Here’s a letter that I sent yesterday to the Baltimore Sun:
Labor-union official
Valerie Long asserts that office-cleaning jobs "have to be filled by
someone" (Letters, December 7). This mistaken belief misleads many
persons, including Ms. Long, to suppose that employers have no choice
but to pay statutorily imposed higher wages.
In fact, no job
must be filled. Each worker is hired only when an employer gains more
from hiring that worker than it costs that employer to make the hire.
Even for high-priority tasks, such as keeping office buildings clean
and smoothly operating, employers can substitute machines and other
technologies for workers. For historical evidence, Ms. Long might
explore how a hike in the minimum-wage prompted building owners in the
1960s to speed up their substitution of automatic elevators for manual
ones operated by low-skilled workers.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
[For the story of the minimum-wage and elevators, see David R. Henderson's fine book The Joy of Freedom (2001).]
A friend of mine, commenting on this letter, said that it’s "hard to imagine" office cleaning being automated. True enough. It is hard to imagine. That’s one of the marvelous things about entrepreneurship in markets: all it takes is one person to imagine something that no one else can, or at least does, imagine, and, voila!, that "unimaginable" something often comes into existence — indeed, in many cases becomes so commonplace that it is a banal piece of our everyday lives. How many of us could have imagined (had we not encountered it) the microwave oven, wi-fi, MP3 players, a chainsaw, antibiotics, or the electric lightbulb?
I’m no building manager, so I’ve given very little thought to how janitorial services might be made more efficient or less necessary. Still, using my (paltry and decidedly non-entrepreneurial imagination), I came up with this list of possible ways that building owners and managers might respond to rising wages of janitors:
- install more self-flush toilets and urinals;
- install bathroom-counter surfaces that contain anti-microbial agents;
- switch to electric floor scrubbers each of which covers a larger surface area than do currently used scrubbers;
- switch to larger, more powerful vacuum cleaners each of which covers a larger surface area than do currently used vacuum cleaners;
- install "robot" vacuum cleaners;
-
install flooring that cleans more easily (i.e., faster) than conventional
flooring — or even switch from carpet to hard floor (or vice-versa)
depending upon which surface requires less total cleaning time;
-
redesign trash-disposal methods so that that fewer worker-hours are required to empty
trash cans;
- install improved air-cleaning devices that extract and capture from the air more dirt and dust particles than do less-costly devices;
-
lock more restrooms – that is, more commonly require a key for entry into
restrooms, thereby reducing the frequency of restroom use, keeping them
more off-limits to visitors;
- increase the penalties on
tenants for undue wear and tear on rented spaces as well as for
slovenliness discovered in buildings’ public places.
Again, I’m no
building manager, so I’m certain that persons who deal with such issues
for a living could list, or discover, or imagine, dozens – perhaps even hundreds -
of other ways that would reduce over time the average number of hours
janitorial work is required each week.
True, it’s unlikely that
office cleaning can be completely automated. But surely many steps are
possible that reduce the number of hours of janitorial services that a
building must hire.
Share
{ 38 comments }
I've looked at this very issue before, to answer the question of whether there must always be poor people. How could we ever all be rich, if someone has to clean toilets? Isn't this person left behind?
The theory is that we are never going to pay more to have clean restrooms, and even if "everyone gets rich" somebody will still have to clean them, meaning that somebody will always have to be poor.
But what if restrooms could be cleaned in 30 seconds, using a complicated machine that required enormous skill and experience to operate? If a person operating such a machine could clean a thousand bathrooms in a night for, say, $50K/yr., then suddenly high technology has made it possible to clean a bathroom for $50 a year. Not too shabby — and not too poor.
And what if a paving machine operated by two highly compensated people could pave twenty miles of highway per night? Who's to say paving must be the province of chain gangs and grunts?
It is possible for everyone to be rich, with the implication that nobody must be poor.
I would think that the most likely result of a major hike in office cleaning wages would be dirtier offices.
Building managers would probably shift the entire cost of office cleaning to tenants who would have to choose how clean they would like their offices, instead of a building service.
Maybe a client friendly area cleaned daily, and regular work areas cleaned once a week. Some of the actual cleaning would be shifted to employees, like maybe emptying their own trash, getting their own toilet paper, etc.
Does anyone know of any offices using iRobots for vacuming?
"Necessity is the mother of all innovations."
Don, you have offered several examples of how the demand for low-wage cleaning labor might be reduced by the adoption of sophisticated capital equipment. However, we shouldn't forget that all these new capital goods would have to be operated by someone, even though the hours of labor required would likely be fewer. Readers should note, as Don knows well, that all production requires at least two factors of production, of which one is human labor. Thus, in a crucial respect, the answer to the question "Must Any Job Necessarily Be Done by Human Labor?" is a resounding "Yes!" And quite apart from the necessity of employing labor to operate the new capital goods, we should remember that the adoption of such machines necessarily generates a demand for labor to make, install, and maintain them.
The 80/20 rule of thumb suggests that a substantial reduction in janitorial services might lead to disproportionately small reduction in cleanliness.
Interesting to ponder why competitive free markets haven't already lead to innovations that would enable someone to carve out a larger share of the building-cleaning business. Presumably, feasible productivity improvements possible with currently available technology cost more and offer less benefit than simply adding another person at current labor prices.
In seattle (and presumably other places), there are self-cleaning public toilets. Right now, they are ridiculously expensive, but as labor prices continue to rise, and the technology becomes more refined (and cheaper), there will come a time when that is not the case.
- switch to electric floor scrubbers each of which covers a larger surface area than do currently used scrubbers;
That has been tried already, but how do you get them through the door? And with enough action to actually scrub something the thing tends to spin out of control.
Actually this problem has already been solved:
1) hire illegal aliens
2) cheat them out of their overtime, they can't complain
3) don't pay unemployment taxes or workers comp premiums, they can't complain ( and if they get hurt at work have the crew boss take them to ER and lie about the injury)
4) cut the cleaning in half, let people muck out their own cubicles (office employees are very creative about leaving scraps on the floor and counting the days until the cleaning crew notices, breaks the boredom, allows for betting pools)
So who needs technology anyway?!
Even illegals aliens will have their limits. If an employer mistreats or cheats them, the word gets around, and soon that employer may find himself short of staff.
But STR has a point about self-cleaning. Forty years ago my boss had an office rule: If you spill coffee on the tile floor, DO NOT clean it up. Instead, let it dry, draw a chalk circle around it and date it. That way the boss had grounds to complain to HIS boss about poor janitorial service.
Rustbelt,
I've met two people who hire likely illegal workers, though all of whom use real SSN's. These employers do pay overtime pay, unemployment taxes, and worker's compensation premiums. Both employers would hire real "English-speaking" workers, but none apply who remain on the job more than a few days or weeks.
gavin jensen: "So is minimum wage good for the economy because it gives us incentives to build more technology?"
No. Minimum wages are not good because such wage levels:
- make it difficult for young unskilled workers to obtain jobs and learn basic workplace skills;
- force businesses to pay more for certain tasks than they otherwise would.
Automation is a good thing when it lowers costs. A combination of government-imposed, artificially high wage rates and automation only appears to be a good thing.
David Dunn's post (and link) demonstrates the benefits of redirecting scarce human capital away from basic activities such as office cleaning and toward the production and distribution of goods that provide greater utility.
Another effect — as the price of hiring the cheapest cleaners gets comparitively more expensive, the incentives also seem to point at this: instead of hiring two minimum-wage janitors, hire one really good, efficient one.
P.S. The comment from "David Dunn" is pharma spam. Check where his link goes.
John:
I understand good employers do hire illegals. However…
An illegal cannot have a real SSN.
An illegal can have a special TIN, which allows them to file federal income tax returns without jeopardy. About 1.2 million a year do so.
True:
We used to to trickle shredded paper in areas we thougth were neglected. Usually it was gone the next morning, sometimes not.
Rustbelt,
What I wrote was that the illegal employees USE a real SSN. It's been fairly well documented that:
1. legal workers are allowing illegals to use their SSN;
2. underground dealers are "selling" to illegals valid SSN's, especially numbers of deceased citizens.
Here's two links that explain some of what is happening:
Illegal immigrants steal identities to get jobs
More Illegal Immigrants Using Stolen Social Security Numbers
Another option I've not seen mentioned yet is that a building manager can outsource to a company that specializes in janitorial services. Let someone else deal with all the management and overhead of dealing with the cleaning crew; someone that specializes in offering a service like this can no doubt offer it more efficiently than a building manager that has more than enough other things on which to focus. Offering a flat cleaning fee on contract makes it much easier for the building manager to factor cleaning expenses into leases based on the total square footage.
It's also not without precedent. Anyone else remember the story about the Harvard student that started a cleaning service for the dorm residents that couldn't afford the school's over-priced in-house cleaning service? They did a better job and cost significantly less. They were so successful that Harvard had to shut down the business because no one bothered paying for the in-house service anymore. I can't remember if that story was mentioned here.
Joe G, above, has what appears to be a good and rational suggestion, find one really good efficient worker who can do the labors of two ineffienct ones, pay him well, and let him go to it.
I am a cynic on labor, I suppose I have just spent too much time in real time observation, plus to quote myself, "I have been an employer and an employee, and I never liked being either."
I also think it is ever a poor policy to say never because history has shown the naysayers wrong much too frequently and often in a very short time to the embarassment of those who say "it can't be done".
So, that compels me to say that I think that there are many cleaning jobs that I think will not be done robotically for a very long time, if ever.
I contracted hepatitus A when I spent an extended stay in Africa (1961-1962) courtesy of military job. Hepatitus A is most typically passed via a carrier not cleaning his hands with soap and water after defacating. There were many such places in which I had to eat during my stay and travels in Africa.
Hep A is the least virulant of the Hepatituses, so I survivied it but became a carrier myself. I became a fanatic about washing my hands and keeping any food preparation and serving area sterile.
I am not now, and never will be, ready to trust my liver to the cleaning abilities of a machine. Which I know is not necessarily a rational reaction considering the level of education and abilities of the personnel who do actually clean in restaurants; but while dishes, pots, pans, and cutlery can be cleaned and sterilized by machines, there are many surfaces that can not (in my opinion) and those are surafaces where raw foodmust touch in preparation to become a meal. As cynical as I am, I put more trust in the market force that compels the manager of a restaurant to keep a healthy and satisfied clientel to teach and supervise his employees in cleanliness and diasease prevention in food handling.
I can see restrooms being constructed of materials that could be automatically sprayed by installed systems that could rinse and sterilize, but many restrooms typically need more than just the cleaning a high pressure spray can apply, they need serious scrubbing. Installing a system that is capable of automatic scrubbing I believe is far away from realization. Plus would the price of purchasing, installing, and use of such a system really be cost effective. Possibly in the future.
As for vacuums, yes they make cute little robot vacs that can methodically clean a floor, but their ability to do anything more than be a glorified sweeper is limited by the slight strength of the vacuum itself. I can tell you from experience (owning and operating a flooring business) that a vac that weak is not going to cut it in public setting or even in the high traffic areas in most homes.
So far, however, we are just discussing low rent jobs. On the other end, I am not ready to take my triple by-pass heart surgery to a robot. I want a trained and skilled human doing the cutting and pasteing. Yes, in my opinion a doctor is employee labor, highly trained and highly skilled one would hope, but contract labor nonetheless.
The world's biggest problem with labor is not that it is labor, it is that the socialist religion has been teaching people for eons that raw, ignorant, and non-skilled laborers should enjoy the monetary rewards of a "living wage" without ever having invested in any form of "personal improvement" such as education, training, and experience. The socialist do this because they are incapable of learning and understanding that the market is a far better judge of labor value than the socialist's emotions are.
I'm surprised no one has pointed out the natural short term response to artificially increasing the cost of janitorial labor. The most immediate and efficient response of the building maintenance company is not to make expensive capital outlays for automated cleaning, but to cut costs – other than janitorial labor – in response.
For example, cut cleaning crews while maintaining production, cut back on office staff, cut back on equipment repair & maintenance, cut back on company provided transportation, cut back on benefits.
Long term, technology may be the answer, but short term is usually more zero sum. One cost goes up – another cost must be cut in response.
Bruce,
That certainly does happen. When American Airlines needed to cut all costs after 9/11, they did cut back on janitorial services. Office and cubicle wastebaskets were emptied twice a week instead of every day. Employees quickly learned to dispose of food or other smelly items in larger containers in break rooms.
Janitorial savings didn't make or break the airline, but the cutback did serve to remind employees that all costs had to be reduced.
I completely fail to understand your reasoning. I think everything you are suggesting is a great idea and if an increase in the minimum wage leads to these measures being adopted it would be fantastic. Increasing the amount of capital per worker — what all these suggestions are doing — is the major way we increase out standard of living. Why do you oppose these great ideas?
But you seem to be opposed to anything raising standards of living. Your idea of a good economy is keeping everyone working at low levels of productivity. Your concept of how the modern mixed economy really works in no way resembles the great capitalist system I see out there every day in the real world.
Just your own examples prove my point.
I think it is good that we no longer have elevator operators.
Why do you think we would be better off if we still had to have all those people in such low productivity menial jobs.
The people that were elevator operators have been able to move on to better and more productive jobs. That is the way we raise our standards of living as a population.
Why are you opposed to it?
Spencer,
Producers will increase worker productivity through automation – when it makes economic sense to do so. private enterprise is perfectly able to innovate without any "direction" or "incentives" from government.
Artificially increasing the wage rate simply:
- increases unemployment of the lowest skilled workers;
- forces some jobs to be offshored;
- eliminates some producers altogether;
- in some cases increases the prices consumers must pay.
I don't see how any of those effects of artificial wage rates will increase standards of living in the U.S.
Spencer,
Beyond the economic arguments against the minimum wage – many of which could be made much more eloquently by others posting here – there are other reasons to oppose a minimum wage.
For example, if I am willing to work for $3.00/hr to get my foot in the door of a company which I want to work for, and that company is willing to pay me $3.00/hr for my services, why should the government be able to prohibit us from entering into such an employment contract? Is that not an infringement of my fifth amendment right to liberty? Should I not be free to set the appropriate value for my time and efforts?
Spencer,
Earlier this year, Peter Beukelman of the Netherlands explained why governments should not force innovation through artificial wage rates:
"Successful businessmen will always use what is cheapest and most readily available and produce what is most scarce. If labor is widely available, they will make use of it. If everyone is employed and wages go up, they will innovate at the right time in the right areas. Businessmen do not need external motivation to innovate if it makes economic sense to do so.
If government force is needed, however, innovation is not viable — a less abundant resource (capital) is utilized at the expense of an abundant resource (labor), which is left underutilized."
Does the Minimum Wage Boost Innovation?
I am not talking about the minimum wage.
Don was talking about Union negotiations.
I'm talking about always taking the position that cheap labor is always the preferred alternative.
Come on someone — tell me why still having elevator operators would be a good thing.
Don implies it would be. Explain why.
I just had a neat-o vision of Spencer's (dis?)utopian capital allocation. Half the people make Machine2, a machine that makes Machine1 more efficient. The other half of the people make Machine1. That'll get us more capital per worker.
"to suppose that employers have no choice but to pay statutorily imposed higher wages."
Spencer, I would assume 'statutorily' is referring to the minimum wage.
spencer 11:47:14 AM: "if an increase in the minimum wage leads to these measures being adopted it would be fantastic."
spencer 12:39:39 PM: "I am not talking about the minimum wage."
Sorry, Spencer, you have confused me. What are you talking about? If you are simultaneously carrying on two discussions, please try to more clearly direct your responses.
Spencer:
The people that were elevator operators have been able to move on to better and more productive jobs. That is the way we raise our standards of living as a population.
If I read the linked LTE correctly, it appears that many of the people who might once have been elevator operators are now janitors. Is that the sort of living standard improvement that you're talking about?
spencer: "tell me why still having elevator operators would be a good thing. … Don implies it would be."
I don't think Don is implying that still having manual elevators would TODAY be a good thing. I think he does imply that, absent a minimum wage increase, swapping out manual elevators for automated ones may not have made economic sense for some building owners in the early 60's.
Again, the link I provided gives the reason why government-forced innovation does not make economic sense:
"If government force is needed, however, innovation is not viable — a less abundant resource (capital) is utilized at the expense of an abundant resource (labor), which is left underutilized."
Does the Minimum Wage Boost Innovation?
John: you are absolutely correct about the USE of real numbers
My favorite story is the 4 year-old on the east cost who received an IRS letter about unpaid taxes in California – ouch.
Dirty Mac….
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA….awesome.
Sori Spencer,
You're out in left field on this one: There is no way intelligent reading of this..
"In fact, no job must be filled. Each worker is hired only when an employer gains more from hiring that worker than it costs that employer to make the hire. Even for high-priority tasks, such as keeping office buildings clean and smoothly operating, employers can substitute machines and other technologies for workers. For historical evidence, Ms. Long might explore how a hike in the minimum-wage prompted building owners in the 1960s to speed up their substitution of automatic elevators for manual ones operated by low-skilled workers"
….can be interpreted as Don being in favor of having elevator operators. In fact he is saying exactly the opposite. Pay closer attention to the first two sentences, sir Spencer.
Don,
The Atlanta airport has these nifty trash compactors built into their trashcans. This of course results in less labor to empty the trash, since the janitors have to come around that much less often. I thought that was a pretty neat idea.
The whole airport is really well-done, at least until you get to the part run by the government (a curse upon the TSA!).
Did anyone mention that you might wish to put the job up for bids? Or does the law require you to hire an employee?
I would like to address some of your suggestions.
- install more self- flush toliets and urinals
A.- They still have to be cleaned. No time savings.
- install bathroom-counter surfaces that contain anti-microbial agents;
A. – Again they still have to be cleaned.
- switch to electric floor scrubbers each of which covers a larger surface area than do currently used scrubbers;
A.- A lager scrubber is not always adventageous in many small areas.
- switch to larger, more powerful vacuum cleaners each of which covers a larger surface area than do currently used vacuum cleaners;
A.- Again perhaps for large rooms or hallways but not very effective for under desks or in cubiculs.
- install "robot" vacuum cleaners;
A.- Maybe in some situtions but they can't move desk chairs to vac under or pick up trash cans to get under.
- install flooring that cleans more easily (i.e., faster) than conventional flooring — or even switch from carpet to hard floor (or vice-versa) depending upon which surface requires less total cleaning time;
A.- Quite a costly expense which would take quite some time to see a savings.
- redesign trash-disposal methods so that that fewer worker-hours are required to empty trash cans;
A.- People are generally lazy there is now way people are going to bother taking there personal trash to a central location.
- install improved air-cleaning devices that extract and capture from the air more dirt and dust particles than do less-costly devices;
A.- If you could get owners to open there wallets, this would help.
- lock more restrooms – that is, more commonly require a key for entry into restrooms, thereby reducing the frequency of restroom use, keeping them more off-limits to visitors;
A.- Alot of keys would have to be made and hopefully everyone would have to remember to bring there key and it's not very visitor friendly if someone has to go bad and has an accident,who's going to clean that up?
I don't feel these are very feasible suggestions.
I would like to address some of your suggestions.
- install more self- flush toliets and urinals
A.- They still have to be cleaned. No time savings.
- install bathroom-counter surfaces that contain anti-microbial agents;
A. – Again they still have to be cleaned.
- switch to electric floor scrubbers each of which covers a larger surface area than do currently used scrubbers;
A.- A lager scrubber is not always adventageous in many small areas.
- switch to larger, more powerful vacuum cleaners each of which covers a larger surface area than do currently used vacuum cleaners;
A.- Again perhaps for large rooms or hallways but not very effective for under desks or in cubiculs.
- install "robot" vacuum cleaners;
A.- Maybe in some situtions but they can't move desk chairs to vac under or pick up trash cans to get under.
- install flooring that cleans more easily (i.e., faster) than conventional flooring — or even switch from carpet to hard floor (or vice-versa) depending upon which surface requires less total cleaning time;
A.- Quite a costly expense which would take quite some time to see a savings.
- redesign trash-disposal methods so that that fewer worker-hours are required to empty trash cans;
A.- People are generally lazy there is now way people are going to bother taking there personal trash to a central location.
- install improved air-cleaning devices that extract and capture from the air more dirt and dust particles than do less-costly devices;
A.- If you could get owners to open there wallets, this would help.
- lock more restrooms – that is, more commonly require a key for entry into restrooms, thereby reducing the frequency of restroom use, keeping them more off-limits to visitors;
A.- Alot of keys would have to be made and hopefully everyone would have to remember to bring there key and it's not very visitor friendly if someone has to go bad and has an accident,who's going to clean that up?
I don't feel these are very feasible suggestions.
Posted by: Rick Crombie | Apr 11, 2008 6:50:31 AM