhead, while still allowing two people to contribute to any given job.

[zelphirkalt]

I imagine, that working in shifts actually increases chance of infection, because of aerosols and surface contamination. However, you are right, that it would be fairer to do that.

[Izkata]

Depends on how the shifts are organized. Every-other-week, for example, gives time over the weekend for the viruses to die off.