3 ms·
It's unfortunate that we can't come to a world agreement to work 32 hours a week or something reasonable like that. There can still be a healthy competition wit
by goodfight 8y ago
It's unfortunate that we can't come to a world agreement to work 32 hours a week or something reasonable like that. There can still be a healthy competition without all of us working ourselves to death.
- rmah 8y agoWe essentially already did and the # of hours is 40 per week.
- EpicEng 8y agoEasy to say when you're salaried. Not so easy when you work for hourly wages. It's not as though pay would suddenly increase by ~20%. Also, 40 hours / week is already a decrease from what it was ~100 years ago.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago100 years ago the average industrial working hours was apparently 45, so not that many - I feel like today 40 is more the exception than the rule. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1820827?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/1820827?seq=1#metadata_info_tab... In fact the hours were starting to change to 40 that year. Funny coincidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hours_of_Work_(Industry)_Convention,_1919 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hours_of_Work_(Industry)_Conve... Edit: Did some more research and in 1890 we have some truly ridiculous numbers. http://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/workday/weekend/8hourday.html http://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/workday/weekend/8hourday.html But there's a good reason we turned from those.
- EpicEng 8y ago> I feel like today 40 is more the exception than the rule. Is it though? Most people aren't you and I. Most are working hourly jobs and their employers are not paying out overtime. My only meaningful point is that a shorter work week would likely only benefit those among us who are already better off (in terms of compensation.) I don't see how it helps my friend working at the Chrysler plant.