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.
So, should America reduce by 1 hour per year each year for the next decade the 40 hour work, in order to reduce the work week to 30 hours, but companies would need to increase pay proportionally to maintain the standard of living in the country?
Thoughts?
You clearly have a different work experience from many.
Did you mean reduce the work week from 60 hours to 50 hours? That is more in line with the typical expectation these days for salaried professionals. Engineers routinely put in 50 - 70 hours per week; the good old days of a 40 hour work-week, guaranteed vacation and affordable health insurance is a dim and distant memory of the graybeards. A 40 hour week is a completely foreign concept to Millennials for the most part.
Corporations at this point are in total control, as we have effectively abolished the power of workers to organize to protect their rights. So I don't think what you are proposing will happen anytime in the near future - in fact, it will go the opposite direction.
Automation simply means that companies will be able to do business without the need to hire human beings -and they can simultaneously squeeze the remaining workers harder and harder, as the job market becomes flooded with workers. In a society that has decided it does not need curbs or regulation of corporate excess, the ultimate dream is for a corporation to have NO workers, blue or white collar - other than the owners and executive officers.
Now you might ask how corporations will make money since there are no workers receiving paychecks; but what people don't understand is that once the fleecing has been completed, and most of the wealth focused into the 1%, we will be part of a permanent underclass. The interesting thing is that many Americans are like lambs to the slaughter; innocently and naively believing that the "free market" will grace them in the end.
You clearly have a different work experience from many.
Did you mean reduce the work week from 60 hours to 50 hours? That is more in line with the typical expectation these days for salaried professionals. Engineers routinely put in 50 - 70 hours per week; the good old days of a 40 hour work-week, guaranteed vacation and affordable health insurance is a dim and distant memory of the graybeards. A 40 hour week is a completely foreign concept to Millennials for the most part.
Corporations at this point are in total control, as we have effectively abolished the power of workers to organize to protect their rights. So I don't think what you are proposing will happen anytime in the near future - in fact, it will go the opposite direction.
Automation simply means that companies will be able to do business without the need to hire human beings -and they can simultaneously squeeze the remaining workers harder and harder, as the job market becomes flooded with workers. In a society that has decided it does not need curbs or regulation of corporate excess, the ultimate dream is for a corporation to have NO workers, blue or white collar - other than the owners and executive officers.
Now you might ask how corporations will make money since there are no workers receiving paychecks; but what people don't understand is that once the fleecing has been completed, and most of the wealth focused into the 1%, we will be part of a permanent underclass. The interesting thing is that many Americans are like lambs to the slaughter; innocently and naively believing that the "free market" will grace them in the end.
Actually no. My typical work week was about 53 hours. But I'm simply discussing this from the standard 40 hour week basis.
Most of the posters in this thread have ignored what the OP was and are totally missing the point. You seem to get it.
You clearly have a different work experience from many.
Did you mean reduce the work week from 60 hours to 50 hours? That is more in line with the typical expectation these days for salaried professionals. Engineers routinely put in 50 - 70 hours per week; the good old days of a 40 hour work-week, guaranteed vacation and affordable health insurance is a dim and distant memory of the graybeards. A 40 hour week is a completely foreign concept to Millennials for the most part.
Corporations at this point are in total control, as we have effectively abolished the power of workers to organize to protect their rights. So I don't think what you are proposing will happen anytime in the near future - in fact, it will go the opposite direction.
Automation simply means that companies will be able to do business without the need to hire human beings -and they can simultaneously squeeze the remaining workers harder and harder, as the job market becomes flooded with workers. In a society that has decided it does not need curbs or regulation of corporate excess, the ultimate dream is for a corporation to have NO workers, blue or white collar - other than the owners and executive officers.
Now you might ask how corporations will make money since there are no workers receiving paychecks; but what people don't understand is that once the fleecing has been completed, and most of the wealth focused into the 1%, we will be part of a permanent underclass. The interesting thing is that many Americans are like lambs to the slaughter; innocently and naively believing that the "free market" will grace them in the end.
Complete defeatest nonsense. No, automation will not replace paychecks. Businesses have to have customers. They aren’t idiots. And, you can thank government for the vast majority of wealth disparity, not corporate boogeymen. There is an idiot on every corner that believes that the 1% have all the wealth, which is nothing more than ownership in the assets of production. Of which, most Americans are discouraged from owning and instead own worthless SS iou’s.
So, should America reduce by 1 hour per year each year for the next decade the 40 hour work, in order to reduce the work week to 30 hours, but companies would need to increase pay proportionally to maintain the standard of living in the country?
Thoughts?
... So "we" (whomever that is?) should gradually reduce everyone's workweek from 40 to 30-hours ... and employers should be made to pay 'workers' for NOT working -- to ensure no one's standard of living changes? The presumption seems to be that employers could easily do more with less, in order to provide for workers who do less - for more.
What about those who choose to work longer hours in order to accomplish more than others and get ahead? -- What about employers who invariably work longer hours than employees? -- and What if "We" (like "they") is only a meaningless euphemism for "everyone else" ... who really doesn't exist as a collective, single-minded body?
This general proposition reminds me of the story of the man who attempted to gradually get a horse to eat sawdust, rather than expensive oats (by gradually increasing the sawdust and decreasing the oats). Every time he just about got a horse to totally switch over to sawdust, the horse would die ... and the man would have to start over.
The fundamental problem with socialism, communism and similar 'group schemes' is that they quickly run out of 'other people's money' -- And those who might otherwise be able to provide more for others (but, not themselves) quickly lose their motivation.
Corporations at this point are in total control, as we have effectively abolished the power of workers to organize to protect their rights.
Exaggerate much?
Corporations are a tiny 3% of US businesses. 97% of US businesses are general, limited or limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies or S-Corps (which are banned from selling stocks).
That tiny 3% of employs only 5.8% of the work-force, a little less than 9 Million of the 157 Million workers.
This can only happen if we massively strengthen the labor union movement, sadly. We are eons behind the rest of the developed world when it comes to labor rights. We dont even require employers to provide paid vacation and paid overtime for all their employees. Thats a result of destroyed labor unions. Rebuild the unions and workers will not get so easily riled up and vote for crazy people for Congress. Unions have a civilizing effect on society like nothing else has.
Overall, I agree with this. Unions are able to negotiate better working conditions and better wages for classes of workers. The severe weakening of the unions in the last few decades correlates strongly to the loss of upward mobility from working class to middle class. In its most severe form, it is epetomized by the so calked gig economy.
I do not think that government can rebuild unions. This movement has to do what it managed to do 100 years ago. It needs to re-organize from the ground up. I am so impressed with gains teachers’ unions managed to make through their job actions this past year, which should be inspiration.
But robotics and automation will continue to take jobs away. The working landscape continues to change, and some will inevitably be losers. Expect increased migration of workers out of depressed areas, creating even more disparities between rural and urban dwellers.
I think the health care field needs union representation.
So, should America reduce by 1 hour per year each year for the next decade the 40 hour work, in order to reduce the work week to 30 hours, but companies would need to increase pay proportionally to maintain the standard of living in the country?
Thoughts?
Every time technology is intro'd it is supposed to save time/improve efficiency. With some exception, all it does is make more work, especially when not part of an entire integrated system. With technical glitches, work arounds and poor design that will not be acknowledged, the stress level goes way up.
there will always be opportunities for people to and industries to let go of old process and useless skills to be reapplied in other areas. Imagination and creativity will always be valued.
2...Increasing wages by 25% so actual income remained the same.
3...Production would decrease by 25% bringing in less income to the owners, which due to many costs that would remain constant, such a change could eliminate the companies profit or put the company out of business, unless they could raise their prices by at least 25% or more, and probably at least by 35% to 40%.
4...The employees would now earn the same with 25% less hours, but see their cost of living go up 25% to 4%, which would be a big loss to the employees.
5...Stock holders would take a big hit as the value of the stock dropped, as it would due to this change. Where the workers worked for employers with pension plans would face a future with much lower pensions or maybe without one as the pension funds collapsed.
Overall this scheme is like so many people do not know how the work world really runs, come up with, a nutty idea.
2...Increasing wages by 25% so actual income remained the same.
3...Production would decrease by 25% bringing in less income to the owners, which due to many costs that would remain constant, such a change could eliminate the companies profit or put the company out of business, unless they could raise their prices by at least 25% or more, and probably at least by 35% to 40%.
4...The employees would now earn the same with 25% less hours, but see their cost of living go up 25% to 4%, which would be a big loss to the employees.
5...Stock holders would take a big hit as the value of the stock dropped, as it would due to this change. Where the workers worked for employers with pension plans would face a future with much lower pensions or maybe without one as the pension funds collapsed.
Overall this scheme is like so many people do not know how the work world really runs, come up with, a nutty idea.
So what is your solution to increasing unemployment if too much is taken away by technology? What do we do, for example, with the coal miners?
This can only happen if we massively strengthen the labor union movement, sadly.
Sorta. It isn't the "union" per se ...but having some actual market power to influence.
Most of that is about trimming the raw numbers available to compete for too few jobs.
When only 5 people apply for a job vs 500... then those 5 can expect decent wages etc.
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.
