7 ms·

So, they work less, but they had to hire more people, at the same salary. Operating Costs are going up. Who is paying for that? Tax payers of course! Most of wh

by kfk 11y ago

So, they work less, but they had to hire more people, at the same salary. Operating Costs are going up. Who is paying for that? Tax payers of course! Most of which have to work more than 6 hrs to pay for those kind of politics.

cjgk 11y ago
Tax payers like me, who will grow old and need those carers to be doing a good job. Good use of taxpayer money!
- dogma1138 11y ago
  They also need a sustainable pension and savings plan, if you divert too much taxes out of that you'll end up actually needing that care much more than you think. Some of those systems don't work in the long run, the rent control in Sweden results in each available apartment getting thousands of requests with people actually waiting decades to get an apartment, and this isn't some low income housing this is just because the majority of the apartments in places like Stockholm are rent controlled and managed by the government.
  - tormeh 11y ago
    Rent control, and price controls more generally, are stupid. It doesn't solve the problem of demand being far higher than supply, which is why it never really works. I just get sad every time I see it.
    - hwstar 11y ago
      In the UK, there is Council Housing, this may be a good alternative to rent control because it provides housing at a nominal cost and gives the private landlords some competition. The only problem with this type of offering is it will stick in the craw of the American psyche who abhor the government competing against the private sector. Rents do get bid up due to things like the minimum wage rising. This is because the power relationship between landlord and tenant is heavily skewed in favour of the landlord. The employee/employer relationship also suffers from the same disease. Disclosure: I'm a US/UK dual citizen, and a landlord myself.
      - 13thLetter 11y ago
        "because it provides housing at a nominal cost and gives the private landlords some competition." Sincere question as I don't know much about the UK rental market: why aren't the private landlords in this segment of the market competing with each other? Is it difficult to build additional rental housing cheaply enough?
papapra 11y ago
But do you agree that for some white collar jobs, if done efficiently, 6 hours per day is enough? I would prefer to have 6 hours day and be paid less.
- Kiter1 11y ago
  Absolutely. 'Moving the needle' doesn't require long days, instead it requires discipline an focus on doing the one thing that will move your project forward. From experience at large companies I think most people waste 4 to 6 hours a day in pointless meetings, dealing with low ROI work items or looking at Facebook. Some of the self-made wealthiest people I know certainly didn't work 8 hours every day to get there, instead they were focused and masters of delegation and emotional intelligence.
yardie 11y ago
I've rarely met anyone that has actually "worked" a full 8 hours. The marathon work days where you actually do 8, and more likely 16, are few and far between. Once you exclude the coffee breaks, snack breaks, stretch breaks, brain breaks, etc. you easily get back to 6 hours. Hell if you are on here and at work you are technically not working. Most managers will overlook the occasional reddit or YC page load because they know it's hard to "crush it" for hours straight.
- impl 11y ago
  This article is about nurses, though. In the US many ER nurses work 12 hour shifts and they obviously don't have the option of personal downtime. It's likely that as "computer" people we're already reaping much of the benefit discussed.
  - yardie 11y ago
    This article is about nurses in care homes. They aren't under the same constraint as an ER nurse. Reason why ER nurses work 12 is continuance of care. You're better off being looked after by 2 shifts who are familiar with your case rather than 3 or 4. More people just add complexity
- Excavator 11y ago
  In Sweden "work" entails 8hours + 1hour set aside for obligatory break time. Is it different in the states? Also, I can't see how 6hours would mean no stretch/brain breaks.
  - svachalek 11y ago
    In the US, "work" is split into "exempt" and "non-exempt" status. "Non-exempt" workers are paid by the hour and have mandatory benefits if they work 40 hours and overtime pay if they work more than 40, so most employers will aim for 35 or so. "Exempt" workers, which is most of us in the tech industry, are paid a salary and have essentially no limit to the hours that may be asked of us.
grecy 11y ago
> Who is paying for that? Tax payers of course! I'm happy when "my" tax dollars are spent making my life better. Isn't that the whole point? (Obviously, this will work when everyone in the country has a 6 hour work week)
- mgraczyk 11y ago
  No. You may not agree, but I believe that I am better than the government at deciding how to spend my money to make myself happier. Government spending occasionally benefits from scale that I can't achieve on my own (parks, better roads, etc). However, this is not one of those cases.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Excellent! That's how democracy works. If you don't like how things are run, you can a) try to change them or b) find a venue more congruent with your personal beliefs.
  - littletimmy 11y ago
    It is not your money. It is the money that the government allows you to have. You live in a society, and you wouldn't have money without society. We have as much right over that money as you do.
    - ahomescu1 11y ago
      Money is both a "unit of account" and "medium of exchange". You can certainly have both of those without government. In some societies, people used seashells, salt, gold coins, or many other things as money. Bitcoin certainly counts as a "non-government money". Since money is used as a medium of exchange, it's essentially a placeholder for your labor (when you receive it from your employer/customers as payment) or value provided to others. It is arguable whether society has as much right over an individual's labor as he/she does, I think they don't (while society may have a contribution, it might be significantly below 50%). One last and minor thing we'll have to disagree on: I don't think government equals society. An individual can be a part of society without being part of government, and I also believe government sometimes represents its own interests at the expense of society.
asgard1024 11y ago
> Who is paying for that? That's the best part - it's free! Due to increases in productivity (better technology), people can work less overall.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  No it's not free, it's also been tested in fields that require human labor which can not be replaced or supplemented with automation e.g. hospice nursing. While productivity might have increased although I've tried to go back to the actual studies to verify it and i couldn't find anything to support it it's not free. They are still being paid the same (per hour salary was increased) and they had to hire more staff, one of the big pluses they've reported is that it was much easier for them to recruit new employees but that's not something unique considering they've just given everyone a 25% raise by mandating that they should work only 6 hours. So overall their operational expenses have went up, by how much well hard to say, they've managed to increase their workforce by almost 30% so that's a flat out 30% increase in operational costs, since recruiting and maintaining an employee is considerably more expensive (on boarding process & training costs, more heads means more benefits have to be paid out) than paying overtime then the operational costs have probably even risen more than a flat 30%. This is a government funded experiment and so it the employer so who ended up paying the bill well the Swedish people, at least those who pay into the system since now Sweden has the lowest (actual) pay-in ratio of all countries within the EAA and no much north sea oil and gas to cover for it like their richer neighbor Norway.
  - asgard1024 11y ago
    What I am saying is that it is free for the society as a whole; redistribution within the society may still occur. Let's take a simple example. You have a village and someone plants an apple tree. Everybody who wants an apple has to pay to the owner (planter). Now let's say (to make it less politically controversial) that the owner dies, and the village decides that anyone in the village can take, say, 10 apples per month. I would then say the apples are free, wouldn't you? It perfectly fits the definition of the word. And this is analogous to technological innovation. Someone spent time creating this innovation in the past, and the products of this innovation can be free, you don't have to pay anyone to use it, they are already dead. So I have shown you, I hope, that free things can appear "out of thin air" in the economy. Then it's just a matter of social consensus how to redistribute the free things, for example, people can decide that they will just work two hours less.
belorn 11y ago
By switched to two six-hour shifts with full pay and no break for lunch you get more efficient use out of machines and buildings. Add that with increased productivity per employee, lowered costs to sickness and injury, higher personal retention, and the increased operation costs are directly paid by the increased production and decreased costs over time.
s73v3r 11y ago
Are operating costs going up? While they have to hire more people, they don't have to replace people as often, and they don't have as many mistakes/errors, which can be expensive.
odonnellryan 11y ago
These people also pay taxes. Sure there probably still added tax burden but it isn't so black and white. It does a few things: 1) More jobs = more spending = more taxes in indirect ways (businesses) 2) Less stress on other public programs, such as welfare (if these people aren't employed, who is paying for their xyz?)

by kfk 11y ago

cjgk 11y ago

Tax payers like me, who will grow old and need those carers to be doing a good job. Good use of taxpayer money!

dogma1138 11y ago
They also need a sustainable pension and savings plan, if you divert too much taxes out of that you'll end up actually needing that care much more than you think. Some of those systems don't work in the long run, the rent control in Sweden results in each available apartment getting thousands of requests with people actually waiting decades to get an apartment, and this isn't some low income housing this is just because the majority of the apartments in places like Stockholm are rent controlled and managed by the government.
- tormeh 11y ago
  Rent control, and price controls more generally, are stupid. It doesn't solve the problem of demand being far higher than supply, which is why it never really works. I just get sad every time I see it.
  - hwstar 11y ago
    In the UK, there is Council Housing, this may be a good alternative to rent control because it provides housing at a nominal cost and gives the private landlords some competition. The only problem with this type of offering is it will stick in the craw of the American psyche who abhor the government competing against the private sector. Rents do get bid up due to things like the minimum wage rising. This is because the power relationship between landlord and tenant is heavily skewed in favour of the landlord. The employee/employer relationship also suffers from the same disease. Disclosure: I'm a US/UK dual citizen, and a landlord myself.
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      "because it provides housing at a nominal cost and gives the private landlords some competition." Sincere question as I don't know much about the UK rental market: why aren't the private landlords in this segment of the market competing with each other? Is it difficult to build additional rental housing cheaply enough?

papapra 11y ago

But do you agree that for some white collar jobs, if done efficiently, 6 hours per day is enough? I would prefer to have 6 hours day and be paid less.

Kiter1 11y ago
Absolutely. 'Moving the needle' doesn't require long days, instead it requires discipline an focus on doing the one thing that will move your project forward. From experience at large companies I think most people waste 4 to 6 hours a day in pointless meetings, dealing with low ROI work items or looking at Facebook. Some of the self-made wealthiest people I know certainly didn't work 8 hours every day to get there, instead they were focused and masters of delegation and emotional intelligence.

yardie 11y ago

I've rarely met anyone that has actually "worked" a full 8 hours. The marathon work days where you actually do 8, and more likely 16, are few and far between. Once you exclude the coffee breaks, snack breaks, stretch breaks, brain breaks, etc. you easily get back to 6 hours. Hell if you are on here and at work you are technically not working. Most managers will overlook the occasional reddit or YC page load because they know it's hard to "crush it" for hours straight.

impl 11y ago
This article is about nurses, though. In the US many ER nurses work 12 hour shifts and they obviously don't have the option of personal downtime. It's likely that as "computer" people we're already reaping much of the benefit discussed.
- yardie 11y ago
  This article is about nurses in care homes. They aren't under the same constraint as an ER nurse. Reason why ER nurses work 12 is continuance of care. You're better off being looked after by 2 shifts who are familiar with your case rather than 3 or 4. More people just add complexity
Excavator 11y ago
In Sweden "work" entails 8hours + 1hour set aside for obligatory break time. Is it different in the states? Also, I can't see how 6hours would mean no stretch/brain breaks.
- svachalek 11y ago
  In the US, "work" is split into "exempt" and "non-exempt" status. "Non-exempt" workers are paid by the hour and have mandatory benefits if they work 40 hours and overtime pay if they work more than 40, so most employers will aim for 35 or so. "Exempt" workers, which is most of us in the tech industry, are paid a salary and have essentially no limit to the hours that may be asked of us.

grecy 11y ago

> Who is paying for that? Tax payers of course! I'm happy when "my" tax dollars are spent making my life better. Isn't that the whole point? (Obviously, this will work when everyone in the country has a 6 hour work week)

mgraczyk 11y ago
No. You may not agree, but I believe that I am better than the government at deciding how to spend my money to make myself happier. Government spending occasionally benefits from scale that I can't achieve on my own (parks, better roads, etc). However, this is not one of those cases.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Excellent! That's how democracy works. If you don't like how things are run, you can a) try to change them or b) find a venue more congruent with your personal beliefs.
- littletimmy 11y ago
  It is not your money. It is the money that the government allows you to have. You live in a society, and you wouldn't have money without society. We have as much right over that money as you do.
  - ahomescu1 11y ago
    Money is both a "unit of account" and "medium of exchange". You can certainly have both of those without government. In some societies, people used seashells, salt, gold coins, or many other things as money. Bitcoin certainly counts as a "non-government money". Since money is used as a medium of exchange, it's essentially a placeholder for your labor (when you receive it from your employer/customers as payment) or value provided to others. It is arguable whether society has as much right over an individual's labor as he/she does, I think they don't (while society may have a contribution, it might be significantly below 50%). One last and minor thing we'll have to disagree on: I don't think government equals society. An individual can be a part of society without being part of government, and I also believe government sometimes represents its own interests at the expense of society.

asgard1024 11y ago

> Who is paying for that? That's the best part - it's free! Due to increases in productivity (better technology), people can work less overall.

dogma1138 11y ago
No it's not free, it's also been tested in fields that require human labor which can not be replaced or supplemented with automation e.g. hospice nursing. While productivity might have increased although I've tried to go back to the actual studies to verify it and i couldn't find anything to support it it's not free. They are still being paid the same (per hour salary was increased) and they had to hire more staff, one of the big pluses they've reported is that it was much easier for them to recruit new employees but that's not something unique considering they've just given everyone a 25% raise by mandating that they should work only 6 hours. So overall their operational expenses have went up, by how much well hard to say, they've managed to increase their workforce by almost 30% so that's a flat out 30% increase in operational costs, since recruiting and maintaining an employee is considerably more expensive (on boarding process & training costs, more heads means more benefits have to be paid out) than paying overtime then the operational costs have probably even risen more than a flat 30%. This is a government funded experiment and so it the employer so who ended up paying the bill well the Swedish people, at least those who pay into the system since now Sweden has the lowest (actual) pay-in ratio of all countries within the EAA and no much north sea oil and gas to cover for it like their richer neighbor Norway.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  What I am saying is that it is free for the society as a whole; redistribution within the society may still occur. Let's take a simple example. You have a village and someone plants an apple tree. Everybody who wants an apple has to pay to the owner (planter). Now let's say (to make it less politically controversial) that the owner dies, and the village decides that anyone in the village can take, say, 10 apples per month. I would then say the apples are free, wouldn't you? It perfectly fits the definition of the word. And this is analogous to technological innovation. Someone spent time creating this innovation in the past, and the products of this innovation can be free, you don't have to pay anyone to use it, they are already dead. So I have shown you, I hope, that free things can appear "out of thin air" in the economy. Then it's just a matter of social consensus how to redistribute the free things, for example, people can decide that they will just work two hours less.

belorn 11y ago

By switched to two six-hour shifts with full pay and no break for lunch you get more efficient use out of machines and buildings. Add that with increased productivity per employee, lowered costs to sickness and injury, higher personal retention, and the increased operation costs are directly paid by the increased production and decreased costs over time.

s73v3r 11y ago

Are operating costs going up? While they have to hire more people, they don't have to replace people as often, and they don't have as many mistakes/errors, which can be expensive.

odonnellryan 11y ago

These people also pay taxes. Sure there probably still added tax burden but it isn't so black and white. It does a few things: 1) More jobs = more spending = more taxes in indirect ways (businesses) 2) Less stress on other public programs, such as welfare (if these people aren't employed, who is paying for their xyz?)