3 ms·

If people are equally productive in less time, pay should stay the same for amount of work completed or contribution delivered, not hours worked.

by basch 7y ago

mongol 7y ago
I don't mind individual agreements between employer and employee of that nature. But as a politician, it is not possible to design legislation changes like that because different jobs varies a lot in how productivity is measured, and for some jobs, the hours matters in a way that an employee can not make up in a personal productivity. Think of a restaurant for example, or a hospital.
- aaomidi 7y ago
  It's possible. It causes headaches for companies, but it's not different from adding a new tax or a new regulation. They will just have to find a way to deal with it. It could literally be that no one's pay is allowed to change to accommodate these new hours. If they are contact the DoL.
  - mongol 7y ago
    Yes, actually, it is possible as in so far that politicians can create whatever laws they can get majority for. But "the way to deal with it" will in many cases be bankruptcy, just like it would if the taxes were doubled. Also, the effect on society is not to be taken lightly. A general decrease of working hours from 40 to 24 hours per week will decrease national GNP significantly. A hoped for advantage is probably that unemployed can make up some slack by becoming employable (to "share the work"), but if other countries keep a 40 hour work week it will be hard to maintain living standards
    - aaomidi 7y ago
      You don't need to do 40 to 24 mate. You can do a yearly decrease of 1 hour for the next 16 years. What's the point of all this technology and innovation if we're always going to keep working the same amount. Also if an industry can't keep up with this, oh well. That's why you do it slowly so you can handle the fallout.

3 ms·

If people are equally productive in less time, pay should stay the same for amount of work completed or contribution delivered, not hours worked.

by basch 7y ago

If people are equally productive in less time, pay should stay the same for amount of work completed or contribution delivered, not hours worked.

mongol 7y ago
I don't mind individual agreements between employer and employee of that nature. But as a politician, it is not possible to design legislation changes like that because different jobs varies a lot in how productivity is measured, and for some jobs, the hours matters in a way that an employee can not make up in a personal productivity. Think of a restaurant for example, or a hospital.
- aaomidi 7y ago
  It's possible. It causes headaches for companies, but it's not different from adding a new tax or a new regulation. They will just have to find a way to deal with it. It could literally be that no one's pay is allowed to change to accommodate these new hours. If they are contact the DoL.
  - mongol 7y ago
    Yes, actually, it is possible as in so far that politicians can create whatever laws they can get majority for. But "the way to deal with it" will in many cases be bankruptcy, just like it would if the taxes were doubled. Also, the effect on society is not to be taken lightly. A general decrease of working hours from 40 to 24 hours per week will decrease national GNP significantly. A hoped for advantage is probably that unemployed can make up some slack by becoming employable (to "share the work"), but if other countries keep a 40 hour work week it will be hard to maintain living standards
    - aaomidi 7y ago
      You don't need to do 40 to 24 mate. You can do a yearly decrease of 1 hour for the next 16 years. What's the point of all this technology and innovation if we're always going to keep working the same amount. Also if an industry can't keep up with this, oh well. That's why you do it slowly so you can handle the fallout.