Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

fisherphillips.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–228 of 228 posts

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#221

Post by LinuxBender »

eigen wrote: post #134
chaostheory wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California had just had its net population change going negative for the first time recently. There is a threshold where more businesses leave that it’s starting to reach. The cost of living doesn’t help along with crime. Climate change will also make the situation worse in the coming years, where we eventually lose temperate weather in exchange for forest fires. We’re already experiencing failing infrastructure like…

> California had just had its net population change going negative for the first time recently. based on 2020 census, California is still growing. 2020: 39,538,223 2010: 37,253,956 6.1% increase https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/popchange...

I can only add my anecdotal observations for whatever that is worth. When I left California in 2021 it was impossible for me to get equipment from U-haul, Penksy and Budget. I eventually gave up and hired a moving company despite having downsized my assets considerably. Even that was a challenge and the coordinators were spread extremely thin. Every company I spoke to said that they've never seen so many people leaving. I don't know what that translates to in real numbers. I also experienced something odd and unexpected. I would call a friend to say I was moving and they said they were too. This happened several times. Of the people in my circle that didn't leave it was either family or work obligations that was keeping them from relocating despite many wanting to.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#222

Post by skd23423 »

badRNG wrote: post #220
skd23423 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the govt does not have the power to dictate working hours, people would did from overwork like in the other countries. May be not software for now, but definitely it is possible with low skilled jobs. This is actually a good thing for the govt to have power over. PS: This applies to every company, so the playground is fair to compete against.

It is interesting to see the tensions play out between managers/"entrepreneurs" and workers in threads like this. The idea that the establishment of a working week is government tyranny is obvious to one side and bizarre to the other.

Keeping managers and entrepreneurs on the same plane is the most bizarre thing and frankly insulting to entrepreneurs

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#223

Post by pandemicsoul »

superfunny wrote: post #93
pandemicsoul wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there's really no reason to question whether government should reasonably limit standard business practices – we've seen, in spades, how business practices are driven entirely and only by concerns of profit while the labor market has very little flexibility that would allow workers to "vote with their feet" and move to "better" employers without outside influence. Put another way: Of course it's a good thing…

>> while the labor market has very little flexibility that would allow workers to "vote with their feet" and move to "better" employers without outside influence Have you heard of the Great Resignation?

Yes. Are you trying to imply that the Great Resignation was not the result of the outside influence I mentioned – in this case government intervention (lockdowns, unemployment insurance expansion), and a global pandemic that removed hundreds of thousands of people from the workforce and changed priorities for companies and employees?

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#224

Post by josephcsible »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #213
pc86 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This entire thread seems to be you willfully misinterpreting their comments, or taking the most negative possible interpretation, and then responding to that. In addition to violating the site guidelines, it's boring, stifles discussion, and is the stuff of emotional, uneducated partisan hackery.

Sometimes people's positions are so absurd that you feel there's no other way to break through. "I want people to be allowed to freely contract with each other without government intervention except when I don't" is a fundamentally ridiculous position for someone to take and pretend they're just following some noble universal law. If I've not conveyed that message with my replies, then I've failed in my attempt to co…

That's a misrepresentation of my position. I do want everyone to be able to freely contact with each other without government intervention, all the time. My complaint is that right now, companies can't freely contract with unions, because the government gave unions special powers like not letting companies walk away from the negotiating table.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#225

Post by josephcsible »

salawat wrote: post #203
josephcsible wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions having the power to force employees to join is what's authoritarian. If I want to work for a company, and the company wants to hire me, we should be free to enter into a contract. A third party shouldn't have the power to say "you can't unless you pay us dues". And before you say "well not if the company and union entered into a contract that said the company would only hire union workers", that's not how it w…

Unions don't have that power last I checked, and there is nothing that requires an employer to sign away their ability to seek unaffiliated workers. Just as there is nothing forcing a worker to join a Union. The only thing is, if you don't join, you don't get the benefit of collective bargaining.

> Just as there is nothing forcing a worker to join a Union. The only thing is, if you don't join, you don't get the benefit of collective bargaining.

This is only true in states with right-to-work laws.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#226

Post by standardUser »

farseer wrote: post #157
standardUser wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government saying 40 hours in the work week is OK, but any other number of hours to you is "unnecessary government intervention"? What makes the number 40 sacred?

Because the government didn't set that minimmum, its what society determined over a course of 150 years as to what is "fair". Once the majority of the businesses by choice start reducing that, and the 32 hour week becomes the norm then sure legislate that for everyone. But it can't be imposed until then. [1] https://www.cultureamp.com/blog/40-hour-work-week

The idea that businesses instead of people should determine the normal working hours for people is entirely ass-backwards.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#227

Post by mgalgs »

notahacker wrote: post #147
qiskit wrote: post #115

Instead of all these regulations, why not institute basic income. If every adult was given $2000 ( or whatever figure we come up with ) you wouldn't have to create so many laws. Minimum wage, work hours, retirement, diversity, etc laws would be unnecessary because it would be difficult to exploit people whose needs are met. Why pass hundreds of laws when you can pass 1 that solves all the problem?

Because you have to fund basic income. And if your goal is a population that pays its way and has relatively generous working conditions and less unequal income distributions, the hyper regulated Europe looks a whole lot better than, say, Saudi Arabia where citizens can live comfortable, unproductive lives topped up by monthly payments, discrimination is rife and an underclass of non-citizens do most of the work for…

Andrew Yang proposed a VAT and redistributing funds from other entitlement programs.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#228

Post by Handytinge »

EMM_386 wrote: post #103
t0mas88 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe that becomes possible at some point? A long time ago we needed 7 days a week to farm or hunt enough food to survive. With technological advancements we may be at a point where we need near 0 work days to feed everyone and create a comfortable life. Then doing work isn't needed to survive anymore but instead only because you want to achieve something. That could be many different things for many people.

> With technological advancements we may be at a point where we need near 0 work days to feed everyone and create a comfortable life. Who builds the houses? Who handles the power generation? Who maintains the roads? Who builds, and who flies, the airplanes in case people would like to travel? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. A lot of work goes into a functioning society.

That's true. But a hundred years ago, different questions were there.

We've largely automated and optimised many jobs into minimal work or non existance across industrial production, agriculture, all sorts of areas. There's no reason not to think we don't keep automating to solve the problems you've mentioned.

Post reply on HN