30 Hour Work Week

[opebo]

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.

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.
 

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'.

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.

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.

[opebo]

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.

[opebo]

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. 

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.

[opebo]

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.

[opebo]

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.

[opebo]

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.

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.  

[opebo]

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.

[opebo]

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.

[opebo]

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!

[opebo]

"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. 

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...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'm being realistic and you are entirely misunderstanding economics, technology, and productivity.

[opebo]

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.

[opebo]

Throughout the vast majority of human history, a 40 hour work week would be called "a vacation"!

Yes, in other words things improved through political action.  So, lets improve them some more.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No body but another drone knows what you are talking about here.   

Obviously bad. Aside from the fact that it makes it harder to get jobs, it also decreases productivity. And an over-looked side effect is that actually increases stress levels, because work has to be done in shorter time.

Gustaf, apparentely you are as dimwitted a right-winger as the rest.  A reduction in the work week would not reduce productivity, which is output per hour worked.  It may reduce production, which is the total amount produced.

And please, don't bring up that absurd nonsense that people are more 'stressed' when they have more time off.  I suppose by that logic we should go back to the 60 hour work week?  What a lot of drivel - apparentely you masochistic workers will believe anything your betters tell you.

[opebo]

This is still coming from the kid who has really not held a real (lasting) job in his life.  You should come into the corporate world and try to complete a typical 40-hour work load (which is more like 50 hours of work) in a 30-hour week.

Don't be ridiculous.  A good union would never allow such overworking. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no desire to experience your miseries, worker, only to advise you to take political actions that will tend to reduce them. 

[opebo]

All that said, the government doesn't really need to be involved in this process. The hypothetical construction company would rather cut back to a 7 hour workday as opposed to paying the workman's compensation fees.

The State needn't get involved?!  Sheep Pushy, there would be no such things as 'workmen's compensation' if the State did not require it.  Such things were wrested from the owners through deadly political fights, and here you are taking it for granted.   Believe me, no employer wants to give you something if you are injured.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you kidding?  They make like $10/hour or less!  They're at subsistence level.

[opebo]

I meant to say college-educated service employees. The types of people who work 40 hours per week while sitting at a desk. Obviously restaurant employees and retail clerks aren't paid much--a trained monkey could do those jobs.

No, fool, they are persons and citizens, not monkeys.  And keep in mind that your interests lie with them, worker, and not with the aristocracy.

It really is laughable what hubris a shoddy thing like a college degree gives to you desperate, deluded social climbers.  Face it, you are a serf, and you will always be a serf, Sheep.

[opebo]

From European experience with 35 and 38 hour weeks... :

For most managerial positions, it simply does not work out. It's (usually) just not possible (whether due to the nature of the task itself or just to unnecessary regulations) to cut much off the actual workload, or (without a major reorganization) to split it between several persons.

That sounds like one of those silly right-wing objections - oh, it is too difficult to alter a job.

[opebo]

From European experience with 35 and 38 hour weeks... :

For most managerial positions, it simply does not work out. It's (usually) just not possible (whether due to the nature of the task itself or just to unnecessary regulations) to cut much off the actual workload, or (without a major reorganization) to split it between several persons.

That sounds like one of those silly right-wing objections - oh, it is too difficult to alter a job.

It might be possible to alter it ... but just legislating a shorter workweek without legislating such changes certainly won't work (and I'm not holding my breath regarding such legislation either). Unless maybe you ban overwork or summat like that.

Oh obviously the trend is towards making the servile classes work more rather than less.. so this is all just supposition.

[opebo]

That wasn't the trend here in the 80s and early 90s though. It's not just supposition, it's good solid second-hand experience.

[opebo]Silly worker, experience doesn't matter, nor does scientific data - I'm right and you're wrong no matter what, even if reality is clearly in conflict with my ideas.[/opebo]

Opebo's religion is never wrong, Lewis.

Dibble, of course a particular interest group is going to have 'experience' and 'scientific data' which supports their agenda.  Such as the proposition that people who work less are more stressed, or that it is impossible to divide or otherwise alter jobs..

It is all just propaganda, surely you realize that, worker?

[opebo]

That wasn't the trend here in the 80s and early 90s though. It's not just supposition, it's good solid second-hand experience.

[opebo]Silly worker, experience doesn't matter, nor does scientific data - I'm right and you're wrong no matter what, even if reality is clearly in conflict with my ideas.[/opebo]

Opebo's religion is never wrong, Lewis.

Dibble, of course a particular interest group is going to have 'experience' and 'scientific data' which supports their agenda.  Such as the proposition that people who work less are more stressed, or that it is impossible to divide or otherwise alter jobs..

It is all just propaganda, surely you realize that, worker?

Yes, we know that you can't accept anything that contradicts your religion opebo - you religious fanatics are all the same in that regard. It's always propaganda unless it agrees with you, right? Of course it is! Now, if you wouldn't mind please keep your religion to yourself.

The 'religion' of skepticism?

You poor gullible.

[opebo]

The 'religion' of skepticism?

You poor gullible.

Skepticism? HAH! Like I said, anything that contradicts your ideas you reject out of hand - that's not skepticism, that's fanatacism. You don't ever question the ideas you hold, just like a good little religious fanatic.

No, Dibble, it is you who apply a religion-like belief in various absurdities, such as the market, and the belief that the current system is not controlled by the powerful (the rich).   I have no overarching 'objective' morality - I simply view politics as an attempt by various competing groups to gain power.

Opie . . . you need to realize . . . coming from us who actually work for a living,

Your unfortunate condition is irrelevant to the discussion, MODU, though I do sympathize with your miseries.  Please lay your complaints at the doorstep of your masters, not at your humble interlocutor.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, it is you who prove your ignorance, and I will explain yet again - productivity is output per hour worked, and so, in general, laws which reduce work hours while mandating high pay will encourage improvements in productivity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the reason you work so much, poor man, is that you have no power, and your masters require it of you, in order that you may be suffered your little living. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I certainly wouldn't mind splitting everyone's jobs in half, but keep in mind that this is entirely unecessary, as technological improvements mean that one serf is now producing what several did at the time the 40 hour work week was instituted.  As for your high overhead, I'm sure you realize that capitalism will always seek the lowest wage, so your class is fairly doomed anyway - unless, of course, you utilize political power to fight back against your rulers.

[opebo]

The 'religion' of skepticism?

You poor gullible.

Skepticism? HAH! Like I said, anything that contradicts your ideas you reject out of hand - that's not skepticism, that's fanatacism. You don't ever question the ideas you hold, just like a good little religious fanatic.

No, Dibble, it is you who apply a religion-like belief in various absurdities, such as the market, and the belief that the current system is not controlled by the powerful (the rich).   I have no overarching 'objective' morality - I simply view politics as an attempt by various competing groups to gain power.

Yes opebo, we know how you, like a typical religious fanatic, claim those who disagree with you are misguided fools whose beliefs are absurd. Religious fanatics always believe any belief structure outside their own is absurd, not questioning their faith, just as you do not question your own beliefs in the least. Keep on repeating your religious rhetoric all you like.

I have no 'belief structure', Dibble, I'm merely noting the obvious and apparent fact that all you workers work all day long all week for a pittance, and your masters live in idle luxury on the produce.  This isn't an ideological postion, it is just something I noticed from observing you all, and - well looking the hedges and gated drives of your masters (I admit it is impossible to observe them directly).

[opebo]

I have no 'belief structure', Dibble,

I'm merely noting the obvious and apparent fact that all you workers work all day long all week for a pittance, and your masters live in idle luxury on the produce.

That's not a fact opebo, that's an opinion. You view it as a pittance, but most of us don't - we think we're being paid amply for our time. A pittance is not a set amount, so therefore you can't assert that it is anything but your opinion.[/quote]

It is a relative amount - the point was that you receive nearly nothing compared to those who rule you (the owners).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, that is horrific.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I actually saw poor people working, and I saw the outsides of the mansions, compounds, etc. of the rich.  I may have even seen a rich once at an airport or getting into a limousine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said I didn't see you poors - you are all quite exposed to public view.  If you read carefully you will see that I state that I was not allowed to minutely view the rich.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe it is you, Dibble, who are making up statements out of my posts!  But to give you the benefit of the doubt I'll just say you misunderstood.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My points have nothing to do with whether you think your lives are bad or not, or whether you enjoy them.  For all I know slaves may have had a ball.  My points are made based on the social heirarchy, and the use of power that maintains and orders is - and keeps you in your places, licking boots (sorry to use that term, but if you are happy at the bottom, I think it is appropriate).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe you, but your subjective tastes (apparentely masochism) do not interest me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because I make no value judgements, Dibble.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, it is not that I don't 'accept' your statements, it is just that they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[opebo]

Blah blah blah. You have yet to show that you actually put any thought into anything - like a religious fanatic you never question your beliefs and denounce anything that disagrees with you as wrong. You have yet to disprove that. Of course you won't even try - you're so convinced that what you think is correct, just like a fanatic, that you don't feel the need. The typical arrogance of the fanatic.

Well, I'm afraid it is more the arrogance of a realist talking to a fanatic, Dibble.   One cannot help but be a bit patronizing to the unreasonable.

Just look at the reality of the situation around you, without thinking about ideology, markets, and all that propaganda.  Look at individual persons, their class, and their position in the social heirarchy.  That is quite honestly what made me throw out my previous economic views - I noticed that the heirarchy is there - most people serve the few - regardless of all the excuses.

[opebo]

Blah blah blah. You have yet to show that you actually put any thought into anything - like a religious fanatic you never question your beliefs and denounce anything that disagrees with you as wrong. You have yet to disprove that. Of course you won't even try - you're so convinced that what you think is correct, just like a fanatic, that you don't feel the need. The typical arrogance of the fanatic.

Well, I'm afraid it is more the arrogance of a realist talking to a fanatic, Dibble.   One cannot help but be a bit patronizing to the unreasonable.

Just look at the reality of the situation around you, without thinking about ideology, markets, and all that propaganda.  Look at individual persons, their class, and their position in the social heirarchy.  That is quite honestly what made me throw out my previous economic views - I noticed that the heirarchy is there - most people serve the few - regardless of all the excuses.

Yes yes fanatic, you converted to a new school of thought and have developed rhetoric for it. You repeat your rhetoric well, never questioning it, refusing anything that contradicts it. We've been over this. You are arrogant, you are unquestioning in your beliefs, and you are fanatical, much like the uber-religious you so despise. Your behavior and arrogance only indicates fanaticism, and you've yet to show otherwise, but you won't accept it because fanatics never accept that they are fanatics.

How am I a 'fanatic', Dibble?  I don't even propose that the heirarchy be upended, just emeliorated slightly.  Do you at least admit that it exists?

[opebo]

You are a fanatic in the sense that you don't question what you believe at all, and when presented with evidence or testimony that even slightly contradicts those beliefs you reject it out of hand a propoganda or just plain wrong. This is not unlike a creationist rejecting evidence for evolution simply because it contradicts creationism.

Not at all, Dibble.  No one has ever presented any 'evidence' in any of our arguments, and in any case your imprisonment in your laughable libertarian 'world view' is complete.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I consider power a prerequisite for responsibility.  Therefore the upper most class, having nearly all of the power, also has nearly all of the responsibility.

How am I a 'fanatic', Dibble?  I don't even propose that the heirarchy be upended, just emeliorated slightly.  Do you at least admit that it exists?

"you poors."  "your masters." etc...  You're a joke on this issue son. 

Alas, MODU, if only it were so.  No, the situation is just as I describe - you have masters.  Now, get back to work.