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

The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

scienceaim.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 268 posts

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#201

Post by shell0x »

HerbManic wrote: post #175
shell0x wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tax is already bad here, even without it. I paid $89,000 taxes just for the last financial year because stock gains are added up on top of the income and my partner doesn’t work and there’s no family support allowance here. I can apply Australian citizenship next year but I will leave ASAP after becoming a citizen for Singapore, Dubai or Hong Kong where the tax is < 20%

I'm sorry but you pay more in tax than I make in income! This sounds like your lifestyle creep has chewed up your money stream. Despite my significantly lower income, I manage to own my house in Melbourne. With your income I could have it paid down in a few years at most.

Good job paying that off. I’m sure Australia has benefits for some but without kids, not having grown up here, paying my own insurance and not driving I don’t really see it.

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#202

Post by skybrian »

rented_mule wrote: post #195
declan_roberts wrote: post #132

I was contacted this week for a position that was openly 6 days a week. We need to end H1B in this country as soon as possible and keep the 996 schedule firmly out of the United States. They call you lazy for not wanting to compete against the entire world in your own country.

Chinese tech companies' 996 policies, and large Chinese tech companies in general, are newer than that ethic in the US. What I hear about 995.5 (every other Saturday off) from my friend at Xiaohongshu in Beijing sounds remarkably consistent with what I heard from my Google friends 20-25 years ago, from working hours to on-site amenities that kept you at work. You're spotting a correlation, but I think causality proba…

I guess you had bad luck working for teams that worked long hours. But as another datapoint, I worked at Google for more than a decade around that time period, for several different teams. Google did have a lot of amenities and people would say that it was to keep you at work, but I didn't see much evidence of that. It didn't keep anyone I knew from going home when they wanted. Being single, I'd stay for dinner or even come in on a weekend to do my laundry. But some weekdays I'd either work from home or get in around 11. Or maybe go for a bike ride at lunch. Nobody kept track. I have little idea how many hours I worked, but there was plenty of time while waiting on compiles to check Memegen and Hacker News. It wasn't a high-stress job.

It's a big company, though, so other teams might be different.

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#203

Post by c23gooey »

shell0x wrote: post #168
tedk-42 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so you take but you don't want to give? perhaps try a different perspective of, "it's good i live in a place where we contribute for a common good"

Taxes are a financial loss. I preferred living in Hong Kong and Singapore and do not enjoy living here honestly, but if you treat it as payment for my+partner’s backup citizenship, it seems more justifiable.

> Taxes are a financial loss.

What a miserable, selfish view of the world you have

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#204

Post by BLKNSLVR »

mianos wrote: post #122
runtime_terror wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your point about increased capital gains? Taxing income based on ownership should be higher than income via actual labor. It's insane that's not the case in most places.

If you start a business and grow it from hard work, you will now be taxed more. It's not just passive gains, it's all gain.

My understanding is that the difference is in the Capital Gains Tax, which doesn't apply to the day-to-day running of the business or its profitability or the salaries it pays.

Again, my understanding is that the (only) difference is when the business is sold, and the 50% discount to CGT is no longer applied and instead there is an inflation adjustment instead (what I don't understand here is how to get an initial valuation, and would it be essentially $0, so the entire amount is capital gains? which feels somewhat unfair)

So it will be a hit at the time the business is sold, not at any point during the running of the business. My (potentially naive) take is that the hard work that goes into running and growing a business is about the provision of the goods or services, but if it's about maximising "the exit", then that feels to me like not the kind of incentive that it should be. The 'running' of the business being more important than the selling of it.

The 50% CGT discount has set a bad precedent. It should have been lower, or should have scaled over time. It has deformed the expected reward structure.

Can a business agree to be sold in tranches over time? If such a thing helps minimise tax then I can see that becoming the norm. I know that selling a house is a big, singular chunk of money that generally needs to be 'managed' in order to pay the minimum amount of tax. Maybe fractional selling is going to become a thing.

Wouldn't paying yourself a higher salary (since it's your own business) and/or putting more into superannuation offset the 'retirement' hit of not getting a golden exit parachute?

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#205

Post by ycombinator_acc »

genxy wrote: post #172
archagon wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite a leap to attribute corporate greed to H1B. Think again: this is entirely homegrown.

You give away your bias when it is the other way around. The H1B is a byproduct and a tool of corporate greed.

Or it’s a way for the less fortunate (geographically) to seek a better future.

They more or less got rid of it last September, yet the job market has only worsened. Scapegoating minorities, whether it be trans people, brown people, Muslims or immigrants, doesn’t work. All it does is destroy lives.

> You give away your bias when it is the other way around.

How so?

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#206

Post by ukuina »

pizzly wrote: post #90
goda90 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the actual problem? Most people don't live for work.

Agree. The problem is the incentivization. If a painter paints a roof in 5 hours but could do it in 1 hour just to get paid for the 5 hours its not the worker at fault but the system. If the painter got paid for the 5 hours but only did 1 hour of work then everyone wins. The painter can have more time off work or work more for more money, their choice. Likewise the office worker working 40 hours per week, five days a…

This is the definition of slack.

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#207

Post by [deleted] »

shell0x wrote: post #198
Loocid wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its too close to slavery for my liking. Yes they are paid but 2.5k per month is very low for Singapore, they work massive hours, they rely on you for shelter, and are very likely from much poorer neighbouring countries that are trying to support family back home. The whole power dynamic is extremely exploitable which results in a lot of abuse cases.

They would be much worse off if they stay in their own country and they even get 1 day rest per week.

[deleted]

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#208

Post by Loocid »

shell0x wrote: post #198
Loocid wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its too close to slavery for my liking. Yes they are paid but 2.5k per month is very low for Singapore, they work massive hours, they rely on you for shelter, and are very likely from much poorer neighbouring countries that are trying to support family back home. The whole power dynamic is extremely exploitable which results in a lot of abuse cases.

They would be much worse off if they stay in their own country and they even get 1 day rest per week.

Yes exactly, which is why the system is so ripe for abuse. A third of live in maids in Singapore report abuse by their employers.

I don't consider taking someone out of a shit situation into a slightly less shit situation for your huge benefit all that benevolent personally.

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#209

Post by jedimastert »

losvedir wrote: post #69
oompydoompy74 wrote: post #20

Speaking as an American, I don’t give a shit if it increases productivity or not. Productivity has gone up exponentially with technological advancement since the advent of the 5 day work week. We, as a species, should be minimizing work to 3 or 4 days a week with equal overall pay. Corporations should be fined heavily for contacting an employee after working hours. On call should require corporations to pay hefty ove…

Lot of shoulds, oughts, etc. How about this: do whatever you want. Nothing is stopping you from setting up a 3 day workweek co-op. More power to any group that wants to. There are a number out there already. But it's worth considering why it hasn't totally taken over "naturally".

> it's worth considering why it hasn't totally taken over "naturally".

Because is advantageous for employers to keep workers as close to the brink of burnout as possible as a method of control

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#210

Post by quantummagic »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #180
azan_ wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its pretty naive to thing that it'd work this way. It's really bad idea. If someone has company that debuts on stock market, and stock price increases let's say 100x times, who is he funneling the funds from? I'd say it's not funneling but creation of wealth, economy is not zero-sum game.

US had tax brackets in the 90%s for decades. It was part of a golden era for workers, for that and a variety of other reasons like strong unions. Of course the rich tried to work around it. But culturally they also understood that paying a lot of taxes was considered their duty to society, especially in times of crisis.

This is a lazy idea that keeps getting trotted out. The 90% tax bracket only existed on paper, with an effective rate closer to 40%. Economists have shown that tax revenue remained remarkably unchanged, while having negative consequences for investment and productive use of capital. Instead, the relative prosperity of workers during that time came from a lack of global industrial competition and a massive post-war manufacturing monopoly. Without a completely sealed, loophole-free tax system and total global compliance, implementing a 90% tax rate today would simply result in widespread tax avoidance, capital flight, and a reduction in domestic investment. The rich do not make the bulk of their wealth through a salary (many taking $0 / year) like they did back then, but rather through stock options, etc.
Post reply on HN