In the olden days employees were uneducated.
People used to work for more than 12 hrs/day.
With labour laws , in most of the countries people work for 48 hrs/week.
In some countries people are working for 30 hrs/week.

In my opinion work should not be more than 20 hrs/week
It is proved that long working hours reduces efficiency.

Further employees do not get time for exercise or outdoor games.
More hours of table work result in Type-2 diabetes disease .
This is one of the biggest problem of the world .
Diabetes is hereditory in nature.
Large population will be suffering from this disease in future.

Also ,If working hours are reduced, unemployment problem can be solved to a great extent.

Alternatively Physical exercise should be made mandatory in the office hours.
This can be easily implemented in big organisations.

ISO-18000 SHOULD INCORPORATE THIS

Why doctors do not emphasise this ?
Why labour law makers do not look into it ?
What UNO is doing ?

Public all over the world should come together and insist for the change.

Any comments on this?

P.J.LAKHAPATE
plakhapate@rediffmail.com

I agree, 3 days a week is all we should need to work. IMO there would be a huge reduction in unemployment and crime, it would also benefit us culturally as well.
I dont agree with mandatory exercise in the workplace. However I would support it in schools, as most of my way through primary school we had to do aerobics for 10 minutes before starting class every morning and I believe it has benefited my health in latter life :)

I completely agree (except for the mandatory exercise thing).

In my opinion, as little should be mandatory as is possible while still maintaining social order. Hours and wages should all be handled in individual public contracts renewed on an annual basis.

As for health, one's own body is theirs and theirs alone. I don't give a tamn if they carve out their own eyes with spoons and drink hot lead... so long as the taxpayer doesn't have to clean up the mess.

That would be great. I sure would work better if I didn't work constantly.... which I dont now, but when I do it would be good. No exercise though. I dont like exercise.

Well, keep in mind that you can only work 20 hours/week. The thing is, most people feel that the extra money you get for working 40 hours/week is worth it. Most people would rather work 40 hours/week and live in a nice house than work 20 hours/week and live in a cheap apartment, apparently.

Of course it sounds good to only work 20 hours/week, but would you be willing to only make half as much?

but i suppose if everyone worked half as much the money would stay the same,or would it?im not too good on economics..

If everyone worked half as much, only half as much would be produced. We would be driven into economic collapse, starvation and poverty rampant.

or everyone would be employed and we would all live in happy houses made of fun

We don't have a 50% unemployment rate.

no,but there are other countries.open borders,equal economies,no greed,houses made of fun.

In my opinion work should not be more than 20 hrs/week
It is proved that long working hours reduces efficiency.
I agree we should let machines do most of the boring work.
btw this idea has been around for about 50 years now,
www.technocracy.org

Diabetes is hereditory in nature.
Large population will be suffering from this disease in future.
all diseases are related to lack of proper nutrition,
Im sure diabetes can be cured and avoided by eating right foods containing proper minerals/vitamins unfortunately average people eat too much useless
junk.to be healthy
Ive heard of a case where high fat diet cured epilepsy in children,something
most doctors would never recomend.why not?..scared of losing their high paying jobs most likely

Public all over the world should come together and insist for the change.

majority of public is stoopid and brainwashed by the goverment and big media propaganda
that its un-american=comunistic/socialistic not needing to strive to make million
$$,and not being greedy,
I dont see that changing until people smarten up and realize that fng money aint all thats important.
your good health is...
people working less hours would make less money,true,so they would be buying less,
I dont see that as a problem as the prices of everything would eventualy have to come down..

People in many countries work less hours than America. America (and some other countries) have a culture that tell them they have to make as much money as they can, live in the biggest house they can afford, drive the nicest car they can afford, and have the nicest things they can afford. However, I don’t really see this as being a bad thing. as long as people are happy and not hurting me, I'm fine with it. having a county of workaholics is a good thing in my book. I like America, we have built a country as good or better than any old world country, and we had less than 500 years to do it in.

I think this is the first thing clockwood and I have agreed on. peoples bodies are their own business. I also think that health insurance should go by lifestyle, your rates should go up if you are out of shape, a smoker, drink heavily, have poor oral hygiene, play dangerous sports, or anything else that will cause them to take more money out of the system than they normally would. however, I draw the line at genetic profiling. if you have ever seen gatica you should know why.

Sweet Pazuzu, I am agreeing with Cato.

There is one thing I have seen with family, friends, and coworkers. When they get old enough to retire, a real retirement and not the type where you find another job, some start taking it easy. They relax, do what they want to do... and start losing their vibrancy. Within a few years they are dead.

The other bunch get to that age and continue working just as hard. If they can't get a job, they volunteer or do something else as if it were a paying job. They grumble, they groan, and they go home with every joint aching... but with smiles that they can't quite hide under their wrinkles. And they live and keep living for another couple decades. Their responibility doesn't let them die. If the grim reaper came after them in person they would try to beat him over the skull with a cane and try to chew through the scythe with their dentures.

Do not knock workaholics. They make everything a little bit better by their presence and the world repays them in turn.

I think quite the opposite. Consumerism (spending money) is destructive for this world. It is nice that some of these people spend most of their time locked away in an office or factory, but that doesn't change the fact that their basic aim is to destroy the world by eating up the world. Obviously they don't realize this because they are too preoccupied with work and spending money, or they only give a shit about themselves and their money and don't care.

What is the point of living if you can't do something in that time?

France is the fourth biggest economy in the world, yet they wake up late, go to a cafe, drink coffee and smoke, then head to work at 10 am. And 8 weeks of vacation.

But they still have a gigantic economy, and are smaller than Texas. Reduction of the work week would not be catastrophic.

Actually, they just moved it from a 35 hour work week to a 48 hour work week. That's 48 hours max. You are not legally allowed to work more than that, or something.

What is the point of living if you can't do something in that time?

Have some other aims beside consuming things. Start painting or take long walks in the country side.

people should work more. lazy humans.

Painting is nice, but it too consumes things. Chances are you are painting with petroleum products. Almost everything costs something. Great archetecture requires a plot of land, tons and tons of refined matierials from all corners of the globe, and fule burnt to power it. Statues and other works of art usually require at least a strip mining quarry.

Accept it. We are doing exactly what we are built to do and should feel no shame in it. No more so than a wolf should feel shame for tearing the throat out of its prey or a swarm of locusts for stripping a land bare for a couple seasons. Its what they do and this is what we do. That it will cause a boom and bust cycle will just be normal.

i feel shame the likes of you dont FEEL ashamed!

Painting is nice, but it too consumes things. Chances are you are painting with petroleum products.

Get some chickens and start making paint on egg basis.

(trade in your TV for the chickens)

i feel shame the likes of you dont FEEL ashamed!
Why should I feel ashamed? I am a two legged wolf who learned to craft the spear and the gun; a locust that learned to farm. I am exactly what my blood tells me to be. Nothing less, nothing more.

I will eat the leaves of this world along with the flesh of my brother animals. I will hunt, screw, and fight as my blood orders me. Mere than that... I will raise monuments, both wonderful and terrible, to the sky and leave my mark on this world. A billion years after I die, there should still be proof that I was alive.

LAZY HUMANS!
work more, play less, you slimey filthy people.
-me not included-

their basic aim is to destroy the world
not any more than someone else. the problem is that people love disposable things, not that we use too many things. well, the real problem is that there are too many people in areas that don’t add to the overall world, but that is another thread.

Why should I feel ashamed? I am a two legged wolf who learned to craft the spear and the gun; a locust that learned to farm. I am exactly what my blood tells me to be. Nothing less, nothing more.

I will eat the leaves of this world along with the flesh of my brother animals. I will hunt, screw, and fight as my blood orders me. Mere than that... I will raise monuments, both wonderful and terrible, to the sky and leave my mark on this world. A billion years after I die, there should still be proof that I was alive.
back to disagreeing. I don’t think we should just disregard other people and live however we want. we need to both work hard and be responsible.

there is nothing intrinsically wrong with people working a lot. their reasons may not be the best but I think the overall good of people working harder outweighs the.......why would we want to work less? so we all have a lower standard of living? you guys are busy attacking long hours but is there really any up side to working less?

basically the only upside of working less is that the first few generations who work less will have a great standard of living due to the work their forefathers did. but after that you will just get an overall poor society. it may be culturally rich, but the standard of living will be low. if that is what you want then move to rural Belize or something.

You guys genuinely don't believe Americans could live comfortably on half the goods we have presently? Seriously.. it may take some restructuring so that there's less waste and a greater emphasis on "needs" than "wants," but I guarantee it's survivable. The fact is that there are almost no mechanisms in place even to encourage saving rather than consuming. Quite the contrary - with the government's continually increasing debt (hence inflation) we have every incentive to unload our money as quickly as we can, and in any way possible. If that means feeding into the capitalist system that's chewing up our environment in the name of a "healthy economy" then that's exactly what we do. I'm sorry, but you're not allowed to cry, "Poverty!" just because you can only afford an automobile fleet of half the size, or a 1000 square foot house instead of 2000 square feet. The problem in the US is that we don't even realize how many resources we use up. We feel like we have the bare necessities, but we don't really know what that means any more.

Correlation between Standard of living and working more:

Why can people in Europe work 32 to 36 hours a week, have at least 4 weeks of holiday and have the same standard of living, or even a better one?

Therefore I feel dountful that there is a direct correlation between working more and a better standard of living. I.e. in 3rd world countries people tend to work more and harder, but have a lower standard of living.

The correlation therefore seems to be non-existent.

You guys genuinely don't believe Americans could live comfortably on half the goods we have presently? Seriously.. it may take some restructuring so that there's less waste and a greater emphasis on "needs" than "wants," but I guarantee it's survivable. The fact is that there are almost no mechanisms in place even to encourage saving rather than consuming
if we did that and still worked like we do, hell, we would live like kings!

Why can people in Europe work 32 to 36 hours a week, have at least 4 weeks of holiday and have the same standard of living, or even a better one?
they don’t live like we live, if we worked as much as we do now and lived like they live, we would be very well off.

in 3rd world countries people tend to work more and harder, but have a lower standard of living.
that’s not true, in some cases they may work more, and it may be more physical, but the reason they don’t live better is because other countries exploit them, trade is not very good, and they work very inefficiently. people from the Sudan who have come to America as refugees have said that they have to work harder in America. I don’t know how much more third world you can get than the Sudan.

p.s. the average America workweek is 45 hours. the average worldwide workweek is 45 hours. according to The Microsoft Office Personal Productivity Challenge (PPC). and according to the International Labor Organization, Americans only work 1 more week per year than the average. so I don’t know where you are getting your numbers. some Europeans countries (France I think you said) can do that because they don’t spend as much on military, and live a different lifestyle.

32 h is france...
36 hours is holland
3rd world countries...I have seen it.

if we did that and still worked like we do, hell, we would live like kings!

Hadn't you noticed? We already live like kings. If you sincerely can't imagine cutting some of the expenses from the average American household without sacrificing the quality of life, then you aren't very imaginative. We spend all the money we can, don't we? The only measure we have for whether we should buy something we want is whether or not it's affordable.

I think , life is meant for enjoyment.
Working throughout life is not real life, unless one likes his work.
But how many such people are there who like only work and nothing else.?

Who is the authority/ committee who standardise this ?

P.J.LAKHAPATE
plakhapate@rediffmail.com

Manganese: It is always good to aspire for what is bigger, grander, better. What would be wrong with my getting a marble palace completee with towers reaching into the sky and interior courtyards filled with lush greenery? As long as you can spend the money, and thus time and effort, what is so wrong with that?

Try and limit my chances for betterment and I, in a long line of others, will find away around it. That would be the primary use of all that extra time they just handed me.

The problem is that your palace might be bad for someone else. What is good for you isn't necessarily good for your neighbour.

Of course, maybe you want to be selfcentered and selfish. But maybe you should then go and live on some deserted island. We are on this planet together.

Give me title to that island and a chance to tap the shipping laned and you have yourself a deal. Human beings by definition will fill the earth to the brim no matter how meager or grand their personal lives. We will keep reproducing until there is no more food and land upon which to live. Why not have hundreds of millions live like kings rather than untold billions scraping out a bare existence in famine and plague while living in mud huts? Why is quantity better than quality?

We will reach equilibrium either way.

It is proved that long working hours reduces efficiency.

Can you provide this proof for us all to see?

Show me a company that only works twenty hours a day, and I will show you a company that I can put out of business.

Give me title to that island and a chance to tap the shipping laned and you have yourself a deal. Human beings by definition will fill the earth to the brim no matter how meager or grand their personal lives. We will keep reproducing until there is no more food and land upon which to live. Why not have hundreds of millions live like kings rather than untold billions scraping out a bare existence in famine and plague while living in mud huts? Why is quantity better than quality?

We will reach equilibrium either way.

The era of people living as kings is about to end, when the fossil fuel runs out :) For every newly discovered barrel of oil, the world consumes 4 barrels. Too bad we didn't ration ourselves..

And actually it seems that the US and many European countries would be experiencing declining populations if it weren't for all the immigration. It's too bad that economists have to jump in and start claiming that economies need to be constantly growing in order to be healthy. Some European countries are actually offering incentives to bear children at this point.

We really don't fill Earth to the brim with sheer numbers of people, not when the people are educated and don't feel that they need to produce large numbers of children to help increase their productivity, as is the case in so many impoverished countries. But rest assured that developed countries have effectively controlled their populations without even imposing any impolite rules on their people.

Manganese: It is always good to aspire for what is bigger, grander, better. What would be wrong with my getting a marble palace completee with towers reaching into the sky and interior courtyards filled with lush greenery? As long as you can spend the money, and thus time and effort, what is so wrong with that?

Try and limit my chances for betterment and I, in a long line of others, will find away around it. That would be the primary use of all that extra time they just handed me.

A marble palace by itself is an investment. But I assume you'll be wanting to heat your palace in the winter? "No big deal!" you say, because you can afford plenty of fuel. Well are you prepared to secure and protect X acres of trees to guarantee that the carbon dioxide you produce gets converted back to breathable air? You'll naturally want a nice wilderness locale with a scenic view - so I assume you're eager to create a new habitat for the species that are disrupted by the roads connecting you to civilization. I'm sure you'll just terraform some desert so that the trees and reptiles and birds and insects can move there instead..

When it comes right down to it, people like acquisitions and they don't like taking responsibility for what that means to the world. This is what will spell our doom; not overpopulation. Impoverished and overpopulated places like the Sudan can't get much worse than they already are. What we risk by being overly productive is that we will become just like the Sudan. Having exhausted not just our own resources, but everybody else's as well, we will find ourselves truly poor; lacking not only wealth, but also lacking the potential to build wealth. And it will all be the result of the "As long as you can spend the money, and thus time and effort, what is so wrong with that?" philosophy.

Some guy in another part of the forums was talking about shifting tax burdons from income tax to sales tax. He said it would be a great way to reduce consumerism. And that way, for instance, people who buy cars would effectively be the ones paying the tax that takes care of roads. It's a completely fair system and it would probably work wonders for the environment by encouraging people to make do with what they have.

Of course I laughed at this idea, because the government depends so heavily on our constant need for consumer goods that such a plan would never work. It's better just to take our money from the get-go, and then set us free to spend the rest of it, thus putting the money right back into industry where it can proceed to get taxed more. Who cares if I just bought a second SUV and a big screen TV I really don't need? I'm helping pay for the war in Iraq ;)

In my opinion work should not be more than 20 hrs/week

Well, if you're going to cut the work time in half, why not just go all out and cut it completely? I mean, what the hell's the difference? ...you're dreaming anyway, go for the whole hog!

Baron Max

I mean, what the hell's the difference?
Hell of a difference between 0 & 20 :rolleyes:

Not when both lead to starvation.

Not when both lead to starvation.
What a load of shit, I haven't worked more than 20 hours or so a week for 3-4 years and I'm not hungry. Too many people live beyond their means...

lol.. Clockwood, you really are George Bush aren't you?

There are many people that work just 20 hours a week and are quite happy with it. It is a matter of what you find more important; to have 3 cars (but you only really drive on of them, and that is from your home to your workplace), or enjoy life and have some spare time to do so.

There are also couples who both work parttime. So both have a decent income and lots of spare time.

And then there is work that only can be done if you work more (for the same pay). The usual postdoc for example has to work 50h/week or more to get his stuff running (getting a fixed pay, though)...

I'm surprised nobody mentioned this:
http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html


Basically, I agree. People in North America tend to spend too much time at jobs they hate. The result is poor health.

Scaling health insurance to health condition at a given window in time, like clockwood suggests, isn't going to create a stronger country with healthier people. A person who respects their pocketbook more than their health is a bad reflection on the health of society. Its crumbling I tell ya.

What a load of shit, I haven't worked more than 20 hours or so a week for 3-4 years and I'm not hungry. Too many people live beyond their means...

I'll bet that Bill Gates doesn't have to work ANY hours a week, but that don't mean shit to the rest of us, does it? No, of course not!!

People work to earn money so they can have and do the things they want ...there are few other reason to work.

But to just say, "Let's work only 20hrs/per instead of 40" is just being an fuckin' idiot!! It's one of those things that I call pipe-dreams or flights of fantasy ....it's all good in fiction and such, but real-life always comes in a causes problems.

Baron Max

Basically, I agree. People in North America tend to spend too much time at jobs they hate. The result is poor health.

Then they should just quit, right? I mean, what else would you suggest? ...government subsidies or something like that? Please tell me!

Baron Max

Uhh..there has to be a cultural change.. its not a fast-food overnight sort of thing

Well, it's already underway then and we shouldn't even be talking about it! A hundred years ago, people worked a lot more hours than now ....not to mention that once they worked for their wages, they worked in their own gardens and farms to raise much of their own food.

So .....what the hell are we talking about this for? It's already happening and we should all be happy as little pigs in the mud on a hot Texas day, huh?

Baron Max

because sometimes it's a good idea to help direct such changes. Things like discussion, detailed planning, and more discussion are a good thing.

You think we have a national 40 hour work week because it magically appeared one day?

Hunter/Gatherer societies work an average 15-20 hours a week. The downside is that they have much more volitile food sourcees, limited division of labor (and therefor lower quality goods in many case; namely housing).
We have traded our free time for better housing, running water, and medical care.
How much are those benefits worth to you? I'd say slightly less than 10 more hours per week. Not an additional 25, though, as the average American work-week suggests.
So I put forth that we work out a 30 hour work-week plan for the US, and remember how to share in this country (instead of everyone having their own TV's, their own PS2's their own cars, etc,etc,etc,etc,etc...).

Currently, I work two jobs, and own a side buisness. I also volunteer my time weekly, and I tend to have a 60 hour work week. I do, however, have flexable work hours for my full-time position, so my schedule is maintainable (I don't have to wake up at 5AM everyday :p )

(river-wind): "Currently, I work two jobs, and own a side buisness."

Well, soon you might not be ABLE to do that. If we cut the workweek down, we'll have to limit people like you from taking all the jobs! ...and leaving all the rest of us with only What-A-Burger or Burger King jobs. And that wouldn't be very nice of you, would it?

Oh, and I work three jobs and have two businesses on the side, plus volunteer for service with the local hospitals and the VA recovery units in town, plus I give 90% of my income to the needy. Oh, almost forgot, I also adopt unwanted dogs in the area and currently have 4,326 dogs that I feed and water every day plus play with them for exercise. Neat, huh?

Baron Max

We work for 8 hours a day because that is how long an employer needs you there to effectively run his business. you also get paid more if you work longer(whether it is doctors where you can accept more calls as you work longer, or you get set hourly wages).

One doesn't have to work the 8 hours a day. If one is not satisified with an employer insisting this, they don't have to remain there. They can go to a job(usually less paying) that requires less work hours. It is your choice to work and make money or to work less and make less(unless you are in a position that your company is running itself and you can make profits:)). If you wish to work longer, you can also work longer, and be paid more. Also, the more you work, the better the chance of you moving up, and the less hours of work you will have to do(unless you are an amazing boss/whatnot that can work more hours). To pass laws making this less would devestate the average business. If the workers only work 7 hours, then the business can only be open 7 hours(whodathunkit?).

20 hours a week sounds good half the pay doesn’t
Cost of living makes half the pay in possible for we need our stuff and
Groceries health-care and all of the other stuff we consumed daily.
And over yet all the fun stuff we like doing.

But to just say, "Let's work only 20hrs/per instead of 40" is just being an fuckin' idiot!! It's one of those things that I call pipe-dreams or flights of fantasy...
And to call someone a "fukin' idiot" because their opinion differs from yours is well, being a "fukin idiot"!!! Because Baron Max sees it as a pipe dream it must be so :rolleyes:

20 hours a week sounds good half the pay doesn’t
You wouldn't be saying that if you owned the business instead of working for it.
It's all really about context.

20 hours a week sounds good half the pay doesn’t

Is it half the pay? If you get a cut of the cash that goes to unemp. benefits it might be more.

Well I only work 24-28 a week while getting paid for 32 due to busting my ass and finishing jobs sooner. I also get Wednesday off which is why it isn't 40 hours a week. I gotta say that I love it this way as that makes me only work 2 days at a time. No more do I have to work 5 days in a row and be like the average person wondering when the week will end or saying "thank god it's Friday" when it comes. Time flies and it winds up not even feeling like work since I work less hours a day and have a day off in the middle of the week.

- N

Start painting or take long walks in the country side. So where your clothes and shoes, and brandy will come from, genius? You would be consuming three times more than average person who produces the things. And then you will get into trouble, and millons will be spend to save you and heal you. You probably consume more than you produce as it is anyway.

e :D s

So where your clothes and shoes, and brandy will come from, genius?
So a reduction in general working hours means a 100% end to production now does it, genius?

So a reduction in general working hours means a 100% end to production now does it? The thing is that the consumption must be supported by the production
The working time comes in through the number and average productivity of the producers and the number and average consumption rate of the consumers.

If you were to reduce working time without raise of the productivity or of the number of producers, you would have to reduce the consumption rate. But there are limits on that - you would not want to go without food, or closing, or police protection, or housing.

So, the actual working time is defined by the balance, not by the wishful thinking that we see here.

e :) s

The thing is...
Ahh, I see, you're saying that the unemployed would stay unemployed rather than making up the shortfall in production?

Ahh, I see, you're saying that the unemployed would stay unemployed rather than making up the shortfall in production? The unemployed have a lot of time on their hands - is not that what you want?

To employ a person for real, means to make a person so productive that he/she would be able to produce more than their direct additional consumption, plus additional consumption by the employer to support their work and benefits.

If you think it is an easy proposition - well, you are wrong. Try to employ someone yourself. People do that, although!

e :D s

Try to employ someone yourself.
I've employed a few people over the last 10 years of owning\operating a retail business, I do not need to try :D

So, you know better than I, that it is not always worthwhile for employ more people, even if you cut the salaries and workhours.
From the whole society point of view it might be an investment, but the 'society' has to make sure that it is a wise investment, not just a feel good crap that shall eventually backfire.

e :) s

I'm for a 24 hour work week split in to 3 days. I'm not suggesting thats all people be allowed to work. If a 24Hr week doesn't provide enough money or satisfaction for a person they could take on another job or start their own enterprise.
It is too expensive employing multiple people but that is something that needs to be reduced regardless of how many hours per week mean full-time employment, there is too much red tape!

extrasense,

we've invented machines to do the time consuming work.

The only reason the first world works so much is because we live in a surplus society and everybody wants more of everything. This will surely change once the flow of cheap goods from the third world slows and we become less reliant on inefficient sources of energy.

I'm for a 24 hour work week split in to 3 days. . You see, your experience is from the low skills/low education business. It would be exceedingly expensive to educate more people than it is done now to the levels needed. We have an acute shortage of qualified applicants as it is now.

It is too expensive employing multiple people but that is something that needs to be reduced regardless of how many hours per week mean full-time employment, there is too much red tape! You forget that even without red tape the salary would be cut in half. And, the "red tape" mostly is related to taxes and mandated benefits, so you apparently would have to suggest to cut those.

Admit, that the whole utopia you are talking about has really no sense at all

e :cool: s

The only reason the first world works so much is because we live in a surplus society and everybody wants more of everything. You do not understand. It appears to you that machines could go faster - but to keep them going, they require high maintenance work force, services, which is expensive. You need a lot of research, development and engineering, a lot of people behind the curtain to keep those machines moving, with just few operators. This will surely change once the flow of cheap goods from the third world slows and we become less reliant on inefficient sources of energy.
So we will have to work even harder to make those goods ourself. As to energy, the sources of energy are becoming more hard to find and less efficient, as the old ones dry out.

e :) s

we've invented machines to do the time consuming work.

The only reason the first world works so much is because we live in a surplus society and everybody wants more of everything. This will surely change once the flow of cheap goods from the third world slows and we become less reliant on inefficient sources of energy.
That is a good point. We're also a disposable society, most of our manufactured goods are designed not to last. So of course we keep consuming at predictable rates.
We have an acute shortage of qualified applicants as it is now.
Do you believe everything politicians tell you? You could argue that one till you're blue-in-the-face but I wont believe it. There is always a skills shortage according to the powers that be.
You forget that even without red tape the salary would be cut in half.
I've said work 3 days instead of 5, so 3 is half of 5 now...
Admit, that the whole utopia you are talking about has really no sense at all
I never claimed it would be utopia.

There is always a skills shortage according to the powers that be. Do you believe everything politicians tell you? You could argue that one till you're blue-in-the-face but I wont believe it.
The skilled people shortage is a fact, for example your thinking skills are are not adequate, considering the task you take on here. You simply were fooled by the commie propaganda.

e :) s

The skilled people shortage is a fact, for example your thinking skills are are not adequate, considering the task you take on here. You simply were fooled by the commie propaganda.
Au contraire lesser mortal you've proven your lack of cognitive ability by resorting to a personal attack, you lose :p

you've proven your lack of cognitive ability by resorting to a personal attack, you lose
The thing is, that crooked commies use a rule they like instead of sticking to the reality. The idea of arbitrary changing work hours is a lie or/and stupidity - this is a fact and I have proven it. Marx was a crooked idiot and a liar, learn to live with it.

e :cool: s

People would avoid mandatory exercises.. It would probably INCREASE absenteeism. And on top of that.. there are other issues to consider. For example, I have Spina Bifida, are you going to expect me to jump out of my chair and jazzersize? or wave my arms around when my back is in excruciating pain?

I am all for the 20 hour work week. This represents a problem though.. I know I spend a lot more money on my days off than I do working, sure I would manage it if I had more days off, but not everyone has money managing skills... Think about it, I doubt this is just me, but you do more things on your days off, and those things cost money...

Also, what about 24/7 operations? Doctors, Kwik-e-Marts, etc.. If you have a 20 hour work week, you have to hire twice as many people to cover all the hours. Are you going to cut wages in half?

Sure it works in an office setting, where you have specific tasks that need to be completed, but how do you man a desk that always has to have someone behind it?

because we dont live in switzerland

I've had that idea before, after taking a macroeconomy course. I'm still working on it, but it is not as simple as this. It is not simple to implement and it is not viable if many things are taking into consideration.

Why work at all?

The concept that, somewhat, labour is dignified or even noble is one of those things that is used to corral the wild mind.
It’s equal to the sesne of shamefulness associated with going bankrupt, a fast and easy way of wiping away debt and screwing the system in the process, if not for this moral, illusionary stigma.
Not surprising then that Bush rushed to pass that anti-bankruptcy law, while his indifferent, distracted people still wondered about Iraq and its oil and if it is still worth dying for.

You want to see what modern slavery looks like?
Watch an overextended moron, who has lived beyond his means under the influence of cultural normality, the promise of consumerism and peer pressure, scramble to find a way out of the hole he’s dug for himself, only to find that it will only become deeper and deeper until his very life will be owed to the company that seduced him with his own stupidity.

That's canibalism.... I mean... "capitalism".... :rolleyes:

Satyr:

You want to see what modern slavery looks like?
Watch an overextended moron, who has lived beyond his means under the influence of cultural normality, the promise of consumerism and peer pressure, scramble to find a way out of the hole he’s dug for himself, only to find that it will only become deeper and deeper until his very life will be owed to the company that seduced him with his own stupidity.

Absofuckinloutely right. Working for someone else is stupid.

And yet, who here doesn't? :rolleyes:

interesting to me that most of the arguements here seem to ring similar to ones I heard about in history class, when people in this country were fighting for the 40 hour work week.

How forcing a minimum wage and shortening the amount of hours worked and increasing the safety requirements on the job would all cost so much that all companies would go out of business, and the USA would collapse.

So what was done back then that allowed the world to keep spinning? Why can't that be done again? At what point do we hit a level of diminishing returns, where making the work week shorter results in a true destablization of the economy?
I have a feeling that if we as a nation agreed to certain rules, such as a different overtime pay structure, a higher minimum wage, etc, we would be able to see not only a lower average work week, but a rise in the number of people able to survive on a 40-hour minimum wage week - something which is depressingly impossible now.

Then again, manditory health care coverage combined with the state of health care might make hiring more people to cover the hours impossible. We may find out that shifting to a shorter work week is possible, but either insurance needs to be fixed, or we would need to give up certain health care benefits - something which we may decide is not worth the extra time off.

Baron: I work as much as I do because I want to pay off my debt quickly, and begin working 20-hr weeks ASAP. That requires that I
1)work extra time to pay off debt I accrued in college
2)prepare such 20-hr/week jobs now, so that they are in place once my debt is paid off.
So, I'm more than willing to take a pay cut and a hour cut - esp if there wasn't a top limit on how much one could work. As long as a living wage was possible based on an agreed minimum wage * hourly work week, then people can always work more to get more.

the problem now is that the bottom end of US employment is often not able to live on a minimum wage, 40 hour work week. Many are not able to afford helath care, food, or rent, even whilie employed in a tax-paying position.
Something needs to be done. Why we can't restructure towards a 32 hour work week while we figure out how to fix the problems of survivng on minimum wage in this country doesn't seem to be an intractiable problem to me. Again, we've already done this once, when moving to a 40-hour work week.

interesting to me that most of the arguements here seem to ring similar to ones I heard about in history class, when people in this country were fighting for the 40 hour work week.

How forcing a minimum wage and shortening the amount of hours worked and increasing the safety requirements on the job would all cost so much that all companies would go out of business, and the USA would collapse.

So what was done back then that allowed the world to keep spinning? Why can't that be done again? At what point do we hit a level of diminishing returns, where making the work week shorter results in a true destablization of the economy?
I have a feeling that if we as a nation agreed to certain rules, such as a different overtime pay structure, a higher minimum wage, etc, we would be able to see not only a lower average work week, but a rise in the number of people able to survive on a 40-hour minimum wage week - something which is depressingly impossible now.
Unfortunately, minimum wages don't work- they cause inflation. I've been studying this idea for a long time (not really, I don't think about it everyday) and I have found that this is by far the greatest obstacle to minimizing the number of hours of work.

Obviously, if you decrease working hours, you can increase the number of jobs and decrease unemployment, but if the wage is constant, than the corporations would be paying a whole lot more and that is not necessarily safe, as you said.

Then again, manditory health care coverage combined with the state of health care might make hiring more people to cover the hours impossible. We may find out that shifting to a shorter work week is possible, but either insurance needs to be fixed, or we would need to give up certain health care benefits - something which we may decide is not worth the extra time off.
Yes

the problem now is that the bottom end of US employment is often not able to live on a minimum wage, 40 hour work week. Many are not able to afford helath care, food, or rent, even whilie employed in a tax-paying position.
That is because costs of living are too high. If you compare living standards to cost of living, you will find out that the cost of living in north america is always increasing tremendously. The cost of living is always increasing faster then standards of living. Therefore, it becomes harder to pay for basic things that we need. In order to do that, you must decrease or even hault capitalist expansion- a concept that is frowned upon those days.

If nothing is done on that matter, north america will probably go through a major recession...

Something needs to be done. Why we can't restructure towards a 32 hour work week while we figure out how to fix the problems of survivng on minimum wage in this country doesn't seem to be an intractiable problem to me. Again, we've already done this once, when moving to a 40-hour work week.
Cut production. Excessive rpoduction is the main problem in world economy right now.

1)if you decrease working hours, and increase the number of jobs to compensate, then why do corperations have to pay more? They are still paying the same/hour - the only difference I see is in the overhead for having an employee at all - health care, unemployment insurance, etc.

2)As for minimum wage being a major cause of inflation - I can't argue, though I've leaned towards the general habit of people to demand annual cost of living raises across the board (not just in minimum wage areas) being the culprit. by providing everyone with the means to pay more for goods, you allow the market to raise prices, which in turn provides more money to be paid in increased wages, etc, etc. (a simplistic description of a part of the entire process, for sure)

3)why are costs of living too high? how can they be reduced? why would stopping capitalist expansion stop inflation?

4)I agree w/ cutting production. In the long, long, long run, the ever-growing population combined with an ever-growing need to produce "something real" creates a pointless cycle of creation and consumption of unneeded crap, and only serves to keep us busy and wasting natural resources.

1)if you decrease working hours, and increase the number of jobs to compensate, then why do corperations have to pay more? They are still paying the same/hour - the only difference I see is in the overhead for having an employee at all - health care, unemployment insurance, etc.
How would people survive with less work hours and the same amount of money per hour? I thought it was already hard to pay the bills.

2)As for minimum wage being a major cause of inflation - I can't argue, though I've leaned towards the general habit of people to demand annual cost of living raises across the board (not just in minimum wage areas) being the culprit. by providing everyone with the means to pay more for goods, you allow the market to raise prices, which in turn provides more money to be paid in increased wages, etc, etc. (a simplistic description of a part of the entire process, for sure)
The problem is that the costs increase faster then the wages and the avaiability of jobs. That's why people is struggling to survive. The same here in Canada- specially young people.

3)why are costs of living too high?
Because people wrongfully believe that the costs of living need to increase in order for the economy to grow.

how can they be reduced?
I suppose that's the big question. I'm sure it has a fairly complex answer. Better technolgies is certainly part of the solution.

why would stopping capitalist expansion stop inflation?
You only have inflation if the economy is growing too fast. If the economy is not growing at all, how can you have inflation? In the other hand, if you stop expansion, the economy still grows because- guess what- we can increase efficiency. Once we maximize efficiency, we will be able to minimize inflation without the need of expansion.

Remember the law of diminishing returns... ;)

4)I agree w/ cutting production. In the long, long, long run, the ever-growing population combined with an ever-growing need to produce "something real" creates a pointless cycle of creation and consumption of unneeded crap, and only serves to keep us busy and wasting natural resources.
Indeed.... :p

Here are some related statistics to this topic (for selected countries). This site has a lot of intriguing information.

From:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lab_wor_tim_mor_tha_40_hou

Percent of people in jobs working greater than 40/week:

1. Japan 75.9%
2. United States 67.6%
3. Switzerland 66.9%
4. New Zealand 65.4%
5. Italy 63.8%
6. Sweden 61.5%
7. Austria 57.6%
8. Canada 54.7%
9. United Kingdom 49.8%
10. Australia 48.6%
11. Germany 43.7%
12. Ireland 38.4%
13. Netherlands 36.9%
14. Belgium 28.7%
15. Denmark 22.1%
16. France 21.4%
17. Finland 16.0%
18. Norway 15.8%
Weighted Average 58.07 %

From:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lab_hou_wor

Number of hours worked in 2003:

1. Australia 1814 hours
2. Japan 1801 hours
3. United States 1792 hours
4. Canada 1718 hours
5. United Kingdom 1673 hours
6. Italy 1591 hours
7. Sweden 1564 hours
8. France 1453 hours
9. Norway 1337 hours
Weighted Average 1,725.59 hours

France is the fourth biggest economy in the world, yet they wake up late, go to a cafe, drink coffee and smoke, then head to work at 10 am. And 8 weeks of vacation.

But they still have a gigantic economy, and are smaller than Texas. Reduction of the work week would not be catastrophic.

No it isn't. it's 7th http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29

Europe's economy is largely overglorified. Their economy isn't growing fast, they have high unemployment, homogenous culture, socialist governments, negative population growths, negative economic growth relative to how fast the rest of the world is growing.

People should work as long as they want to work. Free choice is the best economic policy.

Must there be a set number of hours for everyone?

What's so wrong with working as much/little as you/your employer want?

If you can live the way you want on 1 hour a week, what's wrong with that? If you prefer to work 100 hours a week to live the way you want, what's wrong with that?

Economic problems

people should work more. lazy humans.


/agree

Im only 23 and when I am at work, I cant stand it when there is something I could be doing but I cant find it. I do tons of counselling, and tons of communications with future employers. At times I am a instructor when we have a full class, but generally Im the bright smile PR person.

Its very nice when I have a heavy day, when there is nothing to do but something on the agenda. My boss always asks me to slow down and have a seat, but honestly, I would work my buns off just to have a productive day.

I work 10 hours but its at night and 39-48 hours/week.

Get bored and lazy if you do not work.
Sometimes i go to work as overtime because i'm bored sitting at home, othertimes i fucking hate it, especially when you havn't slept in the day properly and you got to work from 9:30PM - 7:30 AM.

As for legal stuff it is all bullshit, when i applied for my job i signed something which basically meant that i have agreed to work 10 hours even thought the EU LAW says 8 maximum for nights.
I cant debate it,i stick it out or get another job.

So i think they can get you to do anything if you signed for it on your contract.

Workaholics! :D

Just teasing ya guys.... ;)

Yaba Daba! :m: