Bernie Sanders unveils 32-hour workweek bill with no loss in pay for workers
Bernie Sanders unveils 32-hour workweek bill with no loss in pay for workers
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday introduced a bill to establish a standard four-day workweek in the United States without any reduction in pay. The bill, over a four-year period, would lowe…
You're viewing a single thread.
You dont get something for nothing, either prices have to rise, or the government is propping up companies that are that ineffient that workers are only doing 32 hours in a 40 hour work week.
You should probably update your economic knowledge.
Study after study over the last 20-30 years has shown that productivity remains or increases when switching from 40 hrs to 32.
No no no, hours = productivity.
Monkey types on typewriter for more time, monkey write more code. All top quality. Best code.
It's not just software engineers out there though. I work in a factory and it absolutely works that way here. More hours = more output. If the fucking scumbags like musk and whoever the fuck owns trader joes actually wins this case in the supreme court and they remove all the protections workers have gained in the last 100 years you bet your ass the owner of this factory will IMMEDIATELY go to 7 days a week 12 hour shifts as they won't be required to pay overtime and they'll more than likely be able to drop wages as far as they can possibly get away with.
It's funny because this article points out a pipe dream for Americans, while simultaneously the supreme court is about to pull the rug out from under us and have us move in exactly the opposite direction... :(
And that would be under the government is propping up companies that are that ineffient.
If you mean that the common best practice of working 40 hrs/week is inefficient, then yes.
Governments aren't pushing for 40 hr work weeks, socialists and industrialists of the early 1900s were, and the rest is conservatism.
Cool, so you think that framers get as much done in 32 hours as 40?
I don't know if there's any studies made specifically on framers, but machinists and manufacturers have been reported to, and of course almost anyone in a knowledge job.
So you think that all jobs are more efficient if they just lower the hours?
I'm saying there's independently verified, peer reviewed, and repeated research that show that many jobs keep or increase their productivity.
So then you would need to dive into why that is true. I actually agree with you because I had a job like that when I was not self employed. And the reason I could be ineffient was because it was directly government funded. The only reason a machinest and manufacturing job can be ineffeicinet is because of government involvement.
If you'd approached the conversation honestly 2-3 replies ago, I'd be happy to provide sources.
Now you seem a boorish and rude troll, and you can go be that on someone else's time.
Yes
Cool, but you would be wrong.
Your math is wrong
Dude, you have not done a real physical day of work in your life, dont pretend like you even know what framers do.
Many workers already only work 32 hours a week and fill a chair while bullshitting the rest of the time. Many people do that because they would burn out otherwise. Cut the hours by 25% and it's more reasonable to expect people to actually work. Right now even supervisors don't crack down on that behavior because it's just generally accepted that you can't push people that hard or productivity starts to fall. Imo 30 hours/week is the sweet spot for productivity and cutting down wasted dead time.
Most supervisors don't push that button because they don't want anyone to question how much work they do. Because it's the same as the rest of us. Or less.
The hardass bosses who do demand more typing and more hours simply don't possess self-awareness.
And that would be under the government is propping up companies that are that ineffient.
Don't know where you get that idea from. If you cut out the hours where employees sit around wasting time, you get the same productivity for less hours worked. There's no difference besides time saved. Government has nothing to do with it, as revenue is not affected.
The government creates a hedge of regulation protection for large businesses. Also the government directly gives money via contracts, between 20-25% of the GDP is government spending, and that is just on the federal level.
Pharmacist here. I definitely work the full 40 hours basically non stop and... It's awful. I don't think this is how humans are meant to live. If you have a job that absolutely requires the full 40 to be 100% effort, the rest of your life suffers. I believe the reason so many people are able to do 40+ hours is the downtime that's built into most jobs.
I did 30 hours as a pharmacist for years and it was AMAZING. Like the job was still hard, but it felt like I had a portion of my life that was hard. Now that I'm stuck back to 40 it feels like I have a hard life. I barely have energy to give to my 1 year old baby on days off because I am recovering from the day before. I do the best I can but man was I in a better place at 30 hours.
This is a different discussion, but I agree with you. I think the issue you are looking at is that the way the government manages the currency has created the issue where many people NEED to work 40 hours just to get by. The government has been devaluing our wages for generations and we are on the same side, I just think we all need to realize what the actual problem is.
Which is disproved by Germany. When you compare Germany to surrounding countries, the economy of workers that now only work 35 hours per week, has not declined by comparison to neighboring countries.
Other factors are way more significant, like wealth distribution, economic environment, and quality of public services. If you look to UK they are way worse off, because they have generally fucked up and used economic thinking similar to republicans.
Also look at Denmark, we have one of the least number of yearly work hours, yet we are among the highest paid in the world. With almost no natural resources to benefit from.If you are unwilling to progress, there will be no progress.
So a roofer will be able to put on more roofs if they work less hours?
Yes! And the closer you get to zero the more we approach infinite roofs per hour, because that's the way it works with humans, you simply multiply and divide and add and subtract, it's really that easy, I wonder why people make it so complicated and add in completely unnecessary stuff like health and well being? /s
You can be snarky if you wish, but I am just pointing out the flaws in the idea that if you lower hours people will be as efficient.
What I'm saying is you can't just count the beans.
Fewer work hours are recouped in a number of ways, like less sick leave and higher efficiency, maybe not 100%, but experience seems to show that a pretty significant part is. So "as efficient" is not true.Of course you can't do this indefinitely, but you can increase efficiency most places by going down from 40.
I think you can count the beans. You’ll have less injuries better quality work and a better product or service overall.
One workplace injury over the life span of a business would save all the costs of the lower hours / same pay
Edit: I work in a large organization. Someone hurt themselves. The payout was so large that the bosses realized they could pay for more than hundreds of dollars of safety equipment per worker per year for the entire organization and still save money if it avoided one accident.
I could agree with you if we are talking about 80 hours/ week , but 40 hour is totally doable and not really even many hours to work.
As far as efficiency goes, that is an issue with companies that are enable to be inefficient by government controls and influences.
Yes, many labor jobs would have large quality improvements if their workers worked less hours
You clearly do not have an economics degree, nor do you know what you are talking about