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.
Why would the rent drop? It wouldn't. Just because you have 5 hours less to work doesn't mean the bank is going to tell the landlord that their mortgage is $100 less, and pass that savings on to you. That's not how it works.
Supply and demand. If everyone suddenly had less disposable income, vendors and landlords would HAVE to lower their prices in order to get a buyer. They would no longer be able to easily find people willing and able to pay existing rent prices.
It's not about being lazy. It's about health and well being. I'm sorry, but all these people in here saying that they are fine with working 60+ hours a week.....I have some questions for you...
So is your question one of practicality and realism or philosophy and idealism? I agree with you that the point of living is not working but... living. This question comes down to whether you look at it purely from the pure economics or the personal happiness quotient.
Ideally, we could have a society where we work 35 hrs per week - or even 20 - and live comfortably and prosperously. Realistically, it isn't going to happen, at least not in the next several generations. It would require a societal shift in values. That shift may well come as it has in Europe. People have noted that Europeans work less but have less and pay higher taxes and consumer prices. However, many studies have indicated they are more content and live longer. Who's winning?
The problem is that gains in productivity have not benefited the common worker but have been reaped by the upper echelon. The typical worker today is far more productive than he was 20 years ago in just about any field, but doesn't make more money relatively and doesn't work less. Someone mentioned an example of needing 24 workers at 35 hrs to do what 21 workers at 40 hrs get done. But... increases in efficiency due to technology will probably soon allow those 21 to get to get the same amount of work in 35 hours, but that isn't what will likely happen. Either 3 of those 21 will get fired and the remaining 18 will get the same work done, or those 21 will get more work done as the company grows.
Supply and demand. If everyone suddenly had less disposable income, vendors and landlords would HAVE to lower their prices in order to get a buyer. They would no longer be able to easily find people willing and able to pay existing rent prices.
Not really. Look at NYC. High rents and many poor people who struggle to pay the rent.
I'm 29 years old and have been in the full time career workforce for 7 years now. As of now, the standard work week is 40 hours (or more) depending on your position, company, industry and profession. But I gotta be honest here. I think even 40 hours a week is slightly pushing it. I think a 35 hour work week would be perfect, and with at least 4 weeks of vacation per year. So, you come into work at 9 AM and have a 1-hour lunch and leave at 5 PM. What's so bad about that? And you get 4 weeks of vacation per year, so that's one week per quarter.
It's very common in Europe, but over here in America you sound like a lazy slacker if you advocate such things. I don't know...but 8 hours of work per day is when it becomes tiring and unhealthy.
For me, I personally only work at companies that value work life balance and vacation time. Fortunately, my work week is 40 hours and I get 23 PTO days per year, so I don't really complain. But I think 35 hour weeks would be ideal, with a 1 hour lunch break or combination of breaks.
I'm a corporate tax accountant.
Thoughts?
The difference between the standard of living in the US, as opposed to Europe (including but not limited to) the ability to accumulate "wealth" and a very important thing - upward mobility is largely based on the American concept of the more hours and effort and sweat you put in, the better off you are.
I know people who are now, only by necessity, working two and three jobs just to accumulate money. Some of these poor souls are arthritic tired and in their 60's. How depressing!
Cocooning is something you do when you got your coin and are just about ready to retire. At your age, babe, you should be thinking of 60 hour weeks, not 35 hour weeks, lest you could wind up scrabbling for even a pack of chicken legs that you can afford.
This is not (at least not now, and not guaranteed to become) France. It will take many years to see if it does. In any event, at your age....60 hours minimum. Two jobs, three, if necessary. You will need at least 2.5 million accumulated before you retire - and that's for trailerpark living. Do the math.
The last thing someone your age should be thinking about is reduced hours of work. As Dorothy Parker said, and relevant still to this age is "It's the Standard of Living." Your're way to young to even begin to establish what that means to you - so, you gotta be prepared.
Last edited by StuffedCabbage; 11-11-2013 at 08:48 AM..
Supply and demand. If everyone suddenly had less disposable income, vendors and landlords would HAVE to lower their prices in order to get a buyer. They would no longer be able to easily find people willing and able to pay existing rent prices.
In Colorado the wage has decreased in many areas and remained stagnant in other areas, as has the median household wages, yet there are articles every couple of months about record new prices for rent throughout much of the state, whether everybody works 35 hours or 70 hours, there will still be people out there willing to pay every penny they have for a decent place to live.
The difference between the standard of living in the US, as opposed to Europe (including but not limited to) the ability to accumulate "wealth" and a very important thing - upward mobility is largely based on the American concept of the more hours and effort and sweat you put in, the better off you are.
I know people who are now, only by necessity, working two and three jobs just to accumulate money. Some of these poor souls are arthritic tired and in their 60's. How depressing!
Cocooning is something you do when you got your coin and are just about ready to retire. At your age, babe, you should be thinking of 60 hour weeks, not 35 hour weeks, lest you could wind up scrabbling for even a pack of chicken legs that you can afford.
This is not (at least not now, and not guaranteed to become) France. It will take many years to see if it does. In any event, at your age....60 hours minimum. Two jobs, three, if necessary. You will need at least 2.5 million accumulated before you retire - and that's for trailerpark living. Do the math.
The last thing someone your age should be thinking about is reduced hours of work. As Dorothy Parker said, and relevant still to this age is "It's the Standard of Living." Your're way to young to even begin to establish what that means to you - so, you gotta be prepared.
That's the worst nonsense I have ever heard. 60 hour work weeks? No one in my company even works 50 hours a week. Not even upper management. No one. That means working 12 hour days and not getting home until 10:00 PM and basically have to go to bed an hour later. Ridiculous.
Sorry, but I have a life to live. There is absolutely no point in working 60 hours a week, or even 50, IMO. More money and promotions are not going to entice me either. I care more about being able to go to the gym, relaxing at home, reading a book, going on dates, etc. And I'm still earning $75K and working 40 hours per week, which is plenty comfortable for me. I am living proof that it's possible to make good money and work 40 hours per week and have 5 weeks of vacation in America. That's how my company is and I love it.
60 hours a week? Been there, done that, and it was crushing my health. NEVER AGAIN.
Supply and demand. If everyone suddenly had less disposable income, vendors and landlords would HAVE to lower their prices in order to get a buyer. They would no longer be able to easily find people willing and able to pay existing rent prices.
You would think that should be the case but it wont. People aren't as altruistic as you would think. Even though wages and salaries are stagnant if not decreasing. Guess what, prices haven't dropped because of that. In fact many have risen since then.
Supply and demand. If everyone suddenly had less disposable income, vendors and landlords would HAVE to lower their prices in order to get a buyer. They would no longer be able to easily find people willing and able to pay existing rent prices.
Okay so how is someone going to be able to charge someone the same price for something if everyone is suddenly making 12.5% less money? Doesn't make sense.
Okay so how is someone going to be able to charge someone the same price for something if everyone is suddenly making 12.5% less money? Doesn't make sense.
Because companies don't care how much you make, they just want you to buy buy buy. It might extend lease agreements but that's about it...
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.
