An interesting piece by UPI

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040115-035319-5993r

The battle for time off by the workers of America and a more efficient economy by the policy makers of America is picking up. The above article did not question the fact that America should get more time off. As a cog in the wheel of corporation I would appreciate more time off, but you would have to add up the total effect on the economy if America was given more time off. For every 364 workers that a company employed, they would have to hire another full time employee to make up the lost day.

Although that does not seem like much, it gets even more extreme when you talk about giving a mandatory three weeks off (which some are trying to push though). For every 52 workers you would have to hire an extra worker.

Let's take a look at the employment situation.

Australia considers full employment to be at around five percent.

http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/bh/Qaustralia-economy.RiC5_DN9.html

America considers full employment to be between 5.2 and 4 percent. The article below seems to make a good bid for the 4 percent mark.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/19/bernstein-j.html

With unemployment sitting at 5.7 percent, and the current labor force sitting around 141 million.

what is the total amount of workers that we have in surplus? Take 141 million and multiply by .017, and you get 2,397,000. If you use the higher estimate of full employment you would take 141 million and multiply by .005 and you would get 705,000. Just as a side note if you were to add a new mandatory day off you would create 387,362 new jobs if the work force was 141 million. If you were to added a week off you would create 2,711,538, which is more than the surplus workers that we have.

I think I just solved the unemployment problem.

Of course the fact that the economy would be 1/364 th or 1/52 nd less efficient does not bother any one.

Cube