6 ms·

Let's be clear: what some people who advocate for this want is "we want to work less, but be paid the same or greater". I'm simply amazed that you can read any

Let's be clear: what some people who advocate for this want is "we want to work less, but be paid the same or greater". I'm simply amazed that you can read any such article/essay and not see a single $ sign in the entire thing. It's like asking your child whether we should buy a bigger house. "Yes! That would be great!" Should the government offer more benefits? "Yes! I love the idea!" Um, we're missing a certain part of the question, don't you think?

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Yes, this is what’s being asked for. No, with enormous increases in productivity that has been realized over decades, it doesn’t seem unreasonable. Otherwise, all of these productivity gains are being funneled to the top capital owners while everyone keeps slaving away for five workdays per week. The wealth and productivity already exists to enables such a reduction in weekly work hours. It hasn’t been addressed yet because of inertia. https://www.oecd.org/economy/decoupling-of-wages-from-productivity/ https://www.oecd.org/economy/decoupling-of-wages-from-produc...
- supernova87a 5y ago
  Getting paid more because your labor has become more productive isn't how (in large part) wages are set in a capitalist/market system. They are set by how many people are willing to supply labor at a given price, and how much is demanded. And basically, how much the next guy is willing to get paid. Up until very recently, we had a surplus of labor in this country and therefore many jobs were stagnant in wage growth. That's not going to change until the fundamental force of numbers changes, or some other change comes around. (see, pandemic) You don't get paid more just because you use a piece of equipment that churns through 2x as much. Unless that machine costs a lot of money and requires education to operate it.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    That’s what laws, labor regulation, and taxes are for. Labor markets are not pure capitalism because people > capital. We just keep ratcheting up minimum wages, and ratcheting down the work week. How quickly this occurs is a function of electorate composition turnover. We’re almost at $15/hr as a minimum wage due to market forces, which makes it easier to lock it in with statue as it’s proven it’s sustainable at scale. Of course, businesses built on labor costs that are unsustainable for workers are themselves unsustainable. Several countries are trialing 4 day work weeks, and if I recall, Iceland’s trial was so successful they’re moving forward with it permanently. That is data driven labor policy showing it’s feasible. It sounds like you support a more brutalist, pure capitalist system for labor, but that’s not what exists currently nor what is likely as the US electorate tilts further away from conservatism (older voters are most conservative, and die at a rate of ~1.8 million per year; public policy progress is a function of the death rate). (politics discussed because public policy is a core component of labor rights, citations below for all of my assertions) https://apnews.com/article/business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-minimum-wage-940a6a7530d734242c6f384b751b8033 https://apnews.com/article/business-health-coronavirus-pande... ($15 wage becoming a norm as employers struggle to fill jobs) https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/the-republican-party-has-an-older-voters-problem.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/the-republican-party... (The Republican Party Has an Older Voters Problem) https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/the-changing-composition-of-the-electorate-and-partisan-coalitions/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/the-changing... (The changing composition of the electorate and partisan coalitions) https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57724779 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57724779 (Four-day week 'an overwhelming success' in Iceland; The trials led unions to renegotiate working patterns, and now 86% of Iceland's workforce have either moved to shorter hours for the same pay, or will gain the right to, the researchers said.) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/spain-to-launch-trial-of-four-day-working-week https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/spain-to-launc... (Spain to launch trial of four-day working week) https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-58403087 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-58403... (Scotland to trial a four-day week)
    - supernova87a 5y ago
      Well, you're clearly an advocate for labor so I'm not going to here try to convince / sway you to some different viewpoint. I'm just going to correct your "facts" for other people reading the discussion. "as it’s [$15/hr] proven it’s sustainable at scale" That's a total guess / assertion in favor of your position, isn't it? The new wage being offered isn't proven "sustainable" -- it's merely what some employers have had to offer in the face of a pandemic + widespread increased unemployment benefits. And we're seeing record inflation (with some part attributable to this, some due to other important factors of course). So you're hardly justified in saying it's proven sustainable long term. You just want it to be so because it benefits you. And secondly, and more importantly, your tactics are no better than some corporatists who seek to exploit laws to their advantage whenever they can, just for their side, because they can. "... which makes it easier to lock it in with statue." If it were so proven to be good and sustainable, why is a statute required? Wouldn't that sustain itself? Now that you see a moment where $15 has been tried out of necessity due to the temporary (hopefully) situation, you want to "lock it in" with laws and regulation, and distort how the market for labor works by putting in a floor. I find it equally bad for someone to try to argue for and do this, regardless of whose side it is -- corporations trying to skirt environmental regulations, other public obligations, or labor trying to say that they deserve x/y/z because they got it for a moment. Don't act as if you're trying to find a solution good for the entire economy, producers, consumers, workers, people. You're an advocate for labor to get more benefits. And using incomplete arguments that favor your position. And by the way, I don't engage in the practice of downvoting people who I merely disagree with.
      - toomuchtodo 5y ago
        I think we have fundamentally different mental models; we disagree and neither is going to budge, at that’s okay. What you call “advocating for labor”, I call “paying people enough to live with dignity, even if distorting the labor market is necessary.” I advocate for labor because labor are fellow humans, and they matter the most imho. Whether capitalists get wealthy is not my concern. Regarding tactics, I take no issue with your statement. I think these issues are imperatives, even if cribbing off the playbook of less decent folks is a requirement. Regarding these policies benefiting me, I am financially independent. These policies would only cause me to pay more for goods and services (and possibly higher capital gains taxes), which I’m happy to do. If someone does not advocate for the disadvantaged, who will? Finally, I did not downvote any of your comments. HN is not showing downvote arrows to me for any comments in the thread, I assume because a flame war or similar heuristic has been triggered.
  - Palmik 5y ago
    And wouldn't 4 day work week reduce the supply of labor, thus putting upwards pressure on compensation?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
einpoklum 5y ago
> Let's be clear: what some people who advocate for this want is "we want to work less, but be paid the same or greater". 1. It is clear. 2. All people, not some people. 3. It's nothing like asking your child whether we should buy a bigger house.
petermcneeley 5y ago
I am sure my ancestors worked 12+ hours a day 6 days a week and they lived far more spartan a lifestyle than I do now. So yes you can "we want to work less, but be paid the same or greater". I understand what your getting at but your statement above just goes against the economic historical reality of the last 250 years.
luffapi 5y ago
> It's like asking your child whether we should buy a bigger house. "Yes! That would be great!" If my parents were billionaires, I would definitely assume they could buy a bigger house. The only $ missing are on your end. You’ve not mentioned that nearly all profit is currently being hoarded by executives and investors. People aren’t blind to this and have correctly come to the decision to work as little as possible since all the gains will be captured by those at the top.
fastasucan 5y ago
I can absurd you that I spend at least one working day each week fucking around, procrastinating, banging my head against the wall, looking out the window, planning how to do errands and meet the plumber etc, so my produktivity- my output that my boss pays for would stay the same. I think you, my boss and everyone should be more interested in the amount of work I do, not the amount of hours I am physically present in the office. Thats the part of the question you are missing.
- anm89 5y ago
  Hey, there is a person in America who spends less than 100% of their time at work being totally productive. Shut the whole system down. we are going to need to totally rethink this one.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

Yes, this is what’s being asked for. No, with enormous increases in productivity that has been realized over decades, it doesn’t seem unreasonable. Otherwise, all of these productivity gains are being funneled to the top capital owners while everyone keeps slaving away for five workdays per week. The wealth and productivity already exists to enables such a reduction in weekly work hours. It hasn’t been addressed yet because of inertia. https://www.oecd.org/economy/decoupling-of-wages-from-productivity/ https://www.oecd.org/economy/decoupling-of-wages-from-produc...

supernova87a 5y ago
Getting paid more because your labor has become more productive isn't how (in large part) wages are set in a capitalist/market system. They are set by how many people are willing to supply labor at a given price, and how much is demanded. And basically, how much the next guy is willing to get paid. Up until very recently, we had a surplus of labor in this country and therefore many jobs were stagnant in wage growth. That's not going to change until the fundamental force of numbers changes, or some other change comes around. (see, pandemic) You don't get paid more just because you use a piece of equipment that churns through 2x as much. Unless that machine costs a lot of money and requires education to operate it.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  That’s what laws, labor regulation, and taxes are for. Labor markets are not pure capitalism because people > capital. We just keep ratcheting up minimum wages, and ratcheting down the work week. How quickly this occurs is a function of electorate composition turnover. We’re almost at $15/hr as a minimum wage due to market forces, which makes it easier to lock it in with statue as it’s proven it’s sustainable at scale. Of course, businesses built on labor costs that are unsustainable for workers are themselves unsustainable. Several countries are trialing 4 day work weeks, and if I recall, Iceland’s trial was so successful they’re moving forward with it permanently. That is data driven labor policy showing it’s feasible. It sounds like you support a more brutalist, pure capitalist system for labor, but that’s not what exists currently nor what is likely as the US electorate tilts further away from conservatism (older voters are most conservative, and die at a rate of ~1.8 million per year; public policy progress is a function of the death rate). (politics discussed because public policy is a core component of labor rights, citations below for all of my assertions) https://apnews.com/article/business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-minimum-wage-940a6a7530d734242c6f384b751b8033 https://apnews.com/article/business-health-coronavirus-pande... ($15 wage becoming a norm as employers struggle to fill jobs) https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/the-republican-party-has-an-older-voters-problem.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/the-republican-party... (The Republican Party Has an Older Voters Problem) https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/the-changing-composition-of-the-electorate-and-partisan-coalitions/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/the-changing... (The changing composition of the electorate and partisan coalitions) https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57724779 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57724779 (Four-day week 'an overwhelming success' in Iceland; The trials led unions to renegotiate working patterns, and now 86% of Iceland's workforce have either moved to shorter hours for the same pay, or will gain the right to, the researchers said.) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/spain-to-launch-trial-of-four-day-working-week https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/spain-to-launc... (Spain to launch trial of four-day working week) https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-58403087 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-58403... (Scotland to trial a four-day week)
  - supernova87a 5y ago
    Well, you're clearly an advocate for labor so I'm not going to here try to convince / sway you to some different viewpoint. I'm just going to correct your "facts" for other people reading the discussion. "as it’s [$15/hr] proven it’s sustainable at scale" That's a total guess / assertion in favor of your position, isn't it? The new wage being offered isn't proven "sustainable" -- it's merely what some employers have had to offer in the face of a pandemic + widespread increased unemployment benefits. And we're seeing record inflation (with some part attributable to this, some due to other important factors of course). So you're hardly justified in saying it's proven sustainable long term. You just want it to be so because it benefits you. And secondly, and more importantly, your tactics are no better than some corporatists who seek to exploit laws to their advantage whenever they can, just for their side, because they can. "... which makes it easier to lock it in with statue." If it were so proven to be good and sustainable, why is a statute required? Wouldn't that sustain itself? Now that you see a moment where $15 has been tried out of necessity due to the temporary (hopefully) situation, you want to "lock it in" with laws and regulation, and distort how the market for labor works by putting in a floor. I find it equally bad for someone to try to argue for and do this, regardless of whose side it is -- corporations trying to skirt environmental regulations, other public obligations, or labor trying to say that they deserve x/y/z because they got it for a moment. Don't act as if you're trying to find a solution good for the entire economy, producers, consumers, workers, people. You're an advocate for labor to get more benefits. And using incomplete arguments that favor your position. And by the way, I don't engage in the practice of downvoting people who I merely disagree with.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      I think we have fundamentally different mental models; we disagree and neither is going to budge, at that’s okay. What you call “advocating for labor”, I call “paying people enough to live with dignity, even if distorting the labor market is necessary.” I advocate for labor because labor are fellow humans, and they matter the most imho. Whether capitalists get wealthy is not my concern. Regarding tactics, I take no issue with your statement. I think these issues are imperatives, even if cribbing off the playbook of less decent folks is a requirement. Regarding these policies benefiting me, I am financially independent. These policies would only cause me to pay more for goods and services (and possibly higher capital gains taxes), which I’m happy to do. If someone does not advocate for the disadvantaged, who will? Finally, I did not downvote any of your comments. HN is not showing downvote arrows to me for any comments in the thread, I assume because a flame war or similar heuristic has been triggered.
- Palmik 5y ago
  And wouldn't 4 day work week reduce the supply of labor, thus putting upwards pressure on compensation?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

einpoklum 5y ago

> Let's be clear: what some people who advocate for this want is "we want to work less, but be paid the same or greater". 1. It is clear. 2. All people, not some people. 3. It's nothing like asking your child whether we should buy a bigger house.

petermcneeley 5y ago

I am sure my ancestors worked 12+ hours a day 6 days a week and they lived far more spartan a lifestyle than I do now. So yes you can "we want to work less, but be paid the same or greater". I understand what your getting at but your statement above just goes against the economic historical reality of the last 250 years.

luffapi 5y ago

> It's like asking your child whether we should buy a bigger house. "Yes! That would be great!" If my parents were billionaires, I would definitely assume they could buy a bigger house. The only $ missing are on your end. You’ve not mentioned that nearly all profit is currently being hoarded by executives and investors. People aren’t blind to this and have correctly come to the decision to work as little as possible since all the gains will be captured by those at the top.

fastasucan 5y ago

I can absurd you that I spend at least one working day each week fucking around, procrastinating, banging my head against the wall, looking out the window, planning how to do errands and meet the plumber etc, so my produktivity- my output that my boss pays for would stay the same. I think you, my boss and everyone should be more interested in the amount of work I do, not the amount of hours I am physically present in the office. Thats the part of the question you are missing.

anm89 5y ago
Hey, there is a person in America who spends less than 100% of their time at work being totally productive. Shut the whole system down. we are going to need to totally rethink this one.