• Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Which is disproved by Germany. When you compare Germany to surrounding countries, the economy of workers that now only work 35 hours per week, has not declined by comparison to neighboring countries.
    Other factors are way more significant, like wealth distribution, economic environment, and quality of public services. If you look to UK they are way worse off, because they have generally fucked up and used economic thinking similar to republicans.
    Also look at Denmark, we have one of the least number of yearly work hours, yet we are among the highest paid in the world. With almost no natural resources to benefit from.

    If you are unwilling to progress, there will be no progress.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yes! And the closer you get to zero the more we approach infinite roofs per hour, because that’s the way it works with humans, you simply multiply and divide and add and subtract, it’s really that easy, I wonder why people make it so complicated and add in completely unnecessary stuff like health and well being? /s

        • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          You can be snarky if you wish, but I am just pointing out the flaws in the idea that if you lower hours people will be as efficient.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            What I’m saying is you can’t just count the beans.
            Fewer work hours are recouped in a number of ways, like less sick leave and higher efficiency, maybe not 100%, but experience seems to show that a pretty significant part is. So “as efficient” is not true.

            Of course you can’t do this indefinitely, but you can increase efficiency most places by going down from 40.

            • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              I could agree with you if we are talking about 80 hours/ week , but 40 hour is totally doable and not really even many hours to work.

              As far as efficiency goes, that is an issue with companies that are enable to be inefficient by government controls and influences.

            • DancingBear@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              I think you can count the beans. You’ll have less injuries better quality work and a better product or service overall.

              One workplace injury over the life span of a business would save all the costs of the lower hours / same pay

              Edit: I work in a large organization. Someone hurt themselves. The payout was so large that the bosses realized they could pay for more than hundreds of dollars of safety equipment per worker per year for the entire organization and still save money if it avoided one accident.