30 Hour Work Week
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:51:13 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  30 Hour Work Week
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Author Topic: 30 Hour Work Week  (Read 7452 times)
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 25, 2006, 12:09:25 PM »
« edited: April 25, 2006, 12:12:06 PM by SE Magistrate John Dibble »

Discuss the idea of moving to a 30 hour work week for 40 hours of pay. Good idea or not?



My take: Bad idea. Don't believe me? Ask the French - they had a compulsory 35 hour work week which they did away with. They instituted it in the hopes that it would reduce unemployment by making employers hire new workers to make up for lost productivity. It backfired, so they got rid of it.

What happened? Well, this new work week ended up making the French have the highest productivity-per-hour of any nation - great, right? Nope, their total productivity suffered. Employers didn't hire new employees, so the employees already there simply had to work harder and faster to make up for the lost productivity. They still didn't make it all up, yet they worked themselves harder than ever resulting in more stress. Workers got more stressed, productivity lagged, and unemployment remained pretty much unchanged. Seems to be a raw deal to me, and a 30 hour week would probably be even worse.

I believe the 40 hour work week is a good model - 8 hours work, 8 hours free time, 8 hours sleep - nice and balanced. Is it perfect? No, of course not, but it's worked for us for a good long while now. Too many hours of work and you get stressed due to lack of leisure and sleep, too few hours to do your work means less time to get what needs to be done finished and you stress yourself by working too hard too fast. Either way your productivity probably won't be good. 40 a week seems to be the best balance to me.

Changing from 8 hours a day to 6 or 7 - we as individuals should do our best to identify other stress factors in our lives and try to eliminate them. For instance a long commute is stressful, but can become less stressful by moving closer to work, changing to a job closer to you, or telecommuting one or two days a week. Why drastically change the whole system when a personal change can be much more effective?


EDIT - I also forgot to mention that with France's 35 hour work week, employers froze the amount they paid out to recoup lost costs and artificially lower the wage to 35 hour's worth with inflation.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2006, 12:24:41 PM »

I would love to get paid for more hours than I actually work.  However, it would never be able to be implemented within the US without completely disrupting our economy.  I work about 50 or so hours a week for 40 hours of pay.  Part of it is by choice (since I commute to work with others) and part of it is because of necessity.  Do I get upset that I don't get paid for those additional 10 hours?  Not really.  I'm sure that during the day between me stopping in the halls to talk non-business related topics with people, taking longer lunches, and checking this site from time to time, I'm burning up at least 4 hours a week for personal use.

Additionally, when I sailed and worked with Union personnel, even with the options of overtime available for anyone willing to work an additional hour or two after their watches, I've learned what the "set hours" concept does to people - makes them lazy.  Fortunately, I made a lot of money doing the jobs the others refused to do since they already had their time in for the day.  Of course, I can't begin to express how annoyed I was hearing "Hey, I'm on my coffee break" each time something suddenly popped up which I needed an additional set of hands real quick and asked for help.  

So, in short, it's a bad idea.  I wouldn't mind if more companies went to a flex-time system, so if you work four 10-hour days, you can get an additional day off, however the company would need to make sure there was adequate coverage in all positions on a regular basis to ensure that a complete shutdown on Fridays don't occur (for example).
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2006, 01:07:16 PM »

That is ridiculous, Dibble.  You right-wingers are always trumpeting the 'high productivity gains' of the last 10 years or so, and the generally high gains under capitalism.  Of course reducing the work week and increasing pay through political action are simply the only way to distribute a little of these gains down to the servile classes.

The productivity gains were largely due to the mass introduction of computers into the workplace. Since it's pretty much already done, you'd need something else to increase that productivity...quote]

No, during all that time that computers were being introduced and productivity was increasing, the work week was not reduced.  We are long overdue for a 30 hour work week.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I assure you that all jobs will go to the cheaper, more fully dominated worker, Dibble, anyway.  So the argument that one should strive to be the best slave is hardly an appealing one.
 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah your usual lazy answer to everything - steal as much as you can.

No, Dibble, my tax proposal is no more 'theft' than the orginal 'ownership'.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It doesn't matter where the rich live, Dibble, it matters where their money is.  They are already above nationality anyway, but their investments - in factories, slums, shopping malls, etc., remain in physical locations, and can be taxed.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually no, I'm not at all arrogant.  I have never made any claim of being better than anyone else, or particularly capable.  After all it is you deluded social climbing middle workers who do that, not only betraying your fellow workers, but more ridiculously, your own class interests.  Your hubris is very sad.. or perhaps funny, to a rich.  Certainly convenient.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2006, 01:14:06 PM »

I believe the 40 hour work week is a good model - 8 hours work, 8 hours free time, 8 hours sleep - nice and balanced.

What are you, some kind of socialist?  Why should employers be required to provide these lazy workers with 8 hours of 'free time'?  Why not work 16 hours per day.. or at least 12, to allow time for commuting.. and at least 6 days per week.

Do you see my point?  Your arbitrary acceptance of 40 hours - a concept of the work week that is barely 80 years old - is ridiculous.  A few generations ago, stupid workers such as yourself were scoffing at the idea of a two day weekend!  Thankfully, others fought and died for that right..

And after all I am not advocating anything drastic, just a continual, gradual improvement in the human condition.. so that if now we have a 30 hour work week, in a generation it will be 20, and in another one or two it will be 10, etc.  Otherwise all of society's productivity goes to increasing the leisure of the owning class.  Since none of them work anyway, already, it simply means that any increase in productivity is used up in excess, such as enormous mansions, servants, perhaps eventually hunting poors for sport - that sort of thing.  Really I find it hard to believe that any worker is stupid and masochistic enough not to want to work week to be gradually reduced.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2006, 01:28:01 PM »

So I provide an example of the French system not working out at all like you would say it would, and what have you got? Nothing but the usual 'information' taken from your arse and a complete disregard for facts when they are inconvenient.

Actually no, I'm not at all arrogant.  I have never made any claim of being better than anyone else, or particularly capable.

Oh please, the very manner in which you treat everyone here is as if you know everything about everything and that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Pure arrogance.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

These are nothing but comments showing arrogance and a sense of superiority - thanks for proving my point. Deny it all you like, but your words on this forum are a testament to your arrogance.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your drivel. It's like arguing with a brick wall. Your 'vast general knowledge' is just a bunch of bull that you pull out of your arse rather than through careful research and observation. Again, deny it all you like, but it doesn't change a damn thing.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2006, 01:39:02 PM »

And after all I am not advocating anything drastic, just a continual, gradual improvement in the human condition.. so that if now we have a 30 hour work week, in a generation it will be 20, and in another one or two it will be 10, etc.  Otherwise all of society's productivity goes to increasing the leisure of the owning class.  Since none of them work anyway, already, it simply means that any increase in productivity is used up in excess, such as enormous mansions, servants, perhaps eventually hunting poors for sport - that sort of thing.  Really I find it hard to believe that any worker is stupid and masochistic enough not to want to work week to be gradually reduced.

Wow, so in like 90 years, no one will be working?  40 -> 30 -> 20 -> 10 -> 0???  Smiley

40 hours a week is a fairly good balanced model to work off . . . a standard which both the employers and the employees can agree with.  If you want us to switch down to 30 hours a week, then the companies should only pay us for 30 hours of work, meaning the added expense on the company to hire more people to meet the needs of the company.  While this might sound utopian, it actually puts a greater burden on the employees financially, forcing them to pick up a secondary job to recover their lost income since the prices of goods will not drop 25%, taking people back up to 40 hours a week (if not more) in order to break even.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2006, 01:45:14 PM »

40 hours a week is a fairly good balanced model to work off . . . a standard which both the employers and the employees can agree with.

Certainly not!  An employee would be a fool to agree to continuing such a system, and not demanding some progress or improvement in his life. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all, MODU.  Have you never heard of a thing called productivity?  You see, it increases.  Then, workers - if they are protected by unions and government - can get a share of it.  If not, it all goes to their owners.

Why do you think you make more than your anscestors?  Or work less?  It is because of political actions.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2006, 01:54:45 PM »

Have you never heard of a thing called productivity?  You see, it increases.

Productivity doesn't increase magically - there must be a driving force behind the increase. If a subsitence farmer cuts off 1/4 of his worktime, his fields won't mysteriously produce more food, will they? Of course not, you'd have to be an idiot to think so. Productivity can only increase when something that allows people to work faster comes along or if workers work harder.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2006, 02:03:19 PM »

Have you never heard of a thing called productivity?  You see, it increases.

Productivity doesn't increase magically - there must be a driving force behind the increase. If a subsitence farmer cuts off 1/4 of his worktime, his fields won't mysteriously produce more food, will they? Of course not, you'd have to be an idiot to think so. Productivity can only increase when something that allows people to work faster comes along or if workers work harder.

Yes, presumably investment of a portion of the workers' production into new equipment and technology, Dibble.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2006, 02:10:11 PM »

Have you never heard of a thing called productivity?  You see, it increases.

Productivity doesn't increase magically - there must be a driving force behind the increase. If a subsitence farmer cuts off 1/4 of his worktime, his fields won't mysteriously produce more food, will they? Of course not, you'd have to be an idiot to think so. Productivity can only increase when something that allows people to work faster comes along or if workers work harder.

Yes, presumably investment of a portion of the workers' production into new equipment and technology, Dibble.

Yes, and what exactly are you proposing investment in that is so incredibly productive that it would allow for levels of production greater than or equal to current levels for 10 hours less production per worker?
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,305
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2006, 02:11:52 PM »

I would support a 30 hour week (with only getting paid 30 hours). The extra time off would allow parents to spend more time with their kids. Most kids are generally in school for 7 hours. If parents need to bring their kids to school and pick them up, then the kids will be waiting for a long time.

Also, at the two jobs I have had, while it is an 8 hour work day, there is an hour lunch which take 9 hours a day - I can't use that hour to do something useful for myself. Not to mention the 8 hours does not include commute time.

As crazy as it sounds, I think I know what opebo is saying.

If you were to work 1 hour a day, you would be very productive for that one hour. If you were to work 2 hours, then you would be just as productive for 1 hour, but slightly less productive during the second hour. So the first hour, we will say is 10/10 which is 100%. The second hour may be 9/10 which is 90%. When you get to that 8th hour, you may be at 30%. So if a farmer stopped working a quarter of his time, he would get less work done, but the time spent working would be more efficient - less time would be wasted.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2006, 02:17:20 PM »


Certainly not!  An employee would be a fool to agree to continuing such a system, and not demanding some progress or improvement in his life. 

hahaha . . . coming from the moocher.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I have heard of productivity . . . something which depends on people putting the time in at work in order to produce.  Technological advances which allow us to be more productive today didn't come from someone only putting in 30 hours a week.  Most of the computer hardware designers and software developers during the 80s and 90s were putting in over 60 hours a week to develope what you use today, for example.  And, since the computer made us more productive, duplicate jobs were eliminated, requiring the employee to do more (and at a higher pay scale).  

And, by the way, unions tend to limit productivity and innovation, not bolster it.  You do have a unique view of the business world, moocher.  Smiley
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2006, 02:20:02 PM »

I would support a 30 hour week (with only getting paid 30 hours). The extra time off would allow parents to spend more time with their kids. Most kids are generally in school for 7 hours. If parents need to bring their kids to school and pick them up, then the kids will be waiting for a long time.

And how would you propose the parents pay for college while making only 30 hours worth of pay? Keep in mind the trade offs.

If you were to work 1 hour a day, you would be very productive for that one hour. If you were to work 2 hours, then you would be just as productive for 1 hour, but slightly less productive during the second hour. So the first hour, we will say is 10/10 which is 100%. The second hour may be 9/10 which is 90%. When you get to that 8th hour, you may be at 30%. So if a farmer stopped working a quarter of his time, he would get less work done, but the time spent working would be more efficient - less time would be wasted.

Did you read the article I linked at the beginning of this thread? The French had a 35 hour work week - many workers ended up being more stressed than in the 40 hour week because they had to do 40 hours of work in 35. Again, keep in mind the tradeoffs. Humans aren't machines - you can't just tool them to be more efficient all the time. Having to work harder and faster might also make the job be done sloppier as corners are cut more often to meet deadlines.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 26, 2006, 02:21:08 PM »

Have you never heard of a thing called productivity?  You see, it increases.

Productivity doesn't increase magically - there must be a driving force behind the increase. If a subsitence farmer cuts off 1/4 of his worktime, his fields won't mysteriously produce more food, will they? Of course not, you'd have to be an idiot to think so. Productivity can only increase when something that allows people to work faster comes along or if workers work harder.

Yes, presumably investment of a portion of the workers' production into new equipment and technology, Dibble.

Yes, and what exactly are you proposing investment in that is so incredibly productive that it would allow for levels of production greater than or equal to current levels for 10 hours less production per worker?

I am not 'proposing' anything, Dibble.  I'm merely suggesting that workers demand a share of the productivity growth of the last 60 years, during which they got no increase in their leisure time.  

My suggestion is entirely retroactive - of course further decreases in the working week, as well as increases in legislated (or union contracted) hourly pay, will no doubt be in order in future, but they must be carried out when they time comes, and in reaction to the future growth of productivity.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 26, 2006, 02:23:43 PM »

Certainly not!  An employee would be a fool to agree to continuing such a system, and not demanding some progress or improvement in his life. 

hahaha . . . coming from the moocher.

Irrelevant adhominem.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, no, no, modu, you poor fellow, the definition of productivity is production per hour worked.  If it increases, it means that you produce more per hour.  Just working more increases production, but not productivity.  
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2006, 02:24:17 PM »

Have you never heard of a thing called productivity?  You see, it increases.

Productivity doesn't increase magically - there must be a driving force behind the increase. If a subsitence farmer cuts off 1/4 of his worktime, his fields won't mysteriously produce more food, will they? Of course not, you'd have to be an idiot to think so. Productivity can only increase when something that allows people to work faster comes along or if workers work harder.

Yes, presumably investment of a portion of the workers' production into new equipment and technology, Dibble.

Yes, and what exactly are you proposing investment in that is so incredibly productive that it would allow for levels of production greater than or equal to current levels for 10 hours less production per worker?

I am not 'proposing' anything, Dibble.  I'm merely suggesting that workers demand a share of the productivity growth of the last 60 years, during which they got no increase in their leisure time.  

My suggestion is entirely retroactive - of course further decreases in the working week, as well as increases in legislated (or union contracted) hourly pay, will no doubt be in order in future, but they must be carried out when they time comes, and in reaction to the future growth of productivity.

Workers still benefit from increases in productivity - goods get produced at a faster rate and in greater quantity. This drives down prices, allowing many to afford things that were previously only affordable by the rich and upper-middle class. Simple supply and demand. What you propose would greatly negate that effect, making it so that the workers can afford fewer luxuries.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2006, 02:25:01 PM »

I would support a 30 hour week (with only getting paid 30 hours). The extra time off would allow parents to spend more time with their kids. Most kids are generally in school for 7 hours. If parents need to bring their kids to school and pick them up, then the kids will be waiting for a long time.

And how would you propose the parents pay for college while making only 30 hours worth of pay? Keep in mind the trade offs.

I would suggest that education be provided free by taxes upon the owners, Dibble.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2006, 02:25:53 PM »

I would support a 30 hour week (with only getting paid 30 hours). The extra time off would allow parents to spend more time with their kids. Most kids are generally in school for 7 hours. If parents need to bring their kids to school and pick them up, then the kids will be waiting for a long time.

And how would you propose the parents pay for college while making only 30 hours worth of pay? Keep in mind the trade offs.

I would suggest that education be provided free by taxes upon the owners, Dibble.

Got any realistic suggestions? It isn't gonna happen.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 26, 2006, 02:26:08 PM »

Workers still benefit from increases in productivity - goods get produced at a faster rate and in greater quantity. This drives down prices, allowing many to afford things that were previously only affordable by the rich and upper-middle class. Simple supply and demand. What you propose would greatly negate that effect, making it so that the workers can afford fewer luxuries.

Hah, so perhaps it would all equal out in the end, eh?  Lets try it and see.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 26, 2006, 02:27:20 PM »

I am not 'proposing' anything, Dibble.  I'm merely suggesting that workers demand a share of the productivity growth of the last 60 years, during which they got no increase in their leisure time.  


"Leisure time" is dictated by the employee by the job they choose and the number of hours they wish to work (no one is telling them to get a 40 hour a day job).  They are getting their fair share of the productivity growth by receiving higher wages and challenging jobs.  

Yes, I have heard of productivity . . . something which depends on people putting the time in at work in order to produce.

No, no, no, modu, you poor fellow, the definition of productivity is production per hour worked.  If it increases, it means that you produce more per hour.  Just working more increases production, but not productivity.  


You can only produce so much in an hour.  You cannot cram 20 hours of work into 10 hours, just as I cannot cram 60 hours of work into 40.  You especially can't do that in industry without adding unnecessary safety risks to the employees and the consumers.  You are thinking too idealisticly and ignoring reality.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 26, 2006, 02:27:34 PM »

I would support a 30 hour week (with only getting paid 30 hours). The extra time off would allow parents to spend more time with their kids. Most kids are generally in school for 7 hours. If parents need to bring their kids to school and pick them up, then the kids will be waiting for a long time.

And how would you propose the parents pay for college while making only 30 hours worth of pay? Keep in mind the trade offs.

I would suggest that education be provided free by taxes upon the owners, Dibble.

Got any realistic suggestions? It isn't gonna happen.

Well of course none of this is 'realistic', Dibble.  The rich will still (always, and forever) live upon the labour of their serfs, as has been the case since time immemorial.  I do not doubt that.  But for some reason I enjoy pointing out the stupidity of their aquiescence to the serfs!
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 26, 2006, 02:31:36 PM »

"Leisure time" is dictated by the employee by the job they choose and the number of hours they wish to work (no one is telling them to get a 40 hour a day job).  They are getting their fair share of the productivity growth by receiving higher wages and challenging jobs.

They must work in order to survive, MODU.. these are working class persons we are discussing, with no choices, options, or capital. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can only produce so much in an hour.  You cannot cram 20 hours of work into 10 hours,[/quote]

Yes, you can, MODU.  That is precisely the point of an increase in productivity.  Investment in equipment and technology leads to cramming 20 hours of work into 10 hours, or perhaps even 1 hour.  For example, a farmer today with modern equipment can do in a day what it took hundreds to do in the distant past...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'm being realistic and you are entirely misunderstanding economics, technology, and productivity.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 26, 2006, 02:34:44 PM »

Workers still benefit from increases in productivity - goods get produced at a faster rate and in greater quantity. This drives down prices, allowing many to afford things that were previously only affordable by the rich and upper-middle class. Simple supply and demand. What you propose would greatly negate that effect, making it so that the workers can afford fewer luxuries.

Hah, so perhaps it would all equal out in the end, eh?  Lets try it and see.

We have tried it, and it worked. The 40 hour work week has been the average for a while, and the number of goods in the average person's home has increased. I've shown you the stats before, so please don't make me go dig them back up.
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,305
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 26, 2006, 02:36:39 PM »

I would support a 30 hour week (with only getting paid 30 hours). The extra time off would allow parents to spend more time with their kids. Most kids are generally in school for 7 hours. If parents need to bring their kids to school and pick them up, then the kids will be waiting for a long time.

And how would you propose the parents pay for college while making only 30 hours worth of pay? Keep in mind the trade offs.

Didn't think of that one. Good point.

If you were to work 1 hour a day, you would be very productive for that one hour. If you were to work 2 hours, then you would be just as productive for 1 hour, but slightly less productive during the second hour. So the first hour, we will say is 10/10 which is 100%. The second hour may be 9/10 which is 90%. When you get to that 8th hour, you may be at 30%. So if a farmer stopped working a quarter of his time, he would get less work done, but the time spent working would be more efficient - less time would be wasted.

Did you read the article I linked at the beginning of this thread? The French had a 35 hour work week - many workers ended up being more stressed than in the 40 hour week because they had to do 40 hours of work in 35. Again, keep in mind the tradeoffs. Humans aren't machines - you can't just tool them to be more efficient all the time. Having to work harder and faster might also make the job be done sloppier as corners are cut more often to meet deadlines.

I agree humans aren't machines. They will become mentally and/or physically fatigued. The longer they work, the more fatigued they become. If lowering the work week to 30 hours then it should be a given that less work will get done. Perhaps it depends on the type of job and the person on how easily the get fatigued and how efficient they are as the day progresses.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 26, 2006, 02:37:09 PM »

Workers still benefit from increases in productivity - goods get produced at a faster rate and in greater quantity. This drives down prices, allowing many to afford things that were previously only affordable by the rich and upper-middle class. Simple supply and demand. What you propose would greatly negate that effect, making it so that the workers can afford fewer luxuries.

Hah, so perhaps it would all equal out in the end, eh?  Lets try it and see.

We have tried it, and it worked. The 40 hour work week has been the average for a while, and the number of goods in the average person's home has increased. I've shown you the stats before, so please don't make me go dig them back up.

No, my post was suggestingthat we try my suggestions, since you seem to believe the increase in income and leisure for the working class would be cancelled out by an increase in the cost of living for them.

And since you bring up the 40 hour work week - don't you realize, you historical ignorant, that it was created by unions and the State?!  It was precisely the same in its day as my proposal for a 30 hour workweek today.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 11 queries.