http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/08/cut-working-week-urges-thinktank?newsfeed=true
QuoteBritain is struggling to shrug off the credit crisis; overworked parents are stricken with guilt about barely seeing their offspring; carbon dioxide is belching into the atmosphere from our power-hungry offices and homes. In London on Wednesday, experts will gather to offer a novel solution to all of these problems at once: a shorter working week.
A thinktank, the New Economics Foundation (NEF), which has organised the event with the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School of Economics, argues that if everyone worked fewer hours – say, 20 or so a week – there would be more jobs to go round, employees could spend more time with their families and energy-hungry excess consumption would be curbed. Anna Coote, of NEF, said: "There's a great disequilibrium between people who have got too much paid work, and those who have got too little or none."
She argued that we need to think again about what constitutes economic success, and whether aiming to boost Britain's GDP growth rate should be the government's first priority: "Are we just living to work, and working to earn, and earning to consume? There's no evidence that if you have shorter working hours as the norm, you have a less successful economy: quite the reverse." She cited Germany and the Netherlands.
Robert Skidelsky, the Keynesian economist, who has written a forthcoming book with his son, Edward, entitled How Much Is Enough?, argued that rapid technological change means that even when the downturn is over there will be fewer jobs to go around in the years ahead. "The civilised answer should be work-sharing. The government should legislate a maximum working week."
Many economists once believed that as technology improved, boosting workers' productivity, people would choose to bank these benefits by working fewer hours and enjoying more leisure. Instead, working hours have got longer in many countries. The UK has the longest working week of any major European economy.
Skidelsky says politicians and economists need to think less about the pursuit of growth. "The real question for welfare today is not the GDP growth rate, but how income is divided."
Parents of young children already have the right to request flexible working, but the NEF would like to see job-sharing and alternative work patterns become much more widespread, and is calling on the government to make flexible working a default right for everyone.
I've had thoughts in this direction before, it does make sense in a way, rather than someone having 40 hours of work two people having 20 hours. I always dismissed it though as just idle thinking which wouldn't work in the real world.
Certainly though this could be one solution to the steady decay of the amount of work available- a dodgy trend which has been going on since the 70s/80s, ever accelerating, the recent economic situation only worsening not creating it. It could help somewhat relieve the future problem of massed unemployment brought on by mechanisation.
It would be more expensive. Nearly doubling the work force = more bennies (health, life insurance, pension/401k matching, etc), as well as administrative and HR type things. You'd need more managers, tasks that were once simple become balancing acts and everybody would have to work very well together.
Fucking stupid.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clipartpal.com%2F_thumbs%2Fpd%2FEye_of_Horus.png&hash=5379558819a998fefdb6d8cc5cff33242208b00b)
Disaproves of such lazyness by his slaves.
:yes:
I claim Isis!
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2012, 09:38:55 PM
I've had thoughts in this direction before, it does make sense in a way, rather than someone having 40 hours of work two people having 20 hours. I always dismissed it though as just idle thinking which wouldn't work in the real world.
Certainly though this could be one solution to the steady decay of the amount of work available- a dodgy trend which has been going on since the 70s/80s, ever accelerating, the recent economic situation only worsening not creating it. It could help somewhat relieve the future problem of massed unemployment brought on by mechanisation.
Addressing your commentary...now that I've finished laughing.
How would that even function? I work more than my company's traditional working hours. Do you really think my company would hire someone new to cover those additional hours without cutting my pay? If they cut my pay, how do I afford for my apt and the rest of my expenses? Howdo you keep anyone that has a job currently from fleeing said country that enforces a maximum work week (and then naturally a cut in pay)? Why wouldn't businesses seek employees outside of said countries?
And why should we try to reverse the effects of mechanization? At the end of the day aren't we just removing jobs that have become obsolete? Why isn't it the role of the would be job-seeker to step up to the demands of this "new" workforce?
Btw, just picked up a bio on Thatcher. The whole beginning is all about her humble beginnings.
This suggestion has been mentioned a million times before. That it hasn't been effectively implemented should tell you something.
2 people working 20 hours does not equal to one person working 40 hours a week. It'll be far less. A lawfirm won't benefit by having a bright lawyer work less, even if they have an additional guy, because the new guy is most likely unqualified and inexperienced. And good luck competing with the Chinese or Japanese factory workers who work 80 hours a week or more.
QuoteThis suggestion has been mentioned a million times before. That it hasn't been effectively implemented should tell you something.
2 people working 20 hours does not equal to one person working 40 hours a week. It'll be far less. A A lawfirm won't benefit by having a bright lawyer work less, even if they have an additional guy, because the new guy is most likely unqualified and inexperienced. And good luck competing with the Chinese or Japanese factory workers who work 80 hours a week or more.
Germany manages.
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2012, 09:50:55 PM
Addressing your commentary...now that I've finished laughing.
How would that even function? I work more than my company's traditional working hours. Do you really think my company would hire someone new to cover those additional hours without cutting my pay? If they cut my pay, how do I afford for my apt and the rest of my expenses? Howdo you keep anyone that has a job currently from fleeing said country that enforces a maximum work week (and then naturally a cut in pay)? Why wouldn't businesses seek employees outside of said countries?
And why should we try to reverse the effects of mechanization? At the end of the day aren't we just removing jobs that have become obsolete? Why isn't it the role of the would be job-seeker to step up to the demands of this "new" workforce?
You can afford to live just fine with less hours (IMO 20 is way over the top and into the realms of fantasy silliness). What about the person who can't afford their apartment and expenses because they've no job?
I don't see people fleeing countries with a good work-life balance. Quite the opposite...
Why to businesses bother to operate in some countries in the first place?
Its not at all about reversing the effects of mechanisation. Its about sharing its positive effects and reducing the impact of its negative effects. The world only needs so many cars (or what have you), it does however need a hell of a lot less people to make them than it once did, a trend which is forever continuing.
Its all well and good to moan about the knowledge economy, people needing to train for jobs in IT and all that sort of thing but for some people that just isn't an option. Not all of us are born with a decent head on our shoulders and the opportunity to go to university.
And even there we have the potential for more supply than there is demand. It isn't as simple as your job is obsolete, get a new job. Its a question of the concept of work steadily going obsolete.
Quote
Btw, just picked up a bio on Thatcher. The whole beginning is all about her humble beginnings.
Her beginnings weren't that humble, her dad was a shopkeeper, pretty middle class.
But I suppose that is still in touch with common folk. Which makes her all the more monstrous, she can't even hide behind the veil of ignorance the upper class Tories do.
I don't know that I could afford to live just fine with fewer hours/less pay. Eastern Mass. isn't very forgiving. Arrange for rent to go down and we can talk.
I think the solution is to have more large-scale wars. Death solves all problems.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 09, 2012, 10:06:56 PM
Arrange for rent to go down and we can talk.
In Soviet 20hrworkweekastan, rent arranges you.
The rent is too damn high.
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2012, 10:04:51 PM
You can afford to live just fine with less hours (IMO 20 is way over the top and into the realms of fantasy silliness). What about the person who can't afford their apartment and expenses because they've no job?
Are you kidding me? I'd definitely need to flee New York if I collected half my salary. In fact, if I collected half my salary before taxes, I'd be getting close to the yearly rent on my 1 bedroom apt. And believe me, my apartment is hardly extravagant.
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2012, 10:04:51 PM
I don't see people fleeing countries with a good work-life balance. Quite the opposite...
Good work-life balance doesn't matter if you can't afford your life.
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2012, 10:04:51 PMWhy to businesses bother to operate in some countries in the first place?
Because it is profitable to? :huh:
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2012, 10:04:51 PMIts not at all about reversing the effects of mechanisation. Its about sharing its positive effects and reducing the impact of its negative effects. The world only needs so many cars (or what have you), it does however need a hell of a lot less people to make them than it once did, a trend which is forever continuing.
Its all well and good to moan about the knowledge economy, people needing to train for jobs in IT and all that sort of thing but for some people that just isn't an option. Not all of us are born with a decent head on our shoulders and the opportunity to go to university.
And even there we have the potential for more supply than there is demand. It isn't as simple as your job is obsolete, get a new job. Its a question of the concept of work steadily going obsolete.
So the solution is to cut the hours and pay of those limited skill workers who managed to land one of those ever-vanishing positions? :yeahright:
Btw, if we need fewer workers, perhaps we should continue to have fewer babies. That's fewer people who need jobs down the line. :bowler:
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2012, 10:22:06 PM
Are you kidding me? I'd definitely need to flee New York if I collected half my salary. In fact, if I collected half my salary before taxes, I'd be getting close to the yearly rent on my 1 bedroom apt. And believe me, my apartment is hardly extravagant.
I find this very hard to believe. Much poorer people than you manage it.
Quote
Good work-life balance doesn't matter if you can't afford your life.
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).
Quote
Because it is profitable to? :huh:
And it would continue to be so.
Quote
So the solution is to cut the hours and pay of those limited skill workers who managed to land one of those ever-vanishing positions? :yeahright:
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.
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2012, 10:22:06 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2012, 10:04:51 PM
You can afford to live just fine with less hours (IMO 20 is way over the top and into the realms of fantasy silliness). What about the person who can't afford their apartment and expenses because they've no job?
Are you kidding me? I'd definitely need to flee New York if I collected half my salary. In fact, if I collected half my salary before taxes, I'd be getting close to the yearly rent on my 1 bedroom apt. And believe me, my apartment is hardly extravagant.
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2012, 10:04:51 PM
I don't see people fleeing countries with a good work-life balance. Quite the opposite...
Good work-life balance doesn't matter if you can't afford your life.
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2012, 10:04:51 PMWhy to businesses bother to operate in some countries in the first place?
Because it is profitable to? :huh:
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2012, 10:04:51 PMIts not at all about reversing the effects of mechanisation. Its about sharing its positive effects and reducing the impact of its negative effects. The world only needs so many cars (or what have you), it does however need a hell of a lot less people to make them than it once did, a trend which is forever continuing.
Its all well and good to moan about the knowledge economy, people needing to train for jobs in IT and all that sort of thing but for some people that just isn't an option. Not all of us are born with a decent head on our shoulders and the opportunity to go to university.
And even there we have the potential for more supply than there is demand. It isn't as simple as your job is obsolete, get a new job. Its a question of the concept of work steadily going obsolete.
So the solution is to cut the hours and pay of those limited skill workers who managed to land one of those ever-vanishing positions? :yeahright:
If people earned less, then positional goods like real estate would also go down in value. Not by the same proportion as the average salary, but it will go down. High salaries and high cost of living feed off each other and leverage each other to some extent.
I have always thought it to be a paradox that increased productivity hasn't gone towards reducing hours worked, and rather went towards higher earnings and sometimes even more hours worked. In a post-scarcity economy, it doesn't have to be this way. After a certain point, having time to enjoy what you earned is more important than earning more.
That said, the argument in the OP is just a standard lumps of labor fallacy. You don't reduce unemployment by cutting work hours, even if you manage to enforce that mandate.
Obviously wages would go down, people would be working half as much.
QuoteYou don't reduce unemployment by cutting work hours, even if you manage to enforce that mandate.
Well that depends. You can avoid unemployment by doing it. That's part of the German system and is something that happened here during the immediate financial crisis.
In reality people work according to need and recieve according to ability.
Quote from: DGuller on January 09, 2012, 10:30:56 PM
If people earned less, then positional goods like real estate would also go down in value. Not by the same proportion as the average salary, but it will go down. High salaries and high cost of living feed off each other and leverage each other to some extent.
That's all well and lovely but it would be a hell of a transition for us all.
I'd support some cut. I'd say 35 hours would be workable with our economy. Scaled down an hour per year for five years, something like that.
The end of work is not yet upon us. Though it's surely coming, and we should start changing our social mores and governance to reflect the reality that the human economy is rapidly growing out of its need for human beings--which was, or ought to have been, the goal all along. Somehow the ideal got lost along the way.
Quote from: VikingIn reality people work according to need and recieve according to ability.
That's very cute, but I think you'll find it's every bit as aspirational as Marx's epigram.
And gabs, you don't really work 40 hours a week already. You've said so. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on January 09, 2012, 11:28:16 PM
And gabs, you don't really work 40 hours a week already. You've said so. :P
Depends on the week. Lately, no. But then I'm disgruntled. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on January 09, 2012, 11:28:16 PM
we should start changing our social mores and governance to reflect the reality that the human economy is rapidly growing out of its need for human beings--which was, or ought to have been, the goal all along.
:lol: This is almost as laughable as the idea in the OP. Or is your idea of "rapidly" something akin to "within a few more thousand years"? We are nowhere near growing out of the need for humans to labor, unfortunately, and won't be for some time.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 09, 2012, 11:28:16 PM
Quote from: VikingIn reality people work according to need and recieve according to ability.
That's very cute, but I think you'll find it's every bit as aspirational as Marx's epigram.
It is cute and it's a descriptive rather than aspirational statement. The main difference is that with mine I aspire to work for my benifit, in Marx's statement I demand that soembody else work for my benifit.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 10, 2012, 12:10:58 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 09, 2012, 11:28:16 PM
we should start changing our social mores and governance to reflect the reality that the human economy is rapidly growing out of its need for human beings--which was, or ought to have been, the goal all along.
:lol: This is almost as laughable as the idea in the OP. Or is your idea of "rapidly" something akin to "within a few more thousand years"? We are nowhere near growing out of the need for humans to labor, unfortunately, and won't be for some time.
Some humans will clearly have some place for the foreseeable future, but I don't know on what basis you think most or all humans can meaningfully contribute to an increasingly automated, computer-dominated economy.
I've presented a plausible vision of the future--an economic system which requires only those of the highest skill and aptitude to function, as the need for unskilled and semi-skilled labor in industry and service sectors dwindles. What's the competing vision? Do we all work as hobbyists making handcrafted goods, or as migrant farmhands, and earn living wages from doing so? Is that equally plausible?
Quote from: Viking on January 10, 2012, 12:18:56 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 09, 2012, 11:28:16 PM
Quote from: VikingIn reality people work according to need and recieve according to ability.
That's very cute, but I think you'll find it's every bit as aspirational as Marx's epigram.
It is cute and it's a descriptive rather than aspirational statement. The main difference is that with mine I aspire to work for my benifit, in Marx's statement I demand that soembody else work for my benifit.
'Kay. I meant it's aspirational in the sense that the language in the U.N. Charter or in human rights treaties is aspirational. It's certainly not how the world appears to work--unless ability simply means "ability to receive income, "at which point it simply becomes tautological. You receive according to the market. And anyone who believes the market is a perfect mechanism must've been in a... well, I guess you do spend a lot of time on oil rigs. Perhaps you haven't heard.
I recently saw a graph that showed the standard decline in the manufacturing workforce in America since the 50s. Over on the left it is really, high, over on the right, really low. Nothing really new there.
What was interesting was a graph over the same timeframe of US manufacturing output. Now the assumption is that a priamry driver for teh decline in manufacturing jobs in the US is that all that manufacturing left the country for cheaper labor.
Not so much. In fact, manufacturing output in the US has climbed consitently, while the nubmer of people employed has declined tremendously.
I don't know if it is possible to translate all that higher efficiency into fewer hours worked per person. What I do know is that we haven't even tried - exactly the opposite in fact. All that increased efficiency has gone towards increased productivity, lower costs for manufactured goods, and increased salaries and profits for the specialized workers that remain and their bosses.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.american.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F01%2Fmfg2-1024x862.jpg&hash=bd12cd5194c50fdf07fdf3e85328e769f805ce68)
QuoteI'd support some cut. I'd say 35 hours would be workable with our economy. Scaled down an hour per year for five years, something like that.
The end of work is not yet upon us. Though it's surely coming, and we should start changing our social mores and governance to reflect the reality that the human economy is rapidly growing out of its need for human beings--which was, or ought to have been, the goal all along. Somehow the ideal got lost along the way.
Agreed.
Quote from: Berkut on January 10, 2012, 12:51:49 AM
I recently saw a graph that showed the standard decline in the manufacturing workforce in America since the 50s. Over on the left it is really, high, over on the right, really low. Nothing really new there.
What was interesting was a graph over the same timeframe of US manufacturing output. Now the assumption is that a priamry driver for teh decline in manufacturing jobs in the US is that all that manufacturing left the country for cheaper labor.
Not so much. In fact, manufacturing output in the US has climbed consitently, while the nubmer of people employed has declined tremendously.
Its the same in the UK.
Its quite a common populist chant to moan about how Britain doesn't make anything anymore.
I recall Clarkson for instance once talking about the British car industry and how it used to make so much and employ so many and we should go back to that... Well Britain makes more cars than it ever did in the 70s...but with a fraction of the people. Other industries are similar.
I tell myself off for having thoughts about this being a bad thing. Its the same sort of crap the Luddites pulled and weren't they shown to be anti-progressive and wrong. We really seem to be in a totally different situation these days though, one in which the entire world is capable of being industrialized, when it was just a few countries as factories for the world it worked and kept people in those countries employed. With everyone capable...
The way things are these days is that factories determine how much they need to make then do it. Our production capacity far outstrips our demand.
Even if you disregard the obvious problems that others have mentioned, this would only work for relatively low-grade, menial jobs, where continuity is not important.
I don't know which standard work week is ideal.
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2012, 10:30:53 PM
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.
Why is a person "working" zero hours lesser in your eyes?
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2012, 11:11:43 AM
I don't know which standard work week is ideal.
It's not the same for everybody.
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.
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2012, 11:45:16 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 10, 2012, 11:39:19 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2012, 11:11:43 AM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 10, 2012, 01:32:45 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2012, 11:45:16 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 10, 2012, 11:39:19 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 10, 2012, 11:11:43 AM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2012, 10:30:53 PM
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?
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2012, 10:30:53 PM
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?
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2012, 10:30:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2012, 10:30:53 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 11:24:51 AM
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...
Quote from: Tyr on January 10, 2012, 07:06:14 PM
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.
:(
Quote from: Tyr on January 10, 2012, 07:06:14 PM
Reduce unemployment and these neighbourhoods won't be so unsafe.
OK :D
Quote from: Tyr on January 10, 2012, 07:06:14 PMAnd 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.
Quote from: Tyr on January 10, 2012, 07:06:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on January 10, 2012, 07:06:14 PMAnd 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.
Quote from: Tyr on January 10, 2012, 07:06:14 PM
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?
Quote from: Tyr on January 10, 2012, 07:06:14 PM
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.
Quote
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.
QuoteReally? 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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
More HR people needing to be hired? Pass.
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.
Employees are expensive in more than just salary. This would maybe give more people jobs but reduce benefits, work quality, and job satisfaction.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 10, 2012, 08:37:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 10, 2012, 09:50:54 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on January 10, 2012, 08:37:36 PM
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.
You always say that. I don't really lie on employment applications, except that one, and that was just an experiment.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 10, 2012, 10:35:32 PM
You always say that. I don't really lie on employment applications, except that one, and that was just an experiment.
I was trained in the art of rooting out Hersey....errr resume padders. Also to use the info for my ex-boss in crushing his opponents.
Neat. I trained to be a lawyer.
By trained, given access to several background search services and using google. :D
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 10, 2012, 10:39:54 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 10, 2012, 10:35:32 PM
You always say that. I don't really lie on employment applications, except that one, and that was just an experiment.
Also to use the info for my ex-boss in crushing his opponents.
:o You were a lackey? My view of you has been shattered :weep:
Quote from: HVC on January 10, 2012, 11:08:27 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 10, 2012, 10:39:54 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 10, 2012, 10:35:32 PM
You always say that. I don't really lie on employment applications, except that one, and that was just an experiment.
Also to use the info for my ex-boss in crushing his opponents.
:o You were a lackey? My view of you has been shattered :weep:
If by lackey, you meant "right hand man" and "eventual successor", then yes, I was a lackey. I knew when to play the game.
So we're agreed. You were a lackey :P
A very well off lackey. :)
If so, I'll gladly wear that crown anyday.
It's no fun when you don't get mad :( :D
Quote from: HVC on January 11, 2012, 09:33:06 AM
It's no fun when you don't get mad :( :D
It is 9:33am, I've taken a righteous shit and the twins are at pre-school. I'M UNTOUCHABLE.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 11, 2012, 09:31:10 AM
A very well off lackey. :)
If so, I'll gladly wear that crown anyday.
If you become King I will gladly become your lackey if you make me a Duke.
Kiss the royal pinky ring.