4 ms·
> Think of a dinner party. 10 people are invited. They form the party. How many of them are needed to cook? Not all 10, thats too many cook. It would actually b
by losteric 9y ago
> Think of a dinner party. 10 people are invited. They form the party. How many of them are needed to cook? Not all 10, thats too many cook. It would actually be less efficient to have them all in the kitchen. So what if two of them cook? Do they only get to eat? Do they get more of the food? Maybe all 10 guests would have been able to cook, so who's lucky enough to be the chef and eat?
What if they rotate responsibilities?
Or, to reground the metaphor, maybe we need shorter work weeks?
- Pamar 9y agoAre you living in USA? France tried something in that direction: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/35-hour_workweek https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/35-hour_workweek but it arguably didn’t work well for them because in Europe a full time employee has -on average- very high costs for the employer, and most importantly they job contract is not “at will” (i.e. getting rid of redundant employees is basically impossible). (N.B.: I am not saying that the European situation is good or bad, just that it is an obstacle towards shortening the workweek, as France apparently found out).
- danmaz74 9y agoI think that France did a pretty untimely move with their 35 hours right when international competition was becoming much stronger. But it would work if the same policy was adopted by most of your competitors.
- WJW 9y ago"If everyone just behaved themselves" is a solution to basically every problem humanity has, but it is pretty clear by now that that is not something we can depend upon. The tragedy of the commons is real and ongoing.
- danmaz74 9y agoWell, we got to the 40-hours week, didn't we? My point is that the fact that the 35 hours didn't work in France this time doesn't mean they can't work in general.