Are we getting anywhere?

My EU-project involvement brings me into contact with a lot of information about vocational education and training, the lack of qualified employees, youth unemployment, skilled-worker shortages, business-education interfaces, employability, and everything and anything that is related to topics such as these.

When seen in one light, it's all very depressing: more and more young people can't find work, businesses (especially major, global corporations) complain about everything they can't find but claim they need as far as workers are concerned, governments are broke and can't pay for education or training and there is no money for fundamental, employment-creating investments either, and skilled, older workers are being forced out of the labor market, because, well, they simply cost too much. And the outlook in all these areas is anything but rosy, too.

I try to fight the depression, of course, and sometimes I'm more successful than others. One of the things that often keeps me from being successful is the amount of nonsense that you have to put up with if you bring up what appear to me to be ready solutions to the problem.

For example, it is a well-known and better-documented fact that corporate profits are once again at an all-time high. It is also well-known and documented that wages most places have either stagnated or have declined for the past few decades. The salaries and bonuses of top managers has exploded, forcing everyone to rethink executive compensation, so why not simply spread the work we have around a bit more? What is so bad about breaking the cycle of workaholicism and making the standard work week, say, only 25 or 30 hours? Take most jobs and simply cut them in half. Instead of bludgeoning one person to do the work of two or three, actually have two or three do the work.

Yes, yes, yes, I hear all you über-capitalists squealing, but it would cost a lot less than you think. Is it really a set-back of the CEO only makes 100 times the earnings of the average employee? Is it really the end of financial-market confidence if corporate profits only grew by 20% instead of 40%? And if everybody is doing it, would we notice any relevant difference in the relative standing of the "most profitable", or the "best run" corporations out there? I don't think so, and it has two additional, knock-on effects that are very much worth thinking about: increased tax revenues for government, and increased consumption, which in turn would benefit companies, and on and on and on.

Personally, I think this would be a huge leap forward, for as things are now, we're going nowhere fast. If you want things to be different, you have to start thinking differently. It's that simple.