"Reduce working week to 30 hours, say economists"

[applegrove]

Reduce working week to 30 hours, say economists

By Rosa Silverman and agencies at the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/10316850/Reduce-working-week-to-30-hours-say-economists.html

"SNIP...................................



Cutting the hours we work each week to 30 instead of 40 would improve our wellbeing, our family life, friendships and communities, they say.

Combined with a range of new career breaks, it could also lower carbon emissions, it was argued.

The claims are made in new book by the New Economics Foundation (NEF), in which experts say that aiming for a 30-hour week could be possible through gradual changes to the labour market.

Companies should be encouraged to give workers more time off instead of pay rises, while young people starting out in the job market could work a four-day week, as has happened in the Netherlands, it notes.


................................SNIP"

[Tien1985]

1. F'ing wonderful

Because that will give me more time to pick up another part time job to make up for the money I'm no longer making at my "full time" 30hr a week job.

F them, seriously.

[B Calm]

24. They'll need to raise the hourly wage before

cutting the hours.

[socialist_n_TN]

28. Yep. 40 hours pay for 30 hours work is the only way to make this work.......

Actually that's part of Worker's Power's action program for the USA.

[Tien1985]

31. If they offer that, I'll be

Marching in the streets for it. But it's more likely that they'll more likely say work 30 hours for the same rate of pay.

[socialist_n_TN]

35. Sure they would. So we've got to demand it because........

they sure as hell wouldn't give it out of the "goodness" of their evil capitalist hearts.

[pkdu]

2. So no one qualifies for Obamacare!....

Just kidding , I know what they are getting at , and agree in general terms. Too many of us are working way too many hours in the week , could help us AND create more jobs

[DireStrike]

3. Well, they're halfway there.

We should aim for a 30 hour work week.

Pay would have to rise 25% though.

[whttevrr]

8. Actually...

40=30x
40/30=x
40/30=1 1/3=x

Wages would need to go up 33%

[sweetapogee]

9. try this

Isolate x by subtracting 30 from each side

30x=40

-30 -30

x=10

[whttevrr]

11. huh?

You can't subtract 30 from 30x... 30x is 30 times x, not 30 plus x

Try it this way.

You make 15 dollars an hour. 40 hours is 600 dollars. In order to get 600 dollars for 30 hours of work you need to make 20 dollars. 20 is 1 1/3 times 15.

[sweetapogee]

14. ha ha

you are right

[Rstrstx]

13. LOL, talk about fuzzy math

I suppose that means pay would have to increase by 10x

[NutmegYankee]

15. You have to divide by 30.

You might want to self delete this. It's too funny when compared to your sig line.

[Egalitarian Thug]

4. Been saying it for years. What's the point of inventing labor saving technology if

everyone still has to work as long or longer for less $? When do the labor savings come back to labor?

Again, a 19th century model in a 21st century economy simply doesn't work.

America, quit being a sucker.

[woo me with science]

17. +10000

[LuvNewcastle]

23. Excellent point.

[Blue_Tires]

33. +1000

We as a planet should have evolved to the FOUR-day (maximum) week awhile back...

[leftstreet]

36. +1

'When do the labor savings come back to labor?'

[Sirveri]

40. The point is to diversify our outputs.

So if we reduce labor in farming we can increase labor in making things. And if we reduce labor making widget A we can spend more time making widget B. But ultimately we'll reach a place where labor doesn't have value as we have created devices to replace all the labor. Then we simply do what we want.

[Egalitarian Thug]

42. No, it isn't. That may be the point for the parasites that seek to live

and prosper by stealing the work of others wish it to be, but that's not the point of innovation and invention.

The problem I've expressed is the result of a confidence scheme, nothing more. There is no justification nor excuse beyond simple theft carried out in an authoritarian, hierarchical environment.

[Sirveri]

43. That could have been stated in a less confrontational manner.

For instance, you could say that due to increased access to healthy food and water combined with advances in medical technology, we have a larger population base, which due to economy of scale, will never be able to be fully utilized at current working hours. Thus we should seek to curtail working hours while maintaining yearly earnings in order to improve the livelihood of all the people and create a more comfortable existence for all.

Which is kind of where I was going. I like your passion, hopefully I can help you set up the guillotines.

[Egalitarian Thug]

44. It could if any of that were valid, but it isn't. I'm not sure, but you seem to believe that

I "just don't understand" what is being, and has been, done and by whom.

I don't, and probably never will, understand how so many otherwise intelligent, rational people can see what has been done, by whom, and see the results it has yielded for generations, and then still try to excuse it as some unintentional, unavoidable by-product of well-intentioned people trying to do the right thing under tough circumstances.

They are not well intentioned. They do not want what is better for you, They do not have any altruistic intent. They are fucking parasites that want to kill you just slowly enough that they can latch onto another host just before you die. That sums up the faction that owns and runs this nation.

If any of us that can see and create a better way wish to make that happen, we must first rid ourselves of these parasites, period. They will never, under any circumstances, surrender power.

They are not reasonable nor rational, they don't have to be.

Perhaps if more people got to live in the world in which the parasites live, they would gain a better understanding of just how completely alien they are to our experience and react appropriately. The rich don't hate the working class or the poor, they never give them a single thought except when they cause trouble.

[Rex]

5. Americans love to work to death.

Who has extra time for 30 when they are working 60 hours a week at two jobs?

[Egalitarian Thug]

20. Have you ever heard the song "Would You Like to Swing on a Star?".

We've become a nation of mules.

[JEFF9K]

6. It would probably make for a happier life.

[Skittles]

7. heck, I'd be happy with 40 instead of 50 or 60

[Warren Stupidity]

10. I just had a 60s flashback. Progressive Labor Party slogan. 30 hours work for 40 hours pay.

They were (and probably still are) dreadful dreary Stalinists, but it was a great slogan.

[applegrove]

12. I don't think it is a stalinist idea. Things have changed. More manufacturing

is going on in the USA than ever before. But so much of it is done by machines. So how do workers, regular people participate in the economy in the 21st century when so many of the jobs are done by computer or machine? We have to talk about it. If we don't wages will keep falling. It will be an employers market. And wages will fall again.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. The PLP were/are unrepentant stalinists, the slogan was and is just good politics.

I didn't say the slogan was "stalinist", I said PLP is.

Here, see for yourself: http://www.plp.org/

[socialist_n_TN]

29. They might have been Stalinists, BUT.....

this is part of the platform of many Marxist groups. Worker's Power's action program for the USA has this as a plank.

[GreenStormCloud]

30. They want a dictatorship.

This is directly from their website: Only the dictatorship of the working class — communism — can provide a lasting solution to the disaster that is today’s world for billions of people. This cannot be done through electoral politics, but requires a revolutionary movement and a mass Red Army led by PLP.

Although I am 67, I would personally take up my 2A protected guns and fight to prevent their dictatorship of the working class. Fortunately they are a political laughing stock.

[socialist_n_TN]

37. At least a dictatorship of the proletariat would involve a WHOLE........

lot more people than the current dictatorship of capital.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. It would involve far fewer.

One person sits at the top, everybody else jumps when he says "Froggie". If they don't jump they get sent to a gulag.

The PLP would eliminate all personal freedom.

[SoCalDem]

16. Works GREAT for well paid salaried employees, BUT

if you are a $10hr hourly worker barely scraping, by that's a $100 a week pay CUT. If it's three 10 hr shifts, at least you would be ABLE to take on a second job, but I'd bet it's likely to be 6 fives or 5 sixes..

I had a boss once who had to guarantee 20 hrs to keep benefits available (it was union) so he insisted on five 4hr shifts for the newbies Those poor kids had to work FIVE days a week for 20 hrs...

[applegrove]

19. You are right of course. Maybe there could be another set of rules for low

wage jobs. But what we can do now that they talk about is raise the minimum wage.

[hunter]

18. Honestly, if there is to be any hope for this civilization then economic productivity has to die.

Economic productivity as we now define it is destroying the environment that supports us, both the natural environment and the social environment.

We could easily feed, clothe, comfortably shelter, educate, maintain a global communication network, and provide medical care for everyone, even while working fewer hours and abandoning our high energy "consumer" society.

The end of our resource-intensive fossil-fueled joyride will be a fatal wreck, death in the desert, or any number of horrible outcomes that are the consequence of climate change, resource depletion, overpopulation, and pollution. It would be better if we could find a nice comfortable place to stop, exit the death-mobile, and establish healthy, happy, and sustainable lives for everyone.

Raise the minimum wage, establish a very progressive tax rate, no taxes at 30 hour work week minimum wages, fair taxes for middle income people, and very high taxes on high incomes to prevent the kind of wealth that allows a small number of individuals to control government and suppress the voices of innovation and progress with huge volumes of destructive propaganda.

[dreamnightwind]

21. +1,000,000

[LuvNewcastle]

25. All great points. I think about overproduction and waste of resources all the time.

[Flying Squirrel]

22. Eh, I've only been working 10 hrs a week for the past couple years

I'm self employed and bring in $250 a week. Since desires expand to match your income, when I was working 50-65 hours a week I still couldn't get out of debt. Now I have no credit cards and very few possessions - but lots of free time. Life's too short to work 40 hours a week, I can tell you that.

[Laelth]

27. Good idea, but I want a $22.50 minimum wage to go with it.

30 hours/week is fine, but people have to be able to live on the hours they're scheduled to work. A $22.50 minimum wage would do it.

-Laelth

[BluegrassStateBlues]

32. I concur with everyone else.

Not without raising wages first.

[Ruby the Liberal]

34. So the non-exempt people go on SNAP with no health care

and the exempt people start working 75 hours a week to cover business hours?

Thanks, but my exempt ass puts in 45-60 hours already (by choice) on any given week as it is.

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. See? I told you so.

It will also mitigate income inequality, eliminate unemployment, improve education and lower healthcare costs.

[RainDog]

41. we need a basic income

the nature of work has been revolutionized by the rise of the tech industry, by the failure of free trade to protect working people, and by the trend of companies to cut benefits for employees however possible and shift this sort of activity into the free market where people are little qualified to manage their own pensions, etc.

The issue comes down to this: what are basic human rights in a civilization? Are they fewer rights than exist in subsistence economies?

In subsistence economies, or older, hunter/gatherer economies - everyone ate. everyone had a place to sleep. everyone had healthcare, such as it was.

Are complex civilization less savage than their predecessors? Or more - and more savage simply because of the allocation of power and resources?

the only protection the working class really has access to, across the board, is the ability to say no to a job. a basic income would provide this leeway to say no.

crappy jobs would have to pay more.

good jobs might pay less, but would be more enjoyable.

overall, the society would benefit because insuring basic needs would help to level the playing field of life.

the arts would benefit by buying time for people in various disciplines.

the only people who would not benefit would be those with inherited wealth and those who have had the good fortune to have their companies pay them many, many, many times what the median employee of such a firm might make.

[killbotfactory]

45. Hell No! I refuse to be anything but a disposable resource for corporate! nt