4 ms·

It feels more complicated though. Let's say I have only enough work for 8 hours a week. Should I hire someone for 40 just to give them "full employment"? What

by bena 8y ago

It feels more complicated though. Let's say I have only enough work for 8 hours a week. Should I hire someone for 40 just to give them "full employment"? What benefit do I get from that? Or let's say I only have enough capital to pay for 8 hours a week. Should I run myself out of business hiring and paying someone for 40 just because it's "nice"? Also, we have to get into the actual value of the work provided. What is the value of the job performed? That's an incredibly complicated function and I don't really know the answer to it. And then you do have people who are abusing their power to pay less than they should. Companies who lean on their employees being able to qualify for welfare even with a full 40 hours. I think that at the very least, a full-time, 40 hour a week job should be able to enable someone to acquire room and board for themselves.

deusofnull 8y ago
If you only need 8 hours of work from a worker, then find someone looking only for part time work. They're out there. The problem is there are millions of people working 40 hours a week or more , sometimes at multiple jobs, who still can't afford to guarantee they and their families eat 3 healthy meals a day or go to the doctor. Look at the increase in worker productivity since the 70s and then look at the lethargic growth in worker compensation. Those two variables should be tightly coupled.
- bena 8y ago
  I did say that a 40 hour a week job should be able to provide you with a basic existence, did I not? Of course, there is going to be some disagreement as to what "a basic existence" entails. But that's a discussion for another time. I think that if you work a full 40 hours in a week, you should be above the poverty line. That minimum wage should be tied to that at the very least. I don't think it currently is. And if I need full time work, but the only jobs available are 3 part time jobs at 10 hours each, I'm sorry, but my need doesn't really transform them into better jobs. I'll take what I can get.

by bena 8y ago

deusofnull 8y ago

If you only need 8 hours of work from a worker, then find someone looking only for part time work. They're out there. The problem is there are millions of people working 40 hours a week or more , sometimes at multiple jobs, who still can't afford to guarantee they and their families eat 3 healthy meals a day or go to the doctor. Look at the increase in worker productivity since the 70s and then look at the lethargic growth in worker compensation. Those two variables should be tightly coupled.

bena 8y ago
I did say that a 40 hour a week job should be able to provide you with a basic existence, did I not? Of course, there is going to be some disagreement as to what "a basic existence" entails. But that's a discussion for another time. I think that if you work a full 40 hours in a week, you should be above the poverty line. That minimum wage should be tied to that at the very least. I don't think it currently is. And if I need full time work, but the only jobs available are 3 part time jobs at 10 hours each, I'm sorry, but my need doesn't really transform them into better jobs. I'll take what I can get.