4 ms·

What would that do to wages?

mixmastamyk 6y ago
They would adjust depending on how paid, salary or hourly. I believe productivity would be boosted over time as the rusty unemployed got back into the groove.
diob 6y ago
It'd probably do wonders for their economy, given the results from that Microsoft test where they only worked 4 days a week (https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776163853/microsoft-japan-says-4-day-workweek-boosted-workers-productivity-by-40 https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776163853/microsoft-japan-say...). With that boost, people could work less and they could afford to pay them more. It's a win win situation, but it's hard to change views when it comes to work. Folks want to believe that working more is better, but really it's about quality over quantity. We'd see crazy economic benefits if we stopped being traditionalists about work and started following the science / data.
- AA-BA-94-2A-56 6y ago
  People working 60 hours aren't going to have time to consume services. If everyone worked 30 hours instead, you'd probably see an increase in the demand for services (entertainment, fitness, etc). This would result in an increase in GDP, growth in the economy, and likely more demand for workers. But that's just my econ 101 knowledge.
  - diob 6y ago
    Yup, and they'd have time to start their own pursuits or small businesses. It's really a win win.
- jjnoakes 6y ago
  If cutting hours for existing employees leads to increased productivity, then you don't need to hire new workers to make up the difference in hours.
  - diob 6y ago
    What are you getting at? Why would they be focusing on hours instead of growing the company?
    - jjnoakes 6y ago
      I'm curious about op's suggestion that cutting hours from some will employ others. Maybe I'm thick but on the surface I'm not seeing how. If you cut back hours from 60 to 30 and pay less then wages drop. And if you don't pay less then the new employees aren't being paid for by the decrease in hours. Just trying to understand the original idea here.
bsanr2 6y ago
That depends entirely on government incentives to maintain wages and labor's power to demand the same. The idea that wages are driven by market forces is only half true. Someone has to pull the trigger on underpaying people who ought to be earning a piving wage.

They would adjust depending on how paid, salary or hourly. I believe productivity would be boosted over time as the rusty unemployed got back into the groove.

diob 6y ago

It'd probably do wonders for their economy, given the results from that Microsoft test where they only worked 4 days a week (https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776163853/microsoft-japan-says-4-day-workweek-boosted-workers-productivity-by-40 https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776163853/microsoft-japan-say...). With that boost, people could work less and they could afford to pay them more. It's a win win situation, but it's hard to change views when it comes to work. Folks want to believe that working more is better, but really it's about quality over quantity. We'd see crazy economic benefits if we stopped being traditionalists about work and started following the science / data.

AA-BA-94-2A-56 6y ago
People working 60 hours aren't going to have time to consume services. If everyone worked 30 hours instead, you'd probably see an increase in the demand for services (entertainment, fitness, etc). This would result in an increase in GDP, growth in the economy, and likely more demand for workers. But that's just my econ 101 knowledge.
- diob 6y ago
  Yup, and they'd have time to start their own pursuits or small businesses. It's really a win win.
jjnoakes 6y ago
If cutting hours for existing employees leads to increased productivity, then you don't need to hire new workers to make up the difference in hours.
- diob 6y ago
  What are you getting at? Why would they be focusing on hours instead of growing the company?
  - jjnoakes 6y ago
    I'm curious about op's suggestion that cutting hours from some will employ others. Maybe I'm thick but on the surface I'm not seeing how. If you cut back hours from 60 to 30 and pay less then wages drop. And if you don't pay less then the new employees aren't being paid for by the decrease in hours. Just trying to understand the original idea here.

bsanr2 6y ago

That depends entirely on government incentives to maintain wages and labor's power to demand the same. The idea that wages are driven by market forces is only half true. Someone has to pull the trigger on underpaying people who ought to be earning a piving wage.