The only way that we can remain competitive in the global marketplace is to squeeze the workers to the greatest extent that biology will allow. If that means slavery, mind control and death-at-30 then so be it. We must remain competitive
“But look! Asia’s doing it! We gotta compete! Think of the GDP!”
[Completely ignoring people dying at their desks unnoticed, jumping from factory windows, suffering heart attacks at 25 years old]
Pure malicious insanity.
Don’t forget their collapsing birth rates
Bernie: Here’s a bill that will help literally everyone. People waste less of their lives at work, and productivity goes up massively for the corporate overlords. There is no downside here for anyone.
Everyone: Shut up, hippy.
Everyone: Shut up, hippy.
They’ve been telling him that since he was being arrested for protesting for civil rights and Joe Biden was fighting against school busing…
Their stupid bullshit hasn’t stopped him yet
Bernie is still the only politician I have donated to but to be fair to Biden, bussing was met with violent protests and even black activists criticized it for weakening black communities. There were good reasons to be against that method without being against desegregation.
There were good reasons to be against that method without being against desegregation.
That’s not a fact, it’s an opinion.
One that Biden hasn’t been able to rationalize to Dem voters for decades.
If you want to try, give it a shot. I legitimately believe you might do a better job at it than Biden.
But you’re gonna have to do more than say there was “good reasons” besides people of Bidens age being completely ignorant of psychology.
School busing sped up integration by decades, and when kids grow up in multiracial environments it changes their ingroup determination to not just be “people who look like me”.
We can only change that at a very young age, but it sticks with you for life. Even with busing, the effects were decades away.
If we didn’t have busing, generations of people would have suffered.
So if you and Biden want to argue with that, you’re going to have to put in a lot of effort to throw the last 30 years of psychology
It’s not my opinion. It is the opinion of many black civil rights activists at the time. They argued that spreading out the kids would weaken the ties to the black community. They wanted to make black schools better rather than move kids. They argued that strengthening the black community would be the most effective way to pursue civil rights. Given that black children still get inferior education to whites and black communities are impoverished, they might have been right.
Lol.
You can’t try to defend Biden…
So you make up hypothetical Black people and say they didn’t want their kids to go to school with white kids?
Like, you just honestly tried to say it was the Black people being racist, and what’s the implication?
That Biden knew that, lied about why he was against busing as a cover job?
Why not just stop replying instead of that shit you typed?
Black leaders were mixed on the practice. Activist Jesse Jackson, NAACP officials and U.S. Rep. Shirley Chisholm were among those who supported busing efforts and policies. But many Black nationalists argued that focus should instead be placed on strengthening schools in Black communities.
A February 1981 Gallup Poll found 60 percent of Black Americans were in favor of busing, while 30 percent were opposed to it. Among white people surveyed, 17 percent favored busing, and 78 percent were against it.
“It ain’t the bus, it’s us,’’ Jackson told The New York Times in 1981. ‘’Busing is absolutely a code word for desegregation. The forces that have historically been in charge of segregation are now being asked to be in charge of desegregation.’”
Has it been so long that you forgot which side eyounwere arguing?
Or do you legitimately think that backs up your opinion from almost a day ago?
and that’s why the real enemy is ‘everyone’, or at least around 38% of the population. democracy still works. the problem is that close to half the american population has been brainwashed by religion and the corporotacracy to vote exactly how the owners want them to. the ugly truth is that we need a rwandan style conservative genocide if we really want to fix things.
it sucks as a solution but i don’t see any other way to fix this shit in time to prevent a truly devastating ecological dystopia. we are living in a massive trolley dilemma, but i think the worst possible outcome is that we leave a broken planet for endless future generations to suffer. i know which way i’d pull the switch.
Slow it down there Thanos, just because you can’t personally see a solution to our current predicament doesn’t mean that genocide is the solution. Do you honestly believe that would fix things? Are you a comic book villain?
You decrie brainwashing by the media and assume that you are unaffected, but you are clearly and dangerously mislead into losing all hope for a better world. The latest shift in climate disinformation is away from denialism and towards doomerism, and you seem to have fallen for it hard.
It is not too late. There are attainable solutions. Political change is possible, perhaps even inevitable. There will be consequences for what has already been done, but we can survive them and we will. What might not survive are the institutions that got us to this point, but we can build a better world in their absence. Don’t lose hope, that’s what the oligarchs want.
I know it’s hard to sympathize with those who refused to see reason and allowed the powers that be to bring us to the point of crisis, but it’s important to remember that they too are victims.
I agree with you on almost every point, but I don’t believe we have enough time left to sort it out without removing the obstacles to democratic change - idiot conservatives. I agree that they’re victims too, but this isn’t about grace or forgiveness. This is about problem solving. I don’t think we can achieve any kind of lasting solution as long as there is a significant portion of the American population that want to see other people suffer.
Everyone: Shut up, hippy.
Don’t listen to them, when they tell you that. As far as you know, might even be an astroturfer, trying to kill this in the crib.
Call your House of Representative member and let them know that you want this bill to become law.
If we citizens don’t apply the pressure, nothing will happen.
And if your cynical about doing that, try it anyway, just as an experiment, to see what happens. Hell, even make a YouTube video about your experience doing so, for content.
Just say "Please let my representative know that I am in favor of the Bernie Sanders bill (Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act) for a 32 hour work week."
It’s just a phone call. A 32 hour work week is worth a single phone call, right?
Unfortunately that’s a fairly naive take that fails to consider how most people work in the US- hourly employees would be fucked by this.
Retail, service, anyone whose not already working 9-5 office jobs; the reality is that they won’t loose pay, but they will loose hours. And you can bet your ass that companies won’t pay more to make up for it.
From the article…
The Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act would also protect workers’ pay and benefits to ensure there’s no loss in pay, according to a press release.
Says nothing about loss in hours.
Remember, when you’re paid hourly, you can lose hours and not lose pay.
Unless the employment contract already has guaranteed hours.
Says nothing about loss in hours.
I’m assuming that’s covered as a part of this…
ensure there’s no loss in pay
And you’d be wrong. Companies would still be paying them at whatever rate they were paid at. Most jobs don’t come with specifically guaranteed hours, however.
It’s a technicality, yes, but it’s also a very important distinction. They’re not losing pay. They’re losing hours. The consequence is the same; but short of minimum wage increases; there’s no mechanism for the US Government to dictate wages to individual companies. Particularly when they were never party to that contract in the first place.
If you are correct, then the bill won’t work, because it won’t have the support of all the hourly workers.
I’m assuming that Bernie and Co are smart enough to realize that, so they would make sure any bill that they wrote would cover that scenario that you’re describing, and not just waste all of our time.
That’s why I believe the part of the article I quoted earlier is factual, and covers what you’re speaking about.
I have no idea why you’re being downvoted. How would the government mandate a pay raise across the board? The government only has the federal minimum wage lever to play with. Somehow the law would have to say: all hourly workers must be paid 25% more. Would companies just increase prices by 25%?
Now, I’m all for reducing the work week to 32 hours. I’m tired of spending most of the week working and only having to 2 free days (of which one is usually spent doing home chores). But I’m genuinely curious about how this would be implemented without causing massive inflation.
Raising the minimum wage to account for inflation would give a vast number of people a major raise.
Which has little to do with a 32 hour workweek, and can’t be done on its own even though it really should be done.
Personally the minimum wage should be tied to the cost of living or increased along side CPI or some other useful inflation metric
Simply a one-time jump isn’t going to accomplish all that much in the long run.
Bring it up even to where it was along side inflation, (big jump,) and have an annual little jump baked in each year.
I agree, it has little to do with it. I was just addressing the idea that the federal minimum wage being the only lever to play would not have a massive positive effect on a huge percentage of workers.
The AFL-CIO, which is only demanding a $15/hour minimum wage says that if it kept up with inflation, it would be $24/hour.
https://aflcio.org/what-unions-do/social-economic-justice/minimum-wage
Based on that, the bare minimum someone working full-time should be making is a little less than $50,000 a year. And if the government used that ‘only lever to play,’ and it would still be less than the $68k that is needed to ‘live comfortably.’
https://thehill.com/business/4059025-an-average-american-income-may-no-longer-cut-it/
ive been reading a few things by the AFL-CIO, older stuff, I’d pay attention, though. (And 24 sounds about right.)
I was chatting with the union’s negotiator (technically the enemy, but, whatever. We have a good relationship for that.) now that the new contract is ratified; he’s disappointed because he thought they could get more.
I’m glad the bigwig negotiated they sent out fucked it up every which way. Got my people a much deserved pay raise and stuff.
Seriously, corporations are freaking scared of unions just now. I hope this momentum lasts.
If it’s mandated by law they will. As they do in other countries.
Yup. These “free market” folks conveniently forget that competition is bolstered when there’s a floor. An impartial referee to call balls, strikes, and fouls. A set of rules everyone has to play by, or they don’t get to play at all.
Also known as regulation.
they lose hours but the hourly pay goes up, just like everybody else, no? I haven’t read the bill but I would be surprised if that’s not in there.
Companies already offer part time retail positions, and they are shitty about it. 39.5 hours a week to avoid the full time line.
So in this 32h future they’d just offer 31 hour positions at a lower rate and still yank people around
The Full time Mark is already 30 hours per week measured monthly so not this would not change anything
https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/employers/identifying-full-time-employees
Sorry off on values, but they would offer part time. This is common.
So 28-29 hours.
First off, it needs to be noted that the only mechanism to do that on so large a scale is to increase the minimum wage.
Which is how they did it in ‘38 when the work week went to 44, and in ‘40 when it when to what it is today.
The problem is that company are absolutely going to pass that off to customers (aka, the workers… ultimately.) and so really all you’ve done, effectively, is put far more people onto minimum wage.
Anyone who was above that mimimim? Gets the shaft.
And people who now are on minimum? Working two jobs to pay for everything (like most people in the bottom quarter are already doing anyhow,) so they don’t really see reduced hours anyway.
It’s well meaning and it’d be nice, but it needs to be done differently. Unions are strong now. Stronger than they have been since I’ve been working. Join a union. Make the change yourself; eventually it’ll get normalized without the above problems. (Also, better wages, healthcare, workplace safety and everything else Unions get you.)(don’t tell my boss’s boss that. He’s still buthurt from negotiating a new contract.)
The problem is that company are absolutely going to pass that off to customers (aka, the workers… ultimately.)
News flash, they’re going to be raising prices regardless.
And they won’t tack that on, too, anyhow?
Chances are they’ll pass on the costs, increase the price, anyhow, shrink products, and raise prices even more, and then blame the last three on the first.
Exactly like they’ve been doing.
Point is, they’re going to anyway. So why even take that into consideration?
You’re the one bringing it into consideration…
So… why are you bringing it up?
Love the idea. But like free college and free healthcare I’m thinking it’s just wishful thinking.
many of the thoughts to better people’s lives in the past became the reality we live today, we just have to persist and move forward
I agree
Needs support. Not just from congress but from voters contacting their elected representatives. Zoomers and Millenials can complain all they want about Congress being out of touch, but if you’re over 18 Then fucking vote, not just in presidential elections but midterms and local/state elections. The country isn’t going to change to fit what young dreamers want it to be if the only people who vote enmass are the older generations that want it to stay the same.
Amazing how so many people have been tricked into thinking these ideas are impossible. It’s really not crazy at all.
Oh I think it’s possible, but considering our useless government and the obstructionists we all know, utterly impossible.
…I think it’s possible, but…utterly impossible.
So you don’t think it’s possible? Have you tried to do something, and have come to that conclusion because no matter what you do, nothing seems to be changing?
I’m not focusing on you specifically, but why people say things are “impossible “ and then you ask what, if anything, they’ve done, people will say nothing (or won’t even vote!).
You don’t need to devote your life to something you want to change…an hour or two a week. Join an advocacy group. Go to a town hall meeting. Call your congressman. If time is something you really have ZERO of, then donate so that other people can spend more time working the change you want to see happen.
“It’s impossible to change anything, so I’m not even gonna try”. Again, not saying this is you. I hear this “argument” so friggin often. It’s like people try and subconsciously excuse their own inaction and apathy.
I think it’s less useless government and more brainwashed citizens voting against their best interests. The useless government didn’t elect itself after all.
Coming from Germany where both of this is normal it’s pretty crazy to me that this is seen as some kind of socialist utopia.
Admittedly there are a lot of problems in that country as well but the root of them is imo not in free education & healthcare.
Scotland: “Are we just wishful thinking?”
America: “We told you and the rest of your kingdom to fuck off and now we’re doing it the stupid way!”
I don’t see a path forward that doesn’t start with the US government making the change first. They are one of the only employers that don’t have market competition.
Some US government departments give you a paid time off day every week to use however you want. A lot of people would take every Friday off, or some would stash them for a longer vacation.
It’s wild to me how internally the government offers the kind of benefits politicians should’ve pushed into law a long time ago. It really is “Me, not for The”.
Source: worked in one of those departments
Which jobs give you four day weeks as of now?
I work in the Federal Government, and this isn’t true. You have alternative work schedules (4/10s, 5/4/9, maxiflex, etc.) but you’re still going to work 80 hours unless you take leave. You gain annual leave every pay period and the amount is dependent on how long your federal service has been. But when you start (1-3 years) you only get 4 hours per pay period.
Maybe you’re seeing people who have long federal service (15 years) that gain 8 hours/pay period use their leave. That’s their choice but they’re still working 40 hours on paper regardless.
Some departments in the US government give you a paid time off day every week to use however you want. A lot of people would take every Friday off, or some would stash them for a longer vacation.
Nope.
Source: worked in one of those departments
If you did, you had no idea what was going on.
An agency can’t just “give” someone twice the leave accrual as the max. People were probably doing 4 days a week, 10 hours a day.
And you just didn’t understand
Giving a benefit to government workers only requires a president to write an executive order.
Making a benefit into a law that affects all workers requires the House, Senate, President, and SCOTUS to all get on board.
Definitely true, but you never hear conservatives complaining about all the paid leave they get or the healthcare benefits they enjoy.
If some conservative president really wanted to walk the talk, they’d axe all those benefits for everyone.
They are walking the talk; they do not believe all people deserve equal treatment. Their worldview is inherently hierarchical.
Bullshit. Fake news. Made up.
wow, that’s like two and a half months of vacation
Literally everything US politicians and billionaires do is “rules for thee, but not for me”. Even running for president.
i don’t even like looking at or thinking about this stuff, it’s too depressing getting my hopes up
Completely understand feeling this way but remember: this is how they win. If they can’t steal or nullify your vote, they want to discourage you from going to the ballot box by feeling it’s all rigged or pointless. It’s not. Here in the US, we still have free and fair elections and the power still resides with us if we claim it…
Completely understand feeling this way but remember: this is how they win. If they can’t steal or nullify your vote, they want to discourage you from going to the ballot box bcause you feel it’s all rigged or pointless. It’s not. Here in the US, we still have free and fair elections and the power still resides with us if we claim it…
How does this help salaried? I’m generally at thirty two hours by Wednesday.
As for hourly, it might help for a while. Hourly pay goes up twenty five percent to make weekly pay the same, but then those wages get frozen forever. Give it five years and you’ll start seeing companies create reasons for eliminating benefits and paying even less.
I’d love a thirty two hour work week, but I don’t see any magic bullet to make it happen.
(I think my twenty five percent math was right, but I didn’t sit here with a spreadsheet to prove it out. If the math is incorrect, the point still stands)
I had a US colleague that was ranting to me (a European) that people would still take calls just before having surgery and the moment the anastatics would have worn off work again. So I asked why not root for Bernie as he wants to do a more Scandinavian model (did not use the world socialism because reasons). Answer was no, would not be able to vote for him. Well…
Man, you’re talking about a “radical”, “extremist” politician who self-identifies as a (democratic) socialist.
Here in the US, most people from the poorest, last-educated states will simply never vote for a Democrat. That’s not an exaggeration. The only reason Nikki Haley got so much attention despite never being viable is because with our 2-Party system she was considered the only non-Trump option for many people in these flyover states. Add in the outsized influence they have in the Senate and the undemocratic Electrical College… We’re fucked.
I hear you my internet friend. Add to the fact that republicans want to keep their supporters dumb by further undermining education and it starts to look quite grim. Reforming the current 2 party system and electoral collage would be a common sense thing to do, but I fear this is only wishful thinking. Large corps with infinite money will keep driving the direction of a country and the politicians are just the workforce for them to execute on it. Same goes for the foreign influence (read Putin’s clerk boy Trump).
Now more paries does not mean better either. I mean I look at how things go in my country where we have over a dozen parties, ans now 4 of them trying to form a coalition, takes months. And unfortunately also here we are going further to the right and slowly embrace fascism.
Time for a new french style revolution I guess…
A good third of Americans are subhuman. They are proud to be stupid, abused, and evil.
Incomplete article by The Hill… Actually, the more I look at it this is a bad article. The only current bill introduced to the Congress is from last year by a different Representative. Bernie put out yesterday (the 13th) that he will be introducing a bill on Thursday the 14th (2024-03-14). It’s only 0600 local time Washington, D.C. so it hasn’t happened yet. And it would be very strange to he is introducing another act in the same session (118th).
H.R.1332 - Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act since they couldn’t even link to the bill.
Congress.gov has the sponsor as Rep. Takano, Mark [D-CA-39] (Introduced 03/01/2023).
Long title: Official Title as Introduced
To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to reduce the standard workweek from 40 hours per week to 32 hours per week, and for other purposes.
As a European libertarian, americans and people in some far eastern countries work at their jobs way too much. It’s harmful in every kind of way imaginable. I don’t understand why it’s done.
I get that some profession may benefit from it, but having standard office personnel sit at their desk 12 hours every day? What the fuck. I refuse to believe this improves company profits in 90% of the companies.
It’s been repeatedly shown to decrease company profits. As people work longer hours they amount of stuff they get done declines rapidly as they get tired. Their error rate also dramatically increases. This causes a rapid decline in overall productivity.
The issue is people believe that working longer hours is more productive in those cultures. Sadly people usually make decisions based upon unfounded beliefs not provable facts.
People also stress out and burn out more easily, which takes a toll on their health, which not only further reduces productivity, but also increases otherwise unnecessary medical costs
A coworker “above me” (we don’t have titles at this job so we can’t determine our value) just said the other day: “I don’t get this generation. Imagine calling out because you don’t feel well in my time? You went to work because you needed it, you cough and people know to stay the fuck away from you. If you called out you would just get fired and the job would keep chugging.”
That’s viewed as a GOOD place to work at by some fucking insane people… America is the land of the blind slave.
“That’s how you get pandemics.”
I don’t understand why it’s done.
Useful idiots proud to work for their overlords.
or y’know people trying to support and feed themselves and/or their families and hoping to somehow scrounge up enough savings to be able to lose it all for medical reasons or on a house
We’re discussing why they choose to structure society that way.
These arguments have been going on for generations, and Americans tend to be useful idiots proud to work for their overlords.
You are clearly not trying to “discuss anything”. Making glib generalizations and dismissing major reasons why people work excessive hours shows you would rather victim blame than actually discuss anything. And if you believe most Americans are " proud to work for overlords", then you are buying into the overlords propaganda.
yes because the modern worker who is in the group that would be most directly affected by Sanders’ proposal were involved in building the current work culture in america and totally have a choice about participating in it today.
…what? Are you being sarcastic?
I think you spend too much time on these forums and you’re playing leapfrog with yourself.
Try to be more direct and clear about what you want to say.
Own your argument!
Ask questions if you’re confused. Follow your own advice before giving it out.
The first thing I asked was a question…
Many people work 12h shifts but that’s not super common in office jobs.
What the fuck. I refuse to believe this improves company profits in 90% of the companies.
It doesn’t. Hundreds of industry studies have been done, and they all point to the same conclusion. 40 hours of work is the absolute maximum you can squeeze out of a worker before you start to see productivity and quality take a sharp nosedive. Doesn’t matter if you’re a factory worker or an office drone, fatigue will set in and give increasingly diminished returns for every hour over that. 40 hour work weeks only became the standard across the United States because of Henry Ford actually listening to the people doing these studies.
I think part of the reason we haven’t shifted more towards a more balanced 30 hour work week despite the absolutely massive increase in productivity thanks to computerization and automation is because management positions attract individuals who strongly believe that more effort = more results, and that probably rings true for managerial positions where the most alpha-minded ones who work extra hard above and beyond the job’s expectations are the ones to typically get the promotions and thus become industry leaders themselves in time.
Consider how much time people spend on Facebook or TikTok or whatever while on the job. Consider how much time is spent “looking busy” when in reality you might just be dragging out the task you are on so that you are not assigned more busywork. This is all a product of people having jobs that demand they be present and paid for 40 hours worth of labor, but a great deal of it is “performative labor” where they are not actually producing, but can’t afford to clock out early because wages are based on how long you are at work, and rarely commission based, so there’s no incentive to produce more for the same pay so long as you are meeting expectations/quotas.
I’m self employed.
There’s an infinite amount of work for me to do, but like most professions its intellectually, emotionally and mentally taxing.
Honestly, I can’t do much more than 4 hours of real actual work per day.
Same here. I did a complete carreer change from STEM (robotics engineering) into visual arts, and I’m happier than ever, but the intense mental work required means I do ~4 hours of actual developed work a day, then spend the next 4-6 hours doing the art equivalent of menial work (fixing the quality of small lines, slightly tweaking colours etc)
Hey that’s interesting! I have a degree in computer science and work as a software developer but also a masters in visual arts (photography). I never managed to break free from my developer gig, because of the financial stability it provides, but I already burned out, recovered and feel it’s an endless cycle. Like you, doing art made me so happy and it bothers me every day I can’t seem to get my life turned around in that direction.
Do you have any tips in that regard? How did you get started? Did you transition softly or just quit your job there and then? And what then? Did you have network? Can you live off your art?
I have so many questions, please point this fellow STEM in the right direction to break free :)
I’m sorry to say that I don’t have a lot of advice to give. I just got so fed up one day, that I decided the risk of starving to death wasn’t enough to stop me from changing fields.
How did you get started?
I built a small portfolio, anything I could get together and had some level of quality really. As artists we’re often harsh on ourselves, but the average person interested in commissions and freelance projects will be surprisingly undiscerning of your flaws, so don’t be too picky. Just make sure they’re finished art pieces, that’s what clients care most about. Then I made a profile in every social network/ freelance site I could think of.
Did you have network?
Nope, as we say in Brazil, I just “exposed my face to be slapped”.
Can you live off your art?
Barely, but yes - and the payout increases over time, as you get more comfortable, skilled and learn which corners you can cut without affecting the artwork. Keep in mind my cost of living is probably significantly lower than yours if you live in America or Europe.
I honestly don’t recommend following my footsteps - being more patient and building your artistic profile over a period, say one year, is almost certainly a better bet. Also, please don’t just quit without having the cash to sustain yourself for a while, in case things don’t pan out well.
Im working 40, and in recent memory went thru long stretches of 60+, and also 0, when i was privileged enough to take a bit of extra time between jobs.
In my “free” time, i work on the art my heart wont let me not make. When working 40, i can manage an extra 10 hrs (maybe) on a good week doing the shit i actually feel im supposed to do. When i worked 65, i hardly did shit some weeks, other weeks id feel proud of 3 hrs. Youd think i could then manage 60, or 50, or at least 40 when unemployed then, right?
Lol, try 25 as a stretch goal. When u actually believe in ur work and want to give problems the time they deserve and the details the attention they need, you find that you get burned out pretty damn fast. Any more and the effort slips.
Granted, im not counting breaks in that number. If i work 4 hrs one day, i might do it in some 45 minute chunks, 1 ninety minute chunk, with numerous 15 minute breaks and 1 lasting between 90-120.
I get that ymmv, but im typically extolled (read: exploited) as a very hard worker in all my jobs, and we’re talking about the difference between working on the things that my soul demands versus what is typically rote, menial BS.
That’s an interesting summation and more or less my experience.
Like I can rack up 60 hours doing “stuff”, but the complex stuff where I’m really producing the most value is capped at 20 or 25 hours a week.
Real actual work you say?
That’s more than most employees do in a day, and often they have less say in the impact of it.
Fuck the DNC.
Nonono don’t do it!!
Just look how it went in Germany, they went from 40 to 35 and then last year they overtook Japan as the 3rd largest economy in the world.
But if they had kept 40 hour work week, they might have done that a year earlier.I tell you 32 hour work week will be an absolute disaster, marriages will break because people will have time to spend together. This is why the christian right will oppose this tooth and nail, and you should too.
/s
Isn’t Germany the country where they’re burning wood to keep warm in the winter?
Absolutely, wood pellets and stoker furnaces are brilliant, as they work very well, and is a near CO2 neutral source of heat.
We do that too here in Denmark 7th richest country in the world, and I bet they also do in Norway and Switzerland, the 2nd and 3rd richest countries in the world.
We have both stoker furnace for central heating and a windowed stove in the living room for traditional firewood. The brilliance with the stove is that it has higher energy utilization than any other heat source. And it creates hygge in the living room in the long cold winter evenings.Let’s make a point that has nothing whatsoever to do with the original point so i can maintain my bullshit opinion.
The drones might have time to think and get ideas above their station. Next thing you know, they’ll start objecting to being maximally exploited at every turn! Letting them off the leash, even a little, will have disastrous effects for their owners, I tell you!
Inb4 Fox News later today
I’ll tell you hwat. 32 hour work week will be an absolute disaster, marriages will break because people will have time to spend together. This is why the christian right will oppose this tooth and nail, and you should too.
- Economist who chose to remain anonymous due to fear of liberal cancel culture.
I agree with the sentiment. But the case with Germany and Japan wasn’t so much Germany overtaking but rather Japan sloping down (Japan’s strict working hours/culture probably played a part in this though).
What I’m saying is that there are other factors than work hours that determine productivity. Job satisfaction is a major factor too.
Dogs and cats, living together! Mass heysteria!
Hyuck, hyuck, I get this refernce, ya fucking nerd!
I am in Germany, how do I get a 35 hour work week without working part time? Every contact I’ve ever had has said 40 hours, not including breaks, with an expectation of overtime going up to 50 hours (legal maximum) unpaid.
OK now I’m confused, because I was pretty sure Germany introduced 35 hour work week already in the 90’s, just like Denmark reduced to 37.5 hours.
Here the 37.5 is actually the norm for full time work. I thought it was 35 in Germany, but I can’t even find anything on the introduction of 35 hours in the 90’s ???But apparently the AVERAGE which is a completely different measure, is 34.2 in 2020.
https://blog.emerald-technology.com/working-hours-germany
34.2 hours as of 2020
I apologize if I misrepresented the situation in Germany.
Good for Bernie Sanders.
Yes, please.
It’s not going to go anywhere, but it’s good that it’s being introduced regardless.
You dont get something for nothing, either prices have to rise, or the government is propping up companies that are that ineffient that workers are only doing 32 hours in a 40 hour work week.
You should probably update your economic knowledge.
Study after study over the last 20-30 years has shown that productivity remains or increases when switching from 40 hrs to 32.
No no no, hours = productivity.
Monkey types on typewriter for more time, monkey write more code. All top quality. Best code.
And that would be under the government is propping up companies that are that ineffient.
If you mean that the common best practice of working 40 hrs/week is inefficient, then yes.
Governments aren’t pushing for 40 hr work weeks, socialists and industrialists of the early 1900s were, and the rest is conservatism.
Cool, so you think that framers get as much done in 32 hours as 40?
I don’t know if there’s any studies made specifically on framers, but machinists and manufacturers have been reported to, and of course almost anyone in a knowledge job.
So you think that all jobs are more efficient if they just lower the hours?
I’m saying there’s independently verified, peer reviewed, and repeated research that show that many jobs keep or increase their productivity.
Yes
Cool, but you would be wrong.
Your math is wrong
Many workers already only work 32 hours a week and fill a chair while bullshitting the rest of the time. Many people do that because they would burn out otherwise. Cut the hours by 25% and it’s more reasonable to expect people to actually work. Right now even supervisors don’t crack down on that behavior because it’s just generally accepted that you can’t push people that hard or productivity starts to fall. Imo 30 hours/week is the sweet spot for productivity and cutting down wasted dead time.
Most supervisors don’t push that button because they don’t want anyone to question how much work they do. Because it’s the same as the rest of us. Or less.
The hardass bosses who do demand more typing and more hours simply don’t possess self-awareness.
And that would be under the government is propping up companies that are that ineffient.
Don’t know where you get that idea from. If you cut out the hours where employees sit around wasting time, you get the same productivity for less hours worked. There’s no difference besides time saved. Government has nothing to do with it, as revenue is not affected.
The government creates a hedge of regulation protection for large businesses. Also the government directly gives money via contracts, between 20-25% of the GDP is government spending, and that is just on the federal level.
You clearly do not have an economics degree, nor do you know what you are talking about
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.
So a roofer will be able to put on more roofs if they work less hours?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, many labor jobs would have large quality improvements if their workers worked less hours
Pharmacist here. I definitely work the full 40 hours basically non stop and… It’s awful. I don’t think this is how humans are meant to live. If you have a job that absolutely requires the full 40 to be 100% effort, the rest of your life suffers. I believe the reason so many people are able to do 40+ hours is the downtime that’s built into most jobs.
I did 30 hours as a pharmacist for years and it was AMAZING. Like the job was still hard, but it felt like I had a portion of my life that was hard. Now that I’m stuck back to 40 it feels like I have a hard life. I barely have energy to give to my 1 year old baby on days off because I am recovering from the day before. I do the best I can but man was I in a better place at 30 hours.
This is a different discussion, but I agree with you. I think the issue you are looking at is that the way the government manages the currency has created the issue where many people NEED to work 40 hours just to get by. The government has been devaluing our wages for generations and we are on the same side, I just think we all need to realize what the actual problem is.
