Cut the working week to 20 horus

[The Brain]

I don't know which standard work week is ideal.

It's not the same for everybody.

You mean every country?

[Zanza]

I've got a 35 hour workweek and would rather work 40 hours because it is better paid obviously and I am fairly certain it wouldn't stress me.

[MadImmortalMan]

I don't know which standard work week is ideal.

It's not the same for everybody.

You mean every country?

No, every individual. A perfect "ideal" amount would have to depend on the individual in question.

[The Brain]

I don't know which standard work week is ideal.

It's not the same for everybody.

You mean every country?

No, every individual. A perfect "ideal" amount would have to depend on the individual in question.

As you may have missed I am talking about standard work week. In Sweden at present it's 40 h.

[garbon]

I find this very hard to believe. Much poorer people than you manage it.

Yes and they live in even crappier conditions (i.e. unsafe neighborhoods). Why should I be pushed into that?

Except you can.
I'm happy with what I earn, I don't want to earn less, but I could get by on a half or third of what I earn. Less if I moved to a smaller, worse located place (my current place is rather huge).

That's nice. I couldn't. I mean I suppose I could get on if I cut all my expenses down and lived more like a pauper but why would I want to do that? Poverty for all so that all can have some?

And it would continue to be so.

No it won't.  Work quality will decline because of continuity issues. Work quality will also decline as you can't actually work more than 20 hours, so you know longer need to worry about whether or not work gets done - but just that you put in your hours.  Companies won't really want that and will probably seek labor in countries where said labor can work whenever it wants.

Two people contributing to society, giving their kids a chance in life, etc.... vs a person taking the work of both who doesn't contribute anything more but can afford to stay somewhere nicer when he goes on holiday and has a bigger TV.
I'd prefer option 1. It reduces the profits of their employer slightly but hugely   increases the wellbeing of the country and the individuals involved.

I've no idea what this is supposed to mean. I don't understand why the two people are contributing to society but the 1 person isn't. Also, their seems to be a value judgment that those who have kids should get preferential treatment in society.

[Josquius]

Yes and they live in even crappier conditions (i.e. unsafe neighborhoods). Why should I be pushed into that?

Reduce unemployment and these neighbourhoods won't be so unsafe.
And its not just you we're talking about here. If everyone is working a few hours less then everyone has less money, a smart landlord would drop his prices to match.

That's nice. I couldn't. I mean I suppose I could get on if I cut all my expenses down and lived more like a pauper but why would I want to do that? Poverty for all so that all can have some?

Something tells me you have quite a different idea of what constitutes living like a pauper than I do.
And no. Who said anything about poverty for all? What I am in favour of is a slight drop in the legal work week so more people are employed. You can afford to lose a few hours work a week.

No it won't.  Work quality will decline because of continuity issues. Work quality will also decline as you can't actually work more than 20 hours, so you know longer need to worry about whether or not work gets done - but just that you put in your hours.  Companies won't really want that and will probably seek labor in countries where said labor can work whenever it wants.

Less profitable than before != unprofitable.
Sure, companies won't want that, but then if we always did want companies want the world would be a rather horrific place.
And no. Do you see every company in Germany fleeing to Britain to take advantage of its longer work week?

I've no idea what this is supposed to mean. I don't understand why the two people are contributing to society but the 1 person isn't. Also, their seems to be a value judgment that those who have kids should get preferential treatment in society.

Of course the 1 person is contributing to society.
Two are however better than one.
And nope, nothing at all about preferring those with kids. The maximum positive effect is however felt where there is a family involved.

Why is a person "working" zero hours lesser in your eyes?

Unemployment sucks, there've been many studies which have thrown up this basic result. The kids of unemployed parents are less likely to do well at school, more likely to be unemployed themselves, more likely to turn to crime, etc...

[Sheilbh]

Unemployment sucks, there've been many studies which have thrown up this basic result. The kids of unemployed parents are less likely to do well at school, more likely to be unemployed themselves, more likely to turn to crime, etc...

Plus I think working's a sort-of moral requirement.

[Razgovory]

 

[garbon]

Reduce unemployment and these neighbourhoods won't be so unsafe.

OK

And its not just you we're talking about here. If everyone is working a few hours less then everyone has less money, a smart landlord would drop his prices to match.

I already hashed this out with Dgul. Things like that wouldn't happen quick and it would be awfully painful in the interim.

Something tells me you have quite a different idea of what constitutes living like a pauper than I do.

Darling, I already live in a pretty small box. If I didn't want to have to leave Manhattan then I'd need to get a million roommates or move to Harlem if you wanted to split my salary between two people. Hardly poverty but I'm not sure why I should be giving up any of my honestly gotten lifestyle.

And no. Who said anything about poverty for all? What I am in favour of is a slight drop in the legal work week so more people are employed. You can afford to lose a few hours work a week.

Really? How can 2 people be paid out of what I currently make without splitting the salary in half? Besides, between when I'm in the office and work I do from home, I put in more than 40 hours a week for my company. If they capped me at 35, it'd be more than just cutting 5 hours. In fact, our VP sales is working round the clock for her clients. Cut her to 35 hours and it would be more like losing 2 employees.

Less profitable than before != unprofitable.
Sure, companies won't want that, but then if we always did want companies want the world would be a rather horrific place.
And no. Do you see every company in Germany fleeing to Britain to take advantage of its longer work week?

Probably not but then you keep switching up the amount of hours you want to cut.  At any rate, if the less profitable bit is high enough, companies will seek out ways to get that work done elsewhere. Why do you think offices outsource?

Of course the 1 person is contributing to society.
Two are however better than one.
And nope, nothing at all about preferring those with kids. The maximum positive effect is however felt where there is a family involved.

I still don't understand. Does contributing society simply mean that they are working or do you actively have to be doing something with the money you earn? If not the latter, I don't really understand why that's a net benefit to society.  A couple where one person works and one raises the kids seems pretty beneficial to society on the raising good kids front. 

At any rate, seems odd your definition of the maximum positive effect.  I think some old geezer with no children who leaves a large fortune to charity would have a better effect that two rich working parents who leave all their money to their children.

[Josquius]

I already hashed this out with Dgul. Things like that wouldn't happen quick and it would be awfully painful in the interim.

So as Ide said make the cuts slow. There would still be a little reduction in the income:outgoings ratio but nothing you can't handle without any major changes.

Really? How can 2 people be paid out of what I currently make without splitting the salary in half? Besides, between when I'm in the office and work I do from home, I put in more than 40 hours a week for my company. If they capped me at 35, it'd be more than just cutting 5 hours. In fact, our VP sales is working round the clock for her clients. Cut her to 35 hours and it would be more like losing 2 employees.

2 people wouldn't be paid out of your salary.
Rather than 1 worker becomes 2 more doable would be along the lines of 10 workers become 12.
And I don't think it is a total legal requirement that people must work under X hours. Merely that anything past that counts as overtime and is the choice of the worker concerned and involves them getting overtime pay.

Probably not but then you keep switching up the amount of hours you want to cut.  At any rate, if the less profitable bit is high enough, companies will seek out ways to get that work done elsewhere. Why do you think offices outsource?

Outsourcing is down to cheaper workers who aren't of that much lower quality. Not work hours.

I still don't understand. Does contributing society simply mean that they are working or do you actively have to be doing something with the money you earn? If not the latter, I don't really understand why that's a net benefit to society.  A couple where one person works and one raises the kids seems pretty beneficial to society on the raising good kids front.

Yep. One working parent is fine, it is sometimes said to be better than two working parents in fact.
Where both parents are unemployed however, trouble lurks.

The merest act of working often leads to a better society. It isn't automatic of course, there are a lot of scum bags with jobs, but generally a parent with a sense of self-worth, a stable job, etc... is a much better influence on a kid than someone who lies around at home all their days watching TV.

At any rate, seems odd your definition of the maximum positive effect.  I think some old geezer with no children who leaves a large fortune to charity would have a better effect that two rich working parents who leave all their money to their children.

Well yes, but that's quite a specific comparison and we're talking about the lower echelons of society here, not the upper.

[Ed Anger]

More HR people needing to be hired? Pass.

[Iormlund]

There are two problems with this.

First is obviously enforcement. I am in theory on a 30 hour/week contract, yet I've been working twice that for the last month.

Second, talent pools are rather limited in many areas.
For example, back when I decided to go into automation I took some great courses at a local institution. In theory you had to be unemployed to attend, but most of us worked on the side since it was pretty much impossible not to have a job back then and there were not enough unemployed to fill classes.
Fast forward half a decade and Spain is full of young unemployed trying to get their first job or recycle into new careers. Yet my old teacher tells us that despite receiving hundreds of applications, performance has been nothing short of dismal year after year. Were us to hire someone he would be unable to recommend any of his former pupils.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Employees are expensive in more than just salary.   This would maybe give more people jobs but reduce benefits, work quality, and job satisfaction.

[Ideologue]

There are two problems with this.

First is obviously enforcement. I am in theory on a 30 hour/week contract, yet I've been working twice that for the last month.

Second, talent pools are rather limited in many areas.
For example, back when I decided to go into automation I took some great courses at a local institution. In theory you had to be unemployed to attend, but most of us worked on the side since it was pretty much impossible not to have a job back then and there were not enough unemployed to fill classes.
Fast forward half a decade and Spain is full of young unemployed trying to get their first job or recycle into new careers. Yet my old teacher tells us that despite receiving hundreds of applications, performance has been nothing short of dismal year after year. Were us to hire someone he would be unable to recommend any of his former pupils.

I'll do it.  I have an engineering degree from MIT.  Honest.

[Ed Anger]

There are two problems with this.

First is obviously enforcement. I am in theory on a 30 hour/week contract, yet I've been working twice that for the last month.

Second, talent pools are rather limited in many areas.
For example, back when I decided to go into automation I took some great courses at a local institution. In theory you had to be unemployed to attend, but most of us worked on the side since it was pretty much impossible not to have a job back then and there were not enough unemployed to fill classes.
Fast forward half a decade and Spain is full of young unemployed trying to get their first job or recycle into new careers. Yet my old teacher tells us that despite receiving hundreds of applications, performance has been nothing short of dismal year after year. Were us to hire someone he would be unable to recommend any of his former pupils.

I'll do it.  I have an engineering degree from MIT.  Honest.

I would have a ball doing the background on you. A ball.