41–50 of 163 posts
I've worked in lots of offices and watched people, especially "important" ones. It's fun to watch. They're so busy the strain is enormous. But if you pay attention, they spend lots of time calling their sister, talking to the Schwann's man.. "I work so hard I never leave work" but little actual work is done, but much is made of the number of hours spent there.
Takano and other well meaning legislators reveal they have zero clue how economies work or how wealth is created. It is fairly terrifying that these sorts have become so influential.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what I've been trying to tell people for awhile. In "knowledge work" areas I suspect most people work around 5-6 hours a day and the rest is spent doing whatever other stuff they do. My current job I only work 35 hours a week and it's great. They pay us for an hour lunch basically and I just take it at the end of my day, thus shortening my day to 7 hours.
Maybe for menial knowledge work. During crunch time, nights and weekends get completely filled with work.
I work 80 hours per week. I do what I love so it doesn’t feel like work. By doing this I am 40 hours ahead every week than most everyone else and the output and results definitely show.
I work 80 hours per week. I do what I love so it doesn’t feel like work. By doing this I am 40 hours ahead every week than most everyone else and the output and results definitely show.
This pattern doesn't make you a hero, it makes you a liability.
Why 32? Why not 22? Why not 10? What's the reasoning here.
A 4 day workweek (8 * 4 = 32) to distribute the last few decades of productivity gains [1] to the working class. Very similar to how unions were how the working class received a weekend [2]. Why would we not expand the weekend/time for leisure and other non work related time as productivity increases? [1] https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/15558/producti... [2] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/se…
I'd be perfectly happy with 35 hours, so that an eight hour workday is actually eight hours and not nine because your lunch break doesn't count.
Decades ago the U.S. tied healthcare to employment. It had some big positives at the time. I think it has proven to have more negatives as time has unfolded. Here is one of them. If you reduce hours per worker by, say, 10% you just pay each worker 10% less and hire 10% more workers, right? It's not so simple. If you try to cut the health insurance premium of each worker by 10% the policy becomes unattractive. If you…
If you have 90 units of work to be done you might hire 9 workers at 10 units each. If the standard work goes down by 10%, you now need 10 workers at 9 units each. Your workers have increased by 11.1% (given by 1-1/(1-0.1))
A reduction from 40 to 32 would reduce hours per worker by 20% but increase workers and total health care costs by 25%.
I work 80 hours per week. I do what I love so it doesn’t feel like work. By doing this I am 40 hours ahead every week than most everyone else and the output and results definitely show.
I suppose many would think of it this way: "what's good for the long-term future of the country is good for my kids, but that's not going to help them much if I can't pay the next month's rent, or if I have to work so much that I never get to see them and raise them properly. So why not vote for someone who will help me get more money and spend more time with my kids now?"
I mean, it's absolutely mind-blowing that there isn't an entire line around the corner of politicians pushing for higher minimum wage, free education, free healthcare, basic income, etc. There are obviously some voices supporting all those measures, but I am surprised those individuals are not more popular. I suppose this is a very basic political science question, but I don't have any background in this field and today's topic once again made me wonder what's stopping us from adopting that and many other similar measures. Surely, those who stand to benefit something from it in the short-term outnumber the people who are going to be negatively impacted?