3 ms·

The problem is that most jobs that require less work pay much less. You might work, say, 30% less, but you earn 60% less, especially when benefits (if you aren'

by glesica 12y ago

The problem is that most jobs that require less work pay much less. You might work, say, 30% less, but you earn 60% less, especially when benefits (if you aren't full time you generally don't get them at all) are accounted for. It doesn't matter if it is possible to make it work, it matters if it is feasible for most people, which it isn't. Don't get sidetracked focusing on outliers. Source: I haven't had a full-time job in several years and I know I'm an outlier (I also know I may pay a steep price for it in a couple decades).

monort 12y ago
You can work full time, but get a 4 months vacation every year. If your employer don't offer unpaid vacation - do it when changing job.
- glesica 12y ago
  So you change jobs every eight months? That's exactly the kind of generally infeasible solution I said to ignore. The vast, vast majority of people simply can't do that, so it isn't worth talking about as a general solution.
  - monort 12y ago
    Make it a year long vacation every two year. What is infeasible about it except that it's not common now? You get a real 30% pay reduction for 30% more free time.
    - glesica 12y ago
      Tell that to someone who lives in an area where there aren't thousands of employers. Or who works in a specialty field where there aren't thousands of employers anywhere. Or someone who can't move across the country every couple years to find a new job because of children / family / whatever. Or someone in a profession (or just without extremely "valuable" skills) where changing jobs every two years is a black mark. Or someone in a situation where a year of "unemployment" would essentially make it impossible to get a new job (employers have a well-discussed bias toward the currently-employed). The list goes on. It isn't common now a reason (several, actually). Once again, just because a solution works for some small portion of people doesn't mean that it can be generalized to the rest of the people.
      - monort 12y ago
        It should work both for those with valuable skill and for those with low skill fungible job. BTW current median tenure for food preparation workers is around 2 years. It works not for all occupations, but it's not a small portion of people too. I think the fact that they are not doing this shows, that they value money more, than free time.
        glesica 12y ago
        Food preparation, and other low-skill workers can't afford to do it, 30% less income for most of them is below what they need to survive. It isn't that they "value money more", it's that they have no choice (well, really they do value money more, but it is because they value not suffering from malnourishment). Additionally, for most people who receive some kind of public assistance (which many low-skill workers do) being out of work means losing that assistance. So once again, it doesn't work for that group of people.
        monort 12y ago
        Median wage for food preparation is $19000. 30% less is still above poverty line. They can survive, but they prefer to earn $5700 more per year and have less free time. And situation is the same with programmers, only numbers are different. People think they value free time, but they act as if they value money more.

by glesica 12y ago

monort 12y ago

You can work full time, but get a 4 months vacation every year. If your employer don't offer unpaid vacation - do it when changing job.

glesica 12y ago
So you change jobs every eight months? That's exactly the kind of generally infeasible solution I said to ignore. The vast, vast majority of people simply can't do that, so it isn't worth talking about as a general solution.
- monort 12y ago
  Make it a year long vacation every two year. What is infeasible about it except that it's not common now? You get a real 30% pay reduction for 30% more free time.
  - glesica 12y ago
    Tell that to someone who lives in an area where there aren't thousands of employers. Or who works in a specialty field where there aren't thousands of employers anywhere. Or someone who can't move across the country every couple years to find a new job because of children / family / whatever. Or someone in a profession (or just without extremely "valuable" skills) where changing jobs every two years is a black mark. Or someone in a situation where a year of "unemployment" would essentially make it impossible to get a new job (employers have a well-discussed bias toward the currently-employed). The list goes on. It isn't common now a reason (several, actually). Once again, just because a solution works for some small portion of people doesn't mean that it can be generalized to the rest of the people.
    - monort 12y ago
      It should work both for those with valuable skill and for those with low skill fungible job. BTW current median tenure for food preparation workers is around 2 years. It works not for all occupations, but it's not a small portion of people too. I think the fact that they are not doing this shows, that they value money more, than free time.
      - glesica 12y ago
        Food preparation, and other low-skill workers can't afford to do it, 30% less income for most of them is below what they need to survive. It isn't that they "value money more", it's that they have no choice (well, really they do value money more, but it is because they value not suffering from malnourishment). Additionally, for most people who receive some kind of public assistance (which many low-skill workers do) being out of work means losing that assistance. So once again, it doesn't work for that group of people.
        monort 12y ago
        Median wage for food preparation is $19000. 30% less is still above poverty line. They can survive, but they prefer to earn $5700 more per year and have less free time. And situation is the same with programmers, only numbers are different. People think they value free time, but they act as if they value money more.