3 ms·
I'm afraid this is a very rosy way of looking at things: * You can't simultanously work less and spend more. Working three days a week means consuming more le
by RobinL 12y ago
I'm afraid this is a very rosy way of looking at things:
* You can't simultanously work less and spend more. Working three days a week means consuming more leisure, but fewer goods. Spending would not go up.
* The lump of labour fallacy means that this doesn't have an unambiguously positive affect on empoyment.
I personally support flexibility working hours (then again, I would, because I earn enough that I don't need to work full time). But we shouldn't assume there are no trade offs at stake.
- thewarrior 12y agoConsidering that we have a lot of people dedicated to "bullshit" jobs like advertising , social media curation and other stuff which doesn't really produce anything, maybe OP has a point.
- texthompson 12y agoAdvertising can add value to a company's bottom line. It's not always well-executed, but it can be useful.
- maigret 12y agoIf advertising wouldn't produce anything, it wouldn't exist. Your statement is quite common, but actually advertising performance is much more measurable than developer performance. Advertising is about to enable the right product to find its buyer. It is also financing the whole internet economy much more than the services the end-consumer think they use. Around social media I won't comment. Probably many companies are trying to get a footprint there. Nowadays more and more people are expecting Twitter support for example. Nothing wrong with this, I expect controlling will know how to limit expenses in this area to a reasonnable amount.