It was several decades ago that I became aware of the so-called “law of diminishing returns”, also known as the “law of marginal productivity”. It was when, during the distant degree, the obstacles to economic growth at the end of the Middle Ages were addressed when, having exhausted the potential of the technical innovations of the 12th century, there was little point in increasing the cultivated area because the resources that this entailed did not compensate for the return obtained. In other words, productivity dropped.
The fundamental idea is that, given the absence of technological progress or in the forms of work organization, there is no point in increasing “production units”, especially natural resources, (land, in this case) as the income does not compensate for this type of “investment”. The same can apply to the “natural resource” that is human work, there is little point in increasing working hours if conditions become progressively worse. The worker may even produce more, but productivity drops. There are occasional economists, who claim to be liberals, who do not understand this and try to explain the apparent paradox of countries with fewer working hours and better wages on the basis of “labor flexibility”, I don’t understand whether this is due to ignorance (I don’t think so) or for peculiar ideological reasons.
The situation can be exemplified in a more graphic way so that it is more easily understood: if we load a pack animal with a certain amount of goods, there is a point at which loading the animal more will only slow down the transport or even exhaust it. Unless you are allowed to rest, the floor on which you move or the way you distribute your weight is improved, adding more merchandise is counterproductive and generates diminishing returns and a reduction in what is meant by productivity. And the service gets worse.
In the case of human beings, the situation is more serious because there is the rational capacity to, knowing the circumstances, anticipate the outcome. If a worker knows that he is going to have a long working day, in a week with unregulated hours in relation to his personal and family needs, he tends, from the beginning, to “protect himself”, in a natural defensive strategy. It’s one thing to face a day with 7 hours of work, another a day with 10 hours. It’s even worse if, instead of a week to rest, you’re presented with a schedule with irregular or even unpredictable days off. In this case, productivity does not start to decrease just at the end of the working day or week, but right from the beginning.
The solution to increasing productivity is to improve working conditions, understanding the optimal balance between effort and income, investment and return. Unfortunately, there are those who think that the “optimal” thing is to just carry more on the “animals”, hoping that they will docilely limit themselves to carrying more and more.
Basic Education Teacher. Write without applying the new Spelling Agreement