35 hr work week to reduce unemployment (Congress, politicians, rating, party)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ahhh theres some studies about productivity and work that show that over 40 has a negative result in the amount of work done. IE the productivity in software engineering drops after 40 hrs. Its why 50 hr work weeks dont generally occur in competent software shops. Some old school managers have made 50 hr work weeks in their shops, and it fails to be worth it.
Im not sure what the optimum number is off the top of my head.
You have to read the studies in detail to understand them. Productivity does not diminish for all jobs over extended periods of time. A software engineer is an intelligence-based job and our productivity will diminish in these kinds of jobs over extended periods of time. However, with muscle memory-based jobs such as factory work, police work and bartending, productivity is less likely to diminish as long as you are physically able. We're talking about 12-14 hour shifts. We're not talking about the extremes (48 hours shifts).
You have to read the studies in detail to understand them. Productivity does not diminish for all jobs over extended periods of time. A software engineer is an intelligence-based job and our productivity will diminish in these kinds of jobs over extended periods of time. However, with muscle memory-based jobs such as factory work, police work and bartending, productivity is less likely to diminish as long as you are physically able. We're talking about 12-14 hour shifts. We're not talking about the extremes (48 hours shifts).
So What if we said we should have a 32 hr work week? Would it reduce unemployment?
So FDR had a large unemployment problem, and part of the 40 hr work week it appears was designed to resolve that issue.
France went from a 39 to a 35 hr work week to help with unemployment.
Looking at the numbers-it worked for us when we went to 40, but I am not seeing good evidence for it working for France when they went from 39 to 35.
However Germany has a 35 hr work week and its worked out pretty well for them.
Thoughts? Whats good for Germany is good for us? If so-why? If not-why not?
Punishing those who have jobs to compensate for incompetent voters putting an incompetent President in office eh? Nice moonbat thinking there.. There are a lot of people who depend on those 5-8 hours you want to cut because your Dear Leader is to busy killing people with drones, passing Healthcare laws that tear at the fabric of our economy and destroying our foreign policy.
Punishing those who have jobs to compensate for incompetent voters putting an incompetent President in office eh? Nice moonbat thinking there.. There are a lot of people who depend on those 5-8 hours you want to cut because your Dear Leader is to busy killing people with drones, passing Healthcare laws that tear at the fabric of our economy and destroying our foreign policy.
I'm looking forward to November.. I really am.
Can there be one thread where you liberals don't bring up Bush?
So What if we said we should have a 32 hr work week? Would it reduce unemployment?
So FDR had a large unemployment problem, and part of the 40 hr work week it appears was designed to resolve that issue.
France went from a 39 to a 35 hr work week to help with unemployment.
Looking at the numbers-it worked for us when we went to 40, but I am not seeing good evidence for it working for France when they went from 39 to 35.
However Germany has a 35 hr work week and its worked out pretty well for them.
Thoughts? Whats good for Germany is good for us? If so-why? If not-why not?
Ridiculous! So, this is the Leftist solution to a government created problem? More government?
Dividing the available work up amongst those able and willing to work does not solve the problem, which is lack of job creation and economic growth due to poor government economic policies.
Making everyone equally poor ("income equality") does nothing but make everyone share equally in hardship and misery, which is what socialism does. Ask anyone who has lived under socialism.
The Obama administration has done everything wrong, which has prolonged the 2008 recession for now going on six long years. And his so-called "signature achievement," if you can call it an "achievement," Obamacare, is the primary culprit in the job loss department.
Because of Obamacare, businesses have reduced the numbers of people they employ (where possible) to below 50, and others have reduced the hours of employees to under 30 hours to avoid the Obamacare mandate, which is very costly to businesses, as well as to individuals.
Therefore, it isn't even practical (even if your idea wasn't so ridiculous on its face) to even think about more than a 30 hour week. It isn't going to happen. Period.
Now wait.. Let's not discount this idea entirely.. As a 35 hour a week employee, could you survive on 1/8 less income, given the increasing costs of food and utilities? Could the average burger flipper? If you pay them the same, someone has to pay for the increase in cost for the burger place. That would be you. Could you retire when your 401k is reduced due to the lower income?
You are forgetting the huge increases in health insurance that each family and individual face due to Obamacare, which further stretches the budget of every man woman and child.
Working hours for most people have already been reduced to under 30, because of Obamacare.
Dividing the available work up among the available work force makes everyone equally miserable, and equally poor. That is the very definition of "income equality."
We already know they can't afford their increased 0bamacare rates, so they certainly can't survive on less income with jacked up insurance costs.
Oh, poor them! Too bad they're taking conservatives/working people down with them.
This is the very definition of "income equality." If everyone can't be rich, than we need to make the rich poorer. This makes everyone happy ... right?
This kind of thinking used to only find a home in socialist countries, where the central planners ensured equal distribution of misery among the masses, while they (the elite) lacked for nothing.
Obama and Michelle, and all their minions, live in luxury, go golfing, take lavish vacations, etc., while average Americans worry about how to make ends meet working fewer hours and facing ever increasing grocery prices (compare the price of beef to only a few years ago) and other cost increases, such as gasoline, heating oil, gas, electric rates, almost anything you can name (as well as property taxes, for many people).
We already know they can't afford their increased 0bamacare rates, so they certainly can't survive on less income with jacked up insurance costs.
Subsidies for everyone.
Quote:
Oh, poor them! Too bad they're taking conservatives/working people down with them.
Fairness as seen by the elite ruling class of Democrats. Of course their limousine lifestyle will not take a hit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Spreading the work around isn't the answer.
