Imagine you are the owner of a factory engaged in the business of manufacturing some product. It might be a tangible commodity, something you can actually touch or even hold in your hand, or it might be something intangible, such as processing insurance claims. The important thing is that there be a large enough market for the product to justify the techniques of modern mass production, including the division of labor and the use of machinery. In other words, the factory must employ considerable amounts of labor and capital.
Assuming you face significant competition, your job as the manager is to produce as much product in it, at the least cost, and of the highest quality possible. Only then can you maximize your market share and get the best possible return on your investment.
Let me now state as concisely as I can the case for factories in the countryside run on part-time jobs. Such factories can run faster and more efficiently than similar factories in cities using a full-time workforce. For two reasons:
First, because part-time workers can work faster than full-time workers, just as in track-and-field the short-distance runners always run faster than the long-distance runners.
And secondly, because your part-time workers will, if anything, have slightly fewer hours in the week than they might voluntarily prefer. This means that if their wages are tied to their output by some equitable formula – a very important if -- they can be motivated to exert themselves to the maximum possible degree.
It follows that by using what I like to call incentive-based work-sprints, the factory’s output per hour will be greater than that of a similar facility in the city. This translates directly into a better rate of return on investment even though unit labor costs remain the same.
This in a nutshell is the argument stated in intuitive terms that any businessman can understand.