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.
This potentially would be done by government subsidy to employers.
Let's take this number 3 days specifically out of it
According to your numbers there are 3.45 million too few jobs
Now using that figure the goal is to reduce it to zero
A minimum livable wage is determined and we are dealing with 40 hours.
So now the 40 hours are reduced, arbitrarily let's say rather than a 3 day (24 hr) work week
it is a 35 hour work week, or whatever figure is going to take the 3.45 to a zero target.
So for anybody who works 35 and had been working 40 and this causes them to go under
that minimum livable wage they still get paid for 40 and that amount is compensated
by the government to the employer.
I know you will talk about imperfections here but it has to be compared to what we have now.
Could some kind of calculation similar to this keep more people working and less people on welfare
and have less crime, less homeless ?
Who do you think this magical "government" is who will compensate employers for the shortfall? The federal government doesn't have any money of its own. It can only get it one of two ways: by increasing our taxes or by printing it out of thin air. Either option is going to wipe out any benefit you seek to create, making everything more expensive for everyone, even the lowest paid people out there. It's a vicious cycle that can't be solved in the way you're suggesting.
Last edited by Flyers Girl; 03-16-2021 at 11:37 AM..
So what is your proposal to match the right people to the right job?
Every child in America gets 12 years of free education to prepare them for a good job. If they apply themselves during those 12 years, they can have 4 more years of free education. If they apply themselves again, they can have another 2-4-6 years of free education to prepare them for a good job.
But you know, I am sure , about horses and water. if people don't want to learn and improve themselves, they can't be forced.
I think forcing a 3-day work week would be harder on older workers and employers may realize that and hire accordingly.
I realize that if one can't do a job, then it is not really age discrimination, but I think it would make it harder for older workers to get hired.
I am not saying an older worker can't work long shifts (many do), but it is easier if you are younger.
Physically I know many people in their 40's and 50's who would not want to work 13-14 hour days. Even at an office job where you sit in a chair at a desk all day. Your brain needs a break. It's not healthy to sit for 13-14 hours a day either. If one is working 14 hours a day and sleeping 8 hours a night, then there's 2 hours left to the day. When you exercise, relax, eat, use the restroom, bath, etc?
I really can't think of anyone who would be on board with this. I have several family members and friends who are nurses and doctors. Most of them do not work in a hospital because of the hours. Those who do are physically exhausted at the end of their shifts. Some have gotten into accidents on their way home. They also don't get 4 days in a row off.
I also have friends who are police officers and fire fighters. They work long shifts especially the fire fighters, but they sleep at the station. Their days off aren't relaxing. They sleep most of it. It takes a physical toll on their bodies as well.
The grass is always greener on the other side.......until you get over there then you discover it's dead brown from a decade long drought.
I think forcing a 3-day work week would be harder on older workers and employers may realize that and hire accordingly.
I realize that if one can't do a job, then it is not really age discrimination, but I think it would make it harder for older workers to get hired.
I am not saying an older worker can't work long shifts (many do), but it is easier if you are younger.
Nobody is talking about 13 hour days
It's 4 day work week, total 32
or a 3 day work week total, 24
each day 8 hours or short days spread over 5 days same total hours, 32 or 24
the government pays the employer so the employer can pay the employee the same amount and benefits as
if they worked 40 hours
that costs the tax payer money
but it's balanced out because there are less unemployment benefits and welfare to pay because these companies can instead hire them as workers
And we all know what a powerhouse economy Spain has...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbenson
The plan would be you get the same pay and benefits for 40 as you did for 35 and the government subsidizes this deficit payment to the employer. That costs the taxpayer money but is offset by new people being hired who would otherwise not be working because they were unemployed and getting unemployment checks or welfare.
But this could be a 4 day week at 32 hours. You could have the option of working four 8 hour days or 6.4 hours a day.
I'm not confident this is a good idea, just thinking about it for the future if automation takes away more jobs
So companies would have dead wood within their workforce and become less efficient in the effort to have low unemployment numbers. Great idea...
As I recall, the last major nation that did something like this was Soviet Russia. Look where it got them.
If you want to find out what happens when you go to a 32 hour workweek, go to the internet and look up "Goodyear Amiens factory". As Goodyear how that worked out...dealing with lazy French employees.
Under normal circumstances, you can only collect unemployment benefits for six months. TANF already has work requirements for adults (with some exceptions) and a lifetime limit as to how long you can collect benefits. The days when you could collect more money for having more babies, and be on the dole from cradle to grave, are long gone.
Be that as it may, where would the money come from to pay for extra employees? These jobs would pay more than unemployment or welfare, wouldn't they? You'd have to raise taxes or cut spending somewhere else.
During the Great Depression, the WPA hired people for public works projects, and today, the City of Indianapolis pays homeless people $10 per hour to pick up trash. Programs like these would be a simpler way of putting people to work.
The real question is, how much labor do we need to produce our goods? The answer is, most of the labor is already produced by China. I doubt we even need 3 days a week for actual necessary work. Half our economy is already busywork. Look at the entire managerial class currently freaking out about WFH because it's suddenly obvious they don't actually contribute anything. Look at how freaked out the ownership class got about designating Essential Workers last year because people started asking uncomfortable questions, like if most people aren't essential then why do we all have to work so much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJ99
We were promised a much shorter work week back in the 1950s. Technological progress supposed to allow everybody leisure time to pursue hobbies and personal interests.
We got all of that, it just all went to the 0.1% of the population that owns the robots instead of to workers.
Edit: literally, since 1979 productivity went up 69.9% and pay went up 11.6%. 111.6/169.9 = 65.8%, or in other words, we could work 66% as much (26hrs a week) for the same pay if workers received the benefits of productivity.
Last edited by FrankMiller; 03-16-2021 at 01:57 PM..
It's 4 day work week, total 32
or a 3 day work week total, 24
each day 8 hours or short days spread over 5 days same total hours, 32 or 24
the government pays the employer so the employer can pay the employee the same amount and benefits as
if they worked 40 hours
that costs the tax payer money
but it's balanced out because there are less unemployment benefits and welfare to pay because these companies can instead hire them as workers
That's called a part time job! Zero benefits. Lower pay. No thanks.
There is no way this balances out so there are less unemployment benefits. Do you know how unemployment is paid? Every employer in the state pays unemployment insurance. It's NOT cheap. They pay a fee for every single employee every quarter. That insurance funds the state's unemployment benefits. Do you know how much you can collect on unemployment? It's nowhere near your salary.
How do you figure there will be less on welfare? Have you actually looked to see the people on welfare? Most are elderly or disabled. Seriously go look at the statistics from the government. You cannot live on welfare your whole life unless you're disabled. And they're not making millions on welfare.
I work a three day, 35 hour work week and am considered full time.
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.
