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

261–268 of 268 posts

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

#261

Post by raincom »

ycombinator_acc wrote: post #245
raincom wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not both? It is a feedback loop. When the US allowed railroad/mine workers from China, it is true that Chinese labor wanted a better future and that capitalists want to use Chinese labor to suppress American wages. For instance, look at the animosity towards Chinese workers in Wyoming by European workers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Springs_massacre

Do you think the European workers were in the right? Is the solution to kick out (let alone slaughter) the Chinese, or is it to make them less exploitable by companies?

US workers are left with almost no systemic power to fight corporate exploitation, which creates a brutal race to the bottom. That's the structural context I was pointing out. But let’s be clear: turning that frustration into killing Chinese workers is never acceptable. The issue isn't the foreign workforce; it's a broken system that exploits everyone.

So, when foreigners want to come to the US to work, these foreigners find the working conditions (say, 996 of today) is better than working for the corporate and the government exploiters in their home countries.

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

#262

Post by thfuran »

azan_ wrote: post #246
thfuran wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If IPO makes CEO much, much richer but generally also makes company and workers better off (but to smaller degree), does IPO make workers more undercompensated? Yes, obviously. The bulk of work of the company is done by the workers. That is to say, most of the value is generated by the labor of the workers. If a commensurate share of the profit is not returned to the employees, they’ve clearly been undercompensated.

How is it obvious? In that scenario, companies should avoid IPO even though it makes situation of workers better?

If you spend a month working all day every day on something and then you get paid 5¢, was that fair compensation simply because you're materially better off for having received it? BTW, I made $10,000 reselling your labor.

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

#263

Post by genxy »

ycombinator_acc wrote: post #243
genxy wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American corporations could care less about giving anyone a better future. archagon was attempting to paint declan_roberts comment as blaming H1B workers on working conditions, which they did not do. But H1Bs will be used to suppress wages by working more hours 996 under worse conditions (oncall, etc). This is low rhetoric. To call out how H1Bs are being used is not scapegoating nor is it racist. It makes zero differ…

Now, with the $100K fee which has turned H-1B workers into indentured servants, they could and will be used for that, sure. But prior to the EO, they had the freedom to leave the country and reenter whenever they'd like to, so long as they were employed or had an offer on hand. Getting laid off wasn't the end of the world. Travelling wasn't a huge risk. Switching employers was relatively stress-free. While still not…

The power dynamic is definitely worse now, but it has existed ever since I first touched corporate tech in the late 90s (microsoft).

The problem isn't with immigrants specifically, but how they are used by these corporations to suppress wages and reduce the agency of labor. I don't want to see anyone hurt. But the way the H1Bs are being used harms everyone.

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

#264

Post by ycombinator_acc »

raincom wrote: post #261
ycombinator_acc wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think the European workers were in the right? Is the solution to kick out (let alone slaughter) the Chinese, or is it to make them less exploitable by companies?

US workers are left with almost no systemic power to fight corporate exploitation, which creates a brutal race to the bottom. That's the structural context I was pointing out. But let’s be clear: turning that frustration into killing Chinese workers is never acceptable. The issue isn't the foreign workforce; it's a broken system that exploits everyone. So, when foreigners want to come to the US to work, these foreign…

So erase that worry for them of having to go back to their home countries instead of doing the opposite and kicking them out? Extend the unemployment grace period from 60 days to a year. Make travel easier. Make it so that companies can't exploit them. What does the admin do instead? Introduce an exorbitant fee, making

- travel a gamble on whether you'll be able to re-enter

- a layoff pretty much the end of your ability to stay and work in the US

... in other words, making the workers far, far more exploitable. Make that make sense.

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

#265

Post by ycombinator_acc »

genxy wrote: post #263
ycombinator_acc wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, with the $100K fee which has turned H-1B workers into indentured servants, they could and will be used for that, sure. But prior to the EO, they had the freedom to leave the country and reenter whenever they'd like to, so long as they were employed or had an offer on hand. Getting laid off wasn't the end of the world. Travelling wasn't a huge risk. Switching employers was relatively stress-free. While still not…

The power dynamic is definitely worse now, but it has existed ever since I first touched corporate tech in the late 90s (microsoft). The problem isn't with immigrants specifically, but how they are used by these corporations to suppress wages and reduce the agency of labor. I don't want to see anyone hurt. But the way the H1Bs are being used harms everyone.

I'm not convinced it existed before - not to the extent where it actually harmed people. But you know what will harm people for certain and a lot? "Ending H-1B ASAP". So why end it (let alone make it worse by making H-1B workers significantly more exploitable) instead of increasing the unemployment grace period, making travel less of a gamble, giving the worker more flexibility with work schedule and location?

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

#266

Post by genxy »

ycombinator_acc wrote: post #265
genxy wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The power dynamic is definitely worse now, but it has existed ever since I first touched corporate tech in the late 90s (microsoft). The problem isn't with immigrants specifically, but how they are used by these corporations to suppress wages and reduce the agency of labor. I don't want to see anyone hurt. But the way the H1Bs are being used harms everyone.

I'm not convinced it existed before - not to the extent where it actually harmed people. But you know what will harm people for certain and a lot ? "Ending H-1B ASAP". So why end it (let alone make it worse by making H-1B workers significantly more exploitable) instead of increasing the unemployment grace period, making travel less of a gamble, giving the worker more flexibility with work schedule and location?

I agree with all those things, AND preventing Amazon from firing 15-30k people and then turning around and hiring H1Bs. We are not talking about the same thing, enough that there isn't a disagreement.

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

#267

Post by idle_zealot »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #148
idle_zealot wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, if fuel gets expensive enough this will be much less of a problem! Let's all thank Trump and Iran for their great work on bringing the four day work week closer to fruition. This isn't how I would've imagined bringing industry back to the States, but it's a promise made, promise kept.

Has the promise been kept? Is industry on-shoring in any significant sense? Or just making photo ops for Trump and fam, then slow walking the implementation until it's quietly canceled or scaled back to a token effort?

The joke is that onshoring will be forced to occur when global trade becomes prohibitively expensive for most goods. A promise kept despite not planning to, and with catastrophic consequences.
Post reply on HN