PDA

View Full Version : 30 Hour Work Week




rockerrockstar
02-03-2012, 07:57 PM
Everyone says they like freedom but how can you be free if you have to work so much? Anyone besides me want to work less hours? I can imagine how much better life would be if you did not have to work so many hours in order to just provide a basic living?

Most jobs that pay any decent amount require at least 40 hours a week. Imagine if you could get a good job and only be required to work 30 hours a week. That would be great. You would have more time to enjoy your freedom. More time to spend with family and friends. You would be healthier because you would not be strapped to a desk for 40 or more hours a week. Added benefit for you and the company is that if you have more free time you are bound to have more creativity. You would also have lower stress. You would have more time to be political and this would be good for democracy.

Studies have shown that sedentary life style the typical office worker has is known to be bad for you. It is a major cause of heart disease. It kills more people than smoking according to one study. It is talked about in this article http://www.naturalnews.com/001547.html Less time at work means less time setting at a desk. It would give you more time to be active and exercise. Even walking is better than sitting.

Productivity has gone way up but wages have not gone up at the same rate. The productivity has led to needing less people to do the same work and thus layoffs. Many companies layoff people and expect their remaining workers to do more work. This leads to burn out of the remaining workers and added stress. To top it off the workers don't get paid extra for the extra work they need to do because of the other workers getting laid off.

"worker productivity has been on a steady increase, rising 62.5% from 1989 to 2010, but wages during that time are only up 12%."- http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201103/productivity-is-wages-are-down-what-s-0

If productivity increases people should be allowed to do less work for the same amount of money. Since companies are know not to give workers compensation for their added productivity. Increased productivity leads to more unemployment we should demand 30 hour work week. This is the same principal that led France to the 35 work week. Make anything over 30 hours a week too expensive for companies to pay so they have to hire more workers.

Anyways, I know I am sure this is not a perfect idea and there could be issues with implementing it. I know the people in France like the 35 hour work week from what I have read.

At minimum we should look at the FLSA and remove all exemptions to the 40 hour work week that allow people to work overtime for free. It does not make since that companies should make workers work overtime for free. We tell our kids to go to college and get a degree to get a good job. I don't think working overtime for free was something they expected when they got their degree and job. Being a professional should not exempt you from getting overtime pay. I think we should remove all exemptions. Having exemptions makes not sense with a depression and this many people unemployed.

We should consider quality of life in America for the people of America. We work too much when will we get wise and improve our lives in America the land of the free and consider the 30 hour work week.

onlyrp
02-03-2012, 08:00 PM
read 4 hour work week, then read zero hour work week (iphone app)

onlyrp
02-03-2012, 08:01 PM
why stop at 30? why not 5 or 10?

Work hours and salaries are market adjusted, nobody is forcing you to work, and nobody is forcing you to choose the lifestyle you have.

rockerrockstar
02-03-2012, 08:02 PM
Yeah I got a book on the 4 hour work week written by Timothy Ferriss. Is that what you are talking about? I will look at the iphone app.

Onlyrp the companies don't care about the workers so allowing the market to decide is not going to give you more hours of freedom. Good luck finding a regular job that pays well for less than 40 hours a week. The only way is to start your own company and be very smart/lucky maybe doing something like Timothy Ferris talks about.

Anyways, I think starting with 30 is more realistic then saying 5 or 10. If France got 35 maybe we could get something similar. I agree ideally less than 30 would be better. You got to start some where.

Southron
02-03-2012, 08:04 PM
Transportation workers aren't subject to it overtime. You would pay a lot more for everything.

thequietkid10
02-03-2012, 08:07 PM
This should be fun...

Freedom is not without responsibility. If you want to work 30 hours, you should expect 75 percent of your wages. Smart companies offer their employees plenty of time off, for the very reasons you mentioned. If a company sees a lot of burnout and employee turnover, then it is up to that company to change the work hour policies. I've been working six nights a wweek, for almost a year now. It sucks sometimes, but I do what I half to, to pay the bills. Meanwhile I never stop looking for better options.

onlyrp
02-03-2012, 08:08 PM
Yeah I got a book on the 4 hour work week written by Timothy Ferriss. Is that what you are talking about? I will look at the iphone app.

yes, that's the book. the iphone app should be easy to find, let me know if you don't.

heavenlyboy34
02-03-2012, 08:08 PM
You can make a living doing as many hours per week you want. But your salary/income will reflect how long and hard you worked. ;) ETA: you can combat the effects of a sedentary job by getting a good, full body workout 3 times per week.

onlyrp
02-03-2012, 08:10 PM
This should be fun...

Freedom is not without responsibility. If you want to work 30 hours, you should expect 75 percent of your wages. Smart companies offer their employees plenty of time off, for the very reasons you mentioned. If a company sees a lot of burnout and employee turnover, then it is up to that company to change the work hour policies.

exactly. or, if your labor and skills are high value, you can negotiate to work less for more, and some simply choose to work 20 hours or less depending on their needs.

recently there was a stupid zerohedge article claiming that a family of 4 on minimum wage has more disposable income than one making $60,000. If they actually believed that, I dare them take a paycut and see how easy it is.

Mogambo Guru
02-03-2012, 09:31 PM
Well the answer is easy, end the fed.. Accomplishing that, however, is the challenge... Kinda disappointed in some of the responses so far..

http://www.preservenet.com/endgrowth/013-USWorkHours.gif

Living in the year 1900, people enjoyed a much higher standard of living, as compared to 100 years prior... and they accomplished this while working less as well. I understand the "mentality" of some of the poor responses, as its easy to just say you need to work more to get more etc... but the whole point is we are not getting all of the benefits of our great productivity. The point is, we could be enjoying all the things we are currently used to having, while working less. The point is, when your money holds it value, and actually increases in value with your productivity gains, it lets more people into the work place... and the other side of that, inflating the currency, makes it harder and harder for an increasing population to find work.



Again, disappointed in some of these responses... There are reasons why we are increasing productivity, and still now both parents must work full time jobs... with a lifetime of debt attached to it as well. This topic gets directly to the heart of many of the problems we face as a country.

Mogambo Guru
02-03-2012, 09:46 PM
no, not exactly... Another way to think about this situation is, we are working 100%, but only getting paid 75% because of the illusion of our money... We get paid more "dollars" but those dollars buy you less and less and make it hard to see what is really going on... and savings is also eaten away via inflation. $180,000 in the year 1970 has the same purchasing power as $1 million dollars today, and thats using the governments statistics...

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
02-03-2012, 09:49 PM
You can make a living doing as many hours per week you want. But your salary/income will reflect how long and hard you worked. ;) ETA: you can combat the effects of a sedentary job by getting a good, full body workout 3 times per week.

It will also reflect how smart you work, or how much you are making. (for different reasons)

jcannon98188
02-03-2012, 09:59 PM
You sleep 8 hours a night on average, and work an addition 8 hours. That leaves a good 8 hours still at home. If that isn't enough time to excercise than cutting a few hours off of work isn't going to make you lose weight and get in shape

heavenlyboy34
02-03-2012, 10:00 PM
It will also reflect how smart you work, or how much you are making. (for different reasons)
Exactly! Should've mentioned that. :o

RileyE104
02-03-2012, 10:08 PM
I honestly don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I would kill (metaphor.. :p) for a job that lets me work 40 hours a week.

Secondly, I would definitely like to be able to work MORE than 40 hours.

Some of the places I've worked at tried their hardest to NOT let us work more than 40 hours.

TastyWheat
02-03-2012, 10:44 PM
30 hours is just as arbitrary as 40. Full-time should be defined at a businesses discretion. My work has a lot of temps that work 40 hours a week with zero benefits. You'd better believe the turnover rate is really high. I'm sure other businesses would see that as a huge problem, but I got the hours I needed and was given a chance to gain experience. Now I'm a full employee with benefits and a pay raise. The government doesn't need to set workplace rules because employees will work in their own best interests.

RileyE104
02-03-2012, 10:46 PM
The government doesn't need to set workplace rules because employees will work in their own best interests.

This. It also ties in to the minimum wage.

If I could find a part-time job right now that paid say $6/hr I would take it.

ShaneEnochs
02-03-2012, 10:50 PM
I would think that in this economy, people should just be happy to have a job.

leonster
02-03-2012, 11:20 PM
I work 20 hrs/week. :)

That's in Korea, though.

The Goat
02-03-2012, 11:33 PM
We'll it all goes to the choices you make in life. or im some cases day to day. In my business it depends on what I'm doing how much I make. I can make my weeks worth in 2 days or in 6, depends on what is in demand and what I want to be doing, obviously I generally choose to do things that take the least amount of time, but it can be a trade off. I like doing some things more and choose them but they take longer.

But don't look for the government to make things better for you it will always back fire. XD

Tod
02-03-2012, 11:39 PM
An interesting book is: "Your Money Or Your Life"

http://ymoyl.wordpress.com/



There is a professor at the University of Michigan who was interested in the possibilities of reduced working hours. Frithjof Bergmann.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frithjof_Bergmann


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVOVbHI32is

KCIndy
02-03-2012, 11:45 PM
At minimum we should look at the FLSA and remove all exemptions to the 40 hour work week that allow people to work overtime for free. It does not make since that companies should make workers work overtime for free. We tell our kids to go to college and get a degree to get a good job. I don't think working overtime for free was something they expected when they got their degree and job. Being a professional should not exempt you from getting overtime pay. I think we should remove all exemptions. Having exemptions makes not sense with a depression and this many people unemployed.

We should consider quality of life in America for the people of America. We work too much when will we get wise and improve our lives in America the land of the free and consider the 30 hour work week.


Wow.

This reminds me of Ralphie's essay in the movie A Christmas Story.

I give it a big ol' "P.S. - You'll shoot your eye out!!" :D

RickyJ
02-03-2012, 11:53 PM
You are free to work as many or as few hours as you want. The government should have nothing to do with this.

rockerrockstar
02-04-2012, 12:20 AM
The idea is to put in a system that makes it easier for the common man to live a decent life while doing less hours of work. Currently it is not easy to find a good paying job that is less than 40 hours a week. Matter of fact a lot of jobs require more hours.

RileyE104
02-04-2012, 12:46 AM
The idea is to put in a system that makes it easier for the common man to live a decent life while doing less hours of work. Currently it is not easy to find a good paying job that is less than 40 hours a week. Matter of fact a lot of jobs require more hours.

It's hard to find a low paying job that IS up to 40 hours a week.

Anyone complaining that they have to work too much is an asshole in my opinion.

I'LL WORK 40 HOURS A WEEK, DAMNIT! I WANT TO.

I mean, I don't "want to" but I WILL and I WOULD IF I COULD.

tttppp
02-04-2012, 12:55 AM
Why does the government need to dictate our hours? Why not remove most regulations and create a free market, then let the market decide?

I don't know why do many companies try screw people over giving them the littlest amount of pay for the most amount of hours.

Companies shouldn't set any hours requirements. They should give each employee a responsibility, and the employees will dictate how many hours they need to work to accomplish their responsibility. Forcing people to sit at a desk for 40 hours a week regardless of their output is just pointless busy work. Employees don't respect busy work. Just because they are not the owner, does not mean they are retards incapable of responsibility.

That said, employees who accomplish their responsibility should be given more responsibility, bonuses, and/or stock options. Employees who can't handle a responsibility should be fired and replaced with better employees.

rockerrockstar
02-04-2012, 01:15 AM
Riley I guess your the flip side the guy that wishes he could make more money and sees working more hours as the solution. You just used to the way things currently work. I can imagine how much better life would be with more free time while still making enough money.

I am saying we should consider how much time we spend at work and how much better our life's would be if we had more free time.

I think we need to figure out a way to make it so people can work less hours while retaining a good life style. Part time jobs that pay minimum wage are not what I am proposing. I am talking about good paying jobs being available and not requiring 40 to 60 hours weeks instead 30hrs with benefits.

tttppp
02-04-2012, 01:24 AM
Riley I guess your the flip side the guy that wishes he could make more money and sees working more hours as the solution. You just used to the way things currently work. I can imagine how much better life would be with more free time while still making enough money.

I am saying we should consider how much time we spend at work and how much better our life's would be if we had more free time.

I think we need to figure out a way to make it so people can work less hours while retaining a good life style. Part time jobs that pay minimum wage are not what I am proposing. I am talking about good paying jobs being available and not requiring 40 to 60 hours weeks instead 30hrs with benefits.

I was trying to find a part-time job a few years back that would pay me a fair wage considering my skill set. There is NOTHING. Either you work the standard 40 hour salary work week which generally turns into 60-70 hours, or make minimum wage. Its total bullshit. Many people would be happy to make less money in exchange for working less hours, but that rarely exists.

The Goat
02-04-2012, 01:29 AM
I say you cant dictate that because it will put some people out of business because they truly cant afford it. and what happens their is the lower paying jobs usually get taken up by the people that are in more need. so you would be subtracting from the job market in just the areas where people need the job the most.

I see where your going but it ends in failure when you force business to do things they cant. to give you an at least decent point. with as much as we expand our currency you could probably give everyone a decent base pay before they do any work. just end all the other welfare programs and needless endless war. But you would eventually run into the same problems that we are staring at now because of expanding the currency.

rockerrockstar
02-04-2012, 01:33 AM
Why does the government need to dictate our hours? Why not remove most regulations and create a free market, then let the market decide?

I don't know why do many companies try screw people over giving them the littlest amount of pay for the most amount of hours.


Most companies go and lobby to make employees exempt from the FSLA rules so they don't have to pay for overtime. If your non-exempt you get paid for hours over 40. If you are exempt the companies don't have to pay you for hours over 40. That is why I am saying we should remove the exemptions so we all get paid overtime.

The problem with letting the free market decide is you will lose. There are people willing to work for $2 an hour in china do you want to work for that? I am sure there are people willing to work tons of hours just to make a little more money to the point people that want to work less wont be able to find a job because all the companies want is workers willing to work 70 hour weeks. Companies would make you work overtime for free.

rockerrockstar
02-04-2012, 01:39 AM
I was trying to find a part-time job a few years back that would pay me a fair wage considering my skill set. There is NOTHING. Either you work the standard 40 hour salary work week which generally turns into 60-70 hours, or make minimum wage. Its total bullshit. Many people would be happy to make less money in exchange for working less hours, but that rarely exists.

This is exactly what I am talking about. We need to make jobs that pay good that are less than 40 hours a week. Currently those jobs really don't exist unless you are self employed and got a great business model that allows for you to do that (Tim Ferriss for example).

The 40hr week turning into 60-70 is another problem. That is why I am saying remove the exemptions for the FSLA so they have to pay overtime. That would give them incentive to not make you do overtime.

tttppp
02-04-2012, 01:45 AM
Most companies go and lobby to make employees exempt from the FSLA rules so they don't have to pay for overtime. If your non-exempt you get paid for hours over 40. If you are exempt the companies don't have to pay you for hours over 40. That is why I am saying we should remove the exemptions so we all get paid overtime.

The problem with letting the free market decide is you will lose. There are people willing to work for $2 an hour in china do you want to work for that? I am sure there are people willing to work tons of hours just to make a little more money to the point people that want to work less wont be able to find a job because all the companies want is workers willing to work 70 hour weeks. Companies would make you work overtime for free.

In this market, if a company treated employees fairly like I described in my first post, that company would be able to get the best talent in the country because anyone would want to work there. The free market can work.

tttppp
02-04-2012, 01:49 AM
This is exactly what I am talking about. We need to make jobs that pay good that are less than 40 hours a week. Currently those jobs really don't exist unless you are self employed and got a great business model that allows for you to do that (Tim Ferriss for example).

The 40hr week turning into 60-70 is another problem. That is why I am saying remove the exemptions for the FSLA so they have to pay overtime. That would give them incentive to not make you do overtime.

I don't like the idea of paying overtime. I don't like paying per hour. My preference is for employers to give employees a responsibility and make it up to the employee to accomplish it. If it takes them 20 hours great, if it takes them 40 hours great too. It doesn't matter how long you work. What matters is you get the job done.

DamianTV
02-04-2012, 03:03 AM
The first step I think is to get Government out of the Employment business. Working for someone else is a Private Civil Contract between the Employer and the Employee. If they want to negotiate a 50k job a year for 32 hour work weeks, that is their business and we should not be able to say a damn thing about it.

Paul Fan
02-04-2012, 03:16 AM
The government shouldn't be involved in setting hours and wages. (It is, but it shouldn't be.) That is price control, and price control doesn't work. If you want to work part-time, then talk to your boss, get a different job, or start your own business. Don't assume that other people want, or should be forced, to do the same.

Some employers do pay by productivity, but from the employer's point of view it is difficult and many jobs don't work that way - eg, production lines, telephone answering, service jobs, etc. The government shouldn't be involved in these decisions.

DamianTV
02-04-2012, 03:31 AM
The Terminal Disease of Government Intervention has almost run its course. The Govt has caused so much damage to our financial system that any potential employer almost has no choice but to offer less than survivable compensation for services performed. The point is that getting rid of the work related laws right now is suicide. Employers would kill their employees with barely compensated work overload. The work related laws never should have been implemented to begin with, and that was the way they should have stayed. The Parasitic Govt must no longer be permitted to feed on us for the patient to survive.

But work is not the cause of the problem. Neither are greedy Corporate Employers. They are the Symptoms of the Disease. A Dishonest Money System upheld and enforced by a Parasitic Govt is the real cause.

Paul Fan
02-04-2012, 03:43 AM
You're right about that. That's why I support Dr. Paul's approach of dealing with other things first. But hours and wage laws should be targetted for elimination, and should at least go down to the state level.

tangowhiskeykilo
02-04-2012, 10:02 AM
If anyone lives in Denver and is interested in a job where they can choose their own hours and make decent money hit me up.

rockerrockstar
02-04-2012, 10:19 AM
You're right about that. That's why I support Dr. Paul's approach of dealing with other things first. But hours and wage laws should be targetted for elimination, and should at least go down to the state level.

I can imagine what would happen if you got rid of hours and wage laws it could be a disaster for workers by overloading them with work and super low wages. There is a reason workers fought for the 40 hour work week and minimum wage in the first place. It is because they did not want to be slaves.

"The 40-hour week movement had its origins in the Industrial Revolution in Britain, where industrial production transformed working life and imposed long hours and poor working conditions. With working conditions unregulated, the health, welfare and morale of working people suffered. The use of child labour was common. The working day could range from 10 to 16 hours for six days a week."-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day


"By 1905, the vast majority of Americans worked 12-14 hour days."-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

So the danger of removing the regulation on wages and salary is that more people would become slaves.

onlyrp
02-04-2012, 01:47 PM
Living in the year 1900, people enjoyed a much higher standard of living, as compared to 100 years prior... and they accomplished this while working less as well.


Living in 1900 was a better standard of living than 1800? Ok, we get that.
What about 2000 compared to 1900?

onlyrp
02-04-2012, 01:48 PM
I can imagine what would happen if you got rid of hours and wage laws it could be a disaster for workers by overloading them with work and super low wages. There is a reason workers fought for the 40 hour work week and minimum wage in the first place. It is because they did not want to be slaves.

"The 40-hour week movement had its origins in the Industrial Revolution in Britain, where industrial production transformed working life and imposed long hours and poor working conditions. With working conditions unregulated, the health, welfare and morale of working people suffered. The use of child labour was common. The working day could range from 10 to 16 hours for six days a week."-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day


"By 1905, the vast majority of Americans worked 12-14 hour days."-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

So the danger of removing the regulation on wages and salary is that more people would become slaves.

I support lower wages, if it means lower cost of living, less redundant work, or even more efficient work. Especially if it means less government handouts, I'm not so concerned about income or wealth inequality though.

onlyrp
02-04-2012, 01:48 PM
If anyone lives in Denver and is interested in a job where they can choose their own hours and make decent money hit me up.

multi level marketing? cold calling?

onlyrp
02-04-2012, 01:50 PM
The government shouldn't be involved in setting hours and wages. (It is, but it shouldn't be.) That is price control, and price control doesn't work. If you want to work part-time, then talk to your boss, get a different job, or start your own business. Don't assume that other people want, or should be forced, to do the same.

Some employers do pay by productivity, but from the employer's point of view it is difficult and many jobs don't work that way - eg, production lines, telephone answering, service jobs, etc. The government shouldn't be involved in these decisions.

I totally agree. I'm not as anti-government as many people here appear to be, but when it comes to wages, hours, work, housing, living, I am all for a free market, hands off. With regulations only for common sense safety purpose, and to protect against fraud.

Many employers already get around those wage limits by either putting workers on 1099 (meaning they can't keep them too long) or by setting their pay to commission only. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have Wal Mart purposely hiring people for less hours and letting them qualify for government assistance.

Wickwire
02-04-2012, 02:08 PM
read 4 hour work week, then read zero hour work week (iphone app)

Here's the PDF. The author gave it away for free, so no worries.
The Zero Hour Workweek (http://illuminatedmind.s3.amazonaws.com/0HWW.pdf)

Cowlesy
02-04-2012, 02:17 PM
I hope farmers don't decide to start working 30 hours per week.

liberty2897
02-04-2012, 03:42 PM
I hope farmers don't decide to start working 30 hours per week.


Me too. Especially if the majority of their employees end up getting deported.

onlyrp
02-04-2012, 04:11 PM
Me too. Especially if the majority of their employees end up getting deported.

sorry, Im lost, why dont we want farmers working 30? is that too much or too little?

liberty2897
02-04-2012, 04:28 PM
sorry, Im lost, why dont we want farmers working 30? is that too much or too little?

Sorry, I'm lost most of the time myself. My response regarding hours was based on the fact that most farmers and their employees that I know typically work much more than 40 hours / week. The current population of 6+ billion people on the planet depend on that for food.

oyarde
02-04-2012, 04:36 PM
I have worked more than 40 hours a week my entire life . Govt involvement is not needed . Let the free markets decide . Farmers have to work more than 40 hours a week to plant and harvest.

onlyrp
02-04-2012, 04:38 PM
Sorry, I'm lost most of the time myself. My response regarding hours was based on the fact that most farmers and their employees that I know typically work much more than 40 hours / week. The current population of 6+ billion people on the planet depend on that for food.

gotcha. well, if 30 hours or less hours meant it could employ more people, wouldn't that be better than having them wait for handouts?

that's a big if, I understand it isn't a necessary result.

phill4paul
02-04-2012, 04:51 PM
"The biggest mistake that you can make is to believe that you are working for somebody else…The driving force of a career must come from the individual. Remember: Jobs are owned by the company, you own your career!" – Earl Nightingale, Motivational Speaker

onlyrp
02-04-2012, 05:14 PM
"The biggest mistake that you can make is to believe that you are working for somebody else…The driving force of a career must come from the individual. Remember: Jobs are owned by the company, you own your career!" – Earl Nightingale, Motivational Speaker

and how does that help you? may I ask?

WilliamC
02-04-2012, 05:30 PM
Haven't any of you ever worked at a job where you wanted to be there and would willingly go to work for free because you enjoyed what you were doing?

I have.

But really, without a sound money system there is no honest way to measure prices, including the price of labor and services.

onlyrp
02-04-2012, 05:31 PM
Haven't any of you ever worked at a job where you wanted to be there and would willingly go to work for free because you enjoyed what you were doing?

But really, without a sound money system there is no honest way to measure prices, including the price of labor and services.

i disagree, we measure prices just fine by comparison.

liberty2897
02-04-2012, 05:50 PM
gotcha. well, if 30 hours or less hours meant it could employ more people, wouldn't that be better than having them wait for handouts?

that's a big if, I understand it isn't a necessary result.

Seems fine to me if the employer and employee agree on it. I don't think many farm workers could take a 25% hit on their income.

There should be no government handouts (if that is what you are referring to). Handouts on a voluntary basis are fine in my opinion.

I have a lot of respect for growers. They work their ass off everyday. They take HUGE risks. They feed us. The growers I know are some of the last patriots left standing in my opinion. I haven't been to a lot of places, so that is just my limited view of the world. Some of the biggest Ron Paul supporters I know are growers. I have more respect for most of them than I have for myself right now :) I worked less than 2 hours a day average last year (no government assistance or un-employment though).

I will say this for working less hours: It gives you a lot of time to read the news and figure out the scam that the media has going right now. If you are working 40 hr/weeks, you don't have time to pay attention to the fact that your country is being decimated while you sleep.

eduardo89
02-04-2012, 05:50 PM
Full workweek for a Spanish civil servant is 25 hours. 9am-2pm.

oyarde
02-04-2012, 06:00 PM
Full workweek for a Spanish civil servant is 25 hours. 9am-2pm. Sorry , call me old school , but that does not meet my definition of civil servant .

eduardo89
02-04-2012, 06:03 PM
Sorry , call me old school , but that does not meet my definition of civil servant .

Try living here and getting anything done...

Their hours may be 9am-2pm, but they don't get to the office till 9:30, then from 11-11:30 they go for breakfast, and they're usually packed up, ready to go by 1:30pm. It's a disgrace.

oyarde
02-04-2012, 06:06 PM
Try living here and getting anything done...

Their hours may be 9am-2pm, but they don't get to the office till 9:30, then from 11-11:30 they go for breakfast, and they're usually packed up, ready to go by 1:30pm. It's a disgrace. Yeah , I could see that , unless you used your own lunch time to see someone and waited until they got back from breakfast it would be impossible if you had a day job.

onlyrp
02-04-2012, 06:08 PM
Seems fine to me if the employer and employee agree on it. I don't think many farm workers could take a 25% hit on their income.

There should be no government handouts (if that is what you are referring to). Handouts on a voluntary basis are fine in my opinion.

I have a lot of respect for growers. They work their ass off everyday. They take HUGE risks. They feed us. The growers I know are some of the last patriots left standing in my opinion. I haven't been to a lot of places, so that is just my limited view of the world. Some of the biggest Ron Paul supporters I know are growers. I have more respect for most of them than I have for myself right now :) I worked less than 2 hours a day average last year (no government assistance or un-employment though).

I will say this for working less hours: It gives you a lot of time to read the news and figure out the scam that the media has going right now. If you are working 40 hr/weeks, you don't have time to pay attention to the fact that your country is being decimated while you sleep.

i know there "shouldn't be" government handouts, but there are.

you're probably right that they can't afford a paycut, which is good if they're able to work as much as they need to.

onlyrp
02-04-2012, 06:09 PM
Try living here and getting anything done...

Their hours may be 9am-2pm, but they don't get to the office till 9:30, then from 11-11:30 they go for breakfast, and they're usually packed up, ready to go by 1:30pm. It's a disgrace.

ouch

Cowlesy
02-04-2012, 06:10 PM
Try living here and getting anything done...

Their hours may be 9am-2pm, but they don't get to the office till 9:30, then from 11-11:30 they go for breakfast, and they're usually packed up, ready to go by 1:30pm. It's a disgrace.

That's why no one wants to invest there anymore. But you still have Iberico Jamon, and that's all that matters.

eduardo89
02-04-2012, 06:14 PM
That's why no one wants to invest there anymore. But you still have Iberico Jamon, and that's all that matters.

Jamón ibérico isn't as good as jamón Serrano.

Another anecdote about Spanish civil servants: I've been waiting 10 months to correct a mistake on my daughter's birth certificate that I need fixed in order for me to be able to pass on my Mexican citizenship to her.

phill4paul
02-04-2012, 06:23 PM
and how does that help you? may I ask?

I chose only to do 'work' that is challenging to me. I generally don't consider 'work' as something I would rather not be doing. I was told in my tweens by someone I respect that if what if what you do to make a living becomes something that you loathe then look for something else. I have some friends that use to work 60 hrs a week in the restaurant business. After 10 yrs. in various aspects they started their own. They STILL work around 50 hrs. per week and would not trade what they do for the world. The difference is in the mindset. Are you working TOWARDS something or working to just exist?

liberty2897
02-04-2012, 06:29 PM
Are you working TOWARDS something or working to just exist?

+rep
I'm working towards something! I hope we all are on this forum. Freedom in 2012 or ???

rockerrockstar
02-04-2012, 09:57 PM
I chose only to do 'work' that is challenging to me. I generally don't consider 'work' as something I would rather not be doing. I was told in my tweens by someone I respect that if what if what you do to make a living becomes something that you loathe then look for something else. I have some friends that use to work 60 hrs a week in the restaurant business. After 10 yrs. in various aspects they started their own. They STILL work around 50 hrs. per week and would not trade what they do for the world. The difference is in the mindset. Are you working TOWARDS something or working to just exist?

There are plenty of things I could do out side of work that would be way more interesting to me than work. Work to live don't live to work. I would rather spend time with family and friends or with my hobbies then work so much. If my job was my hobby then maybe I could work more and be happy with it. My hobbies are more artistic and don't pay currently.

onlyrp
02-04-2012, 10:17 PM
I chose only to do 'work' that is challenging to me. I generally don't consider 'work' as something I would rather not be doing. I was told in my tweens by someone I respect that if what if what you do to make a living becomes something that you loathe then look for something else. I have some friends that use to work 60 hrs a week in the restaurant business. After 10 yrs. in various aspects they started their own. They STILL work around 50 hrs. per week and would not trade what they do for the world. The difference is in the mindset. Are you working TOWARDS something or working to just exist?

I am working for a reward, I don't hate it, especially knowing the alternatives are worse.

phill4paul
02-04-2012, 10:43 PM
There are plenty of things I could do out side of work that would be way more interesting to me than work. Work to live don't live to work. I would rather spend time with family and friends or with my hobbies then work so much. If my job was my hobby then maybe I could work more and be happy with it. My hobbies are more artistic and don't pay currently.

Don't differentiate between a 'job' and a 'hobby,' Artist are the true 'free market' in our society. I know many 'artists' in various stages on the ladder to being considered 'successful.' One just put in 14 hr days over the last three weeks while raising his daughters. He works for the local musem. He get's payed a salary (no overtime) and every time I've talked with him he absolutely glows about what it is he is doing. His dinosaur exhibit shows his craftsmanship. So if art is where you want to go then do so. For the 'artist' it is not so much the hours worked as it is the service rendered that creates joy. A mechanic can be an 'artist.'


I am working for a reward, I don't hate it, especially knowing the alternatives are worse.

Keep on keeping on!

PaleoForPaul
02-05-2012, 11:30 AM
Everyone says they like freedom but how can you be free if you have to work so much?

..snip..

"worker productivity has been on a steady increase, rising 62.5% from 1989 to 2010, but wages during that time are only up 12%."- http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201103/productivity-is-wages-are-down-what-s-0



At minimum we should look at the FLSA and remove all exemptions to the 40 hour work week that allow people to work overtime for free.

We should consider quality of life in America for the people of America. We work too much when will we get wise and improve our lives in America the land of the free and consider the 30 hour work week.

Interesting to see this posted on rpf. I have reflected upon this topic quite a bit. Your point on productivity is correct, but there are other factors depressing wages. Consider globalization, women in the workforce, more one parent households, and rising taxes which force retired people to work. Largely the capitalist class benefits from this (of which I am somewhat a part) but in the long term it is problematic as food stamps will not pacify the lower quartile of the population forever.

The free market solution would mean competition against third world countries, in a race to the bottom in working conditions and wages. The consitutional solution that our founding fathers would have embraced is a tarriff, but that is heresy to libertarians and unacceptable to the two parties in washington whose corporate masters demand access to slave labor and return the profits they make to politicians in the form of campaign contributions.

Watch
02-05-2012, 02:15 PM
Would we really be competing with third world countries on all levels?
Absolutely not.
In order to make that comparison one would have to assume we would be creating the same products, with the same access to the same resources etc..
But we're not.
Remove the regulations that burden the businesses, null the fed's control of interest rates, and the manufacturing of products can actually happen in America, and be profitable. There is no incentive to produce due to the aforementioned interventions.

Elwar
02-05-2012, 02:33 PM
Socialism does not work.

I would say that it is fine if you go and work 30 hours per week, that just makes me more marketable and makes any small business owner that much more likely to do better as they work 100+ hours per week.

But I do believe in the concept of all boats rising together. If we all work 100+ hours per week, think of how much more advanced we could become.

And the more advanced we become, the more we can work on things we enjoy as opposed to just trying to work to get by.

onlyrp
02-05-2012, 03:01 PM
Socialism does not work.

I would say that it is fine if you go and work 30 hours per week, that just makes me more marketable and makes any small business owner that much more likely to do better as they work 100+ hours per week.

But I do believe in the concept of all boats rising together. If we all work 100+ hours per week, think of how much more advanced we could become.

And the more advanced we become, the more we can work on things we enjoy as opposed to just trying to work to get by.

obviously there's only 2 choices, capitalism and socialism, so if socialism doesn't work, capital is fool proof by default.

Elwar
02-05-2012, 03:11 PM
obviously there's only 2 choices, capitalism and socialism, so if socialism doesn't work, capital is fool proof by default.

There are more than 2 choices. Communism, Fascism, anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, etc...

onlyrp
02-05-2012, 07:01 PM
There are more than 2 choices. Communism, Fascism, anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, etc...

ok good.

Icymudpuppy
02-05-2012, 08:48 PM
I work for myself. I often put in over 70 hours a week during busy season, but less than 20 during slow season. My employees are given tasks and go home when they've completed their daily assignments. I pay them a salary + commissions.

I love my job and don't consider it work at all really, except the figuring taxes and payroll deductions part. That is work, and decidedly unpleasant.

tttppp
02-05-2012, 09:08 PM
I work for myself. I often put in over 70 hours a week during busy season, but less than 20 during slow season. My employees are given tasks and go home when they've completed their daily assignments. I pay them a salary + commissions.

I love my job and don't consider it work at all really, except the figuring taxes and payroll deductions part. That is work, and decidedly unpleasant.

It sounds like you know how to manage people. Most business don't. They want their employees to be slaves for them and don't care about anything else. They don't care if employees get the job done, all they care about is wasting their employees time. It appears most companies' goals are simply to waste their employees time.

onlyrp
02-05-2012, 10:27 PM
It sounds like you know how to manage people. Most business don't. They want their employees to be slaves for them and don't care about anything else. They don't care if employees get the job done, all they care about is wasting their employees time. It appears most companies' goals are simply to waste their employees time.

if they can get away with it, making money and employees dont care, why should they care?

If they have unhappy employees or unhappy customers, they have to deal with it, otherwise, its not entirely wrong to look at only the end results. In the big picture, that's all that matters. What good is a bunch of happy customers and employees if you dont have money? Can happiness pay for living?

But no, most businesses DO NOT want to waste employees' time, at least any good ones I know do not. They want employees to work as little as possible if they're paid by time, and as much as possible if they're paid by result. They want employees to be healthy and reliable, not worn down to quit, unless they're easy to replace.

tttppp
02-05-2012, 11:27 PM
if they can get away with it, making money and employees dont care, why should they care?

If they have unhappy employees or unhappy customers, they have to deal with it, otherwise, its not entirely wrong to look at only the end results. In the big picture, that's all that matters. What good is a bunch of happy customers and employees if you dont have money? Can happiness pay for living?

But no, most businesses DO NOT want to waste employees' time, at least any good ones I know do not. They want employees to work as little as possible if they're paid by time, and as much as possible if they're paid by result. They want employees to be healthy and reliable, not worn down to quit, unless they're easy to replace.

If you work in a regulated industry with little to no competition, trust me, they want to waste your time. And they don't care if you are a better employee either. Whats more important to these companies is that you suck up to them.

Most companies have zero focus on results. They don't even know what results are. Its more important to them that you sit at your desk for 8-12 hours straight than it is to get results. And they don't have any concept of not wearing down employees either. They don't realize that when you work 12 hour days, your last four hours are not as productive as the first 8 usually.

Also, results are not necessarily tied to the amount of work you do. If you overwork people they are going to make mistakes and not realize it. Employees who have enough time to themselves to think, will generally do their work SMARTER than someone who is overworked. Companies don't realize this.

nemt4paul
02-05-2012, 11:39 PM
Everyone says they like freedom but how can you be free if you have to work so much? Anyone besides me want to work less hours? I can imagine how much better life would be if you did not have to work so many hours in order to just provide a basic living?

Most jobs that pay any decent amount require at least 40 hours a week. Imagine if you could get a good job and only be required to work 30 hours a week. That would be great. You would have more time to enjoy your freedom. More time to spend with family and friends. You would be healthier because you would not be strapped to a desk for 40 or more hours a week. Added benefit for you and the company is that if you have more free time you are bound to have more creativity. You would also have lower stress. You would have more time to be political and this would be good for democracy.

Studies have shown that sedentary life style the typical office worker has is known to be bad for you. It is a major cause of heart disease. It kills more people than smoking according to one study. It is talked about in this article http://www.naturalnews.com/001547.html Less time at work means less time setting at a desk. It would give you more time to be active and exercise. Even walking is better than sitting.

Productivity has gone way up but wages have not gone up at the same rate. The productivity has led to needing less people to do the same work and thus layoffs. Many companies layoff people and expect their remaining workers to do more work. This leads to burn out of the remaining workers and added stress. To top it off the workers don't get paid extra for the extra work they need to do because of the other workers getting laid off.

"worker productivity has been on a steady increase, rising 62.5% from 1989 to 2010, but wages during that time are only up 12%."- http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201103/productivity-is-wages-are-down-what-s-0

If productivity increases people should be allowed to do less work for the same amount of money. Since companies are know not to give workers compensation for their added productivity. Increased productivity leads to more unemployment we should demand 30 hour work week. This is the same principal that led France to the 35 work week. Make anything over 30 hours a week too expensive for companies to pay so they have to hire more workers.

Anyways, I know I am sure this is not a perfect idea and there could be issues with implementing it. I know the people in France like the 35 hour work week from what I have read.

At minimum we should look at the FLSA and remove all exemptions to the 40 hour work week that allow people to work overtime for free. It does not make since that companies should make workers work overtime for free. We tell our kids to go to college and get a degree to get a good job. I don't think working overtime for free was something they expected when they got their degree and job. Being a professional should not exempt you from getting overtime pay. I think we should remove all exemptions. Having exemptions makes not sense with a depression and this many people unemployed.

We should consider quality of life in America for the people of America. We work too much when will we get wise and improve our lives in America the land of the free and consider the 30 hour work week.

You're joking with this shit right? Who says you have to work 40 hours a week?

RickBelmont
02-05-2012, 11:40 PM
Everyone says they like freedom but how can you be free if you have to work so much? Anyone besides me want to work less hours? I can imagine how much better life would be if you did not have to work so many hours in order to just provide a basic living?

Most jobs that pay any decent amount require at least 40 hours a week. Imagine if you could get a good job and only be required to work 30 hours a week. That would be great. You would have more time to enjoy your freedom. More time to spend with family and friends. You would be healthier because you would not be strapped to a desk for 40 or more hours a week. Added benefit for you and the company is that if you have more free time you are bound to have more creativity. You would also have lower stress. You would have more time to be political and this would be good for democracy.

Studies have shown that sedentary life style the typical office worker has is known to be bad for you. It is a major cause of heart disease. It kills more people than smoking according to one study. It is talked about in this article http://www.naturalnews.com/001547.html Less time at work means less time setting at a desk. It would give you more time to be active and exercise. Even walking is better than sitting.

Productivity has gone way up but wages have not gone up at the same rate. The productivity has led to needing less people to do the same work and thus layoffs. Many companies layoff people and expect their remaining workers to do more work. This leads to burn out of the remaining workers and added stress. To top it off the workers don't get paid extra for the extra work they need to do because of the other workers getting laid off.

"worker productivity has been on a steady increase, rising 62.5% from 1989 to 2010, but wages during that time are only up 12%."- http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201103/productivity-is-wages-are-down-what-s-0

If productivity increases people should be allowed to do less work for the same amount of money. Since companies are know not to give workers compensation for their added productivity. Increased productivity leads to more unemployment we should demand 30 hour work week. This is the same principal that led France to the 35 work week. Make anything over 30 hours a week too expensive for companies to pay so they have to hire more workers.

Anyways, I know I am sure this is not a perfect idea and there could be issues with implementing it. I know the people in France like the 35 hour work week from what I have read.

At minimum we should look at the FLSA and remove all exemptions to the 40 hour work week that allow people to work overtime for free. It does not make since that companies should make workers work overtime for free. We tell our kids to go to college and get a degree to get a good job. I don't think working overtime for free was something they expected when they got their degree and job. Being a professional should not exempt you from getting overtime pay. I think we should remove all exemptions. Having exemptions makes not sense with a depression and this many people unemployed.

We should consider quality of life in America for the people of America. We work too much when will we get wise and improve our lives in America the land of the free and consider the 30 hour work week.

Can you please reconcile how you are a Libertarian or Ron Paul supporter while supporting authoritarian collectivism?

onlyrp
02-06-2012, 12:52 AM
You're joking with this shit right? Who says you have to work 40 hours a week?

his mom and his wife

onlyrp
02-06-2012, 12:53 AM
If you work in a regulated industry with little to no competition, trust me, they want to waste your time. And they don't care if you are a better employee either. Whats more important to these companies is that you suck up to them.

Most companies have zero focus on results. They don't even know what results are. Its more important to them that you sit at your desk for 8-12 hours straight than it is to get results. And they don't have any concept of not wearing down employees either. They don't realize that when you work 12 hour days, your last four hours are not as productive as the first 8 usually.

Also, results are not necessarily tied to the amount of work you do. If you overwork people they are going to make mistakes and not realize it. Employees who have enough time to themselves to think, will generally do their work SMARTER than someone who is overworked. Companies don't realize this.

what's an example? I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm very curious what you are talking about. ANd yes, you are right, if there's no competition, you might be an easy replaceable. You sound like you're referring to businesses where their employees have and require no skill, in which case yes, they're used as time wasters, but still they are paid for time most of the time. Suck ups are cheap, I'm still very interested in what you are talking about.

Vessol
02-06-2012, 12:54 AM
Work hours and salaries are market adjusted, nobody is forcing you to work, and nobody is forcing you to choose the lifestyle you have.

This. Don't use violence(the government) to fix something.

onlyrp
02-06-2012, 12:59 AM
This. Don't use violence(the government) to fix something.

People seem to often get stuck on

"I want $30K a year, because I need to buy this"
"I need a house, or else I can't be happy"
"How do you expect me to have a life if I don't have an SUV?"
"No, I won't work for minimum wage because I can't pay my bills"
"No, there's either $15 an hour, or there is volunteer slave work, there is no in between"
They forget that if we gave people the dollars they need for what they want to buy, prices will go right up.
If you know what you need, work for it.
You make your choices, and deal with it.
People who are picky on how much hours they work, how far they travel, how much they are paid still live in pre-recession luxury world, and unemployment benefits arent going to last forever.

I'm not against using government to fix a problem if it's actually a problem that CAN be solved that way, practically and morally, but this isnt one of them.

dannno
02-06-2012, 01:07 AM
You sleep 8 hours a night on average, and work an addition 8 hours. That leaves a good 8 hours still at home. If that isn't enough time to excercise than cutting a few hours off of work isn't going to make you lose weight and get in shape

Ya but some people prefer 9 hours for a full sleep, that would leave them with 7 hours.

Most people have an our lunch break, which leaves those people with 6 hours outside of work. Getting ready for work and driving back and forth is probably about an hour on average, and longer for some people. That leaves some people with 5 hours. Then eating usually takes about an hour, especially if you are doing anything to prepare food.. Take an additional hour to prepare a nice meal or two, bam, you're down to 3 HOURS!! It's like to be able to relax and veg out, listen to some music, plus maybe you have to go to a store and get stuff..

I dunno, I feel what the OP is saying. I would really love to cut my hours, and also work the hours that I want to work on any given day. I think I could get about the same amount of work done pretty much because I'd be more focused at work. Unfortunately the laws in this country force companies to structure their employment certain ways, it's tough to be in a position where you can work less.

Ultimately I think the answer is to OWN YOUR OWN BUSINESS.. Unfortunately we have a very unfriendly business environment with all of the regulations these days.

onlyrp
02-06-2012, 01:16 AM
Ya but some people prefer 9 hours for a full sleep, that would leave them with 7 hours.

Most people have an our lunch break, which leaves those people with 6 hours outside of work. Getting ready for work and driving back and forth is probably about an hour on average, and longer for some people. That leaves some people with 5 hours. Then eating usually takes about an hour, especially if you are doing anything to prepare food.. Take an additional hour to prepare a nice meal or two, bam, you're down to 3 HOURS!! It's like to be able to relax and veg out, listen to some music, plus maybe you have to go to a store and get stuff..

I dunno, I feel what the OP is saying. I would really love to cut my hours, and also work the hours that I want to work on any given day. I think I could get about the same amount of work done pretty much because I'd be more focused at work. Unfortunately the laws in this country force companies to structure their employment certain ways, it's tough to be in a position where you can work less.

Ultimately I think the answer is to OWN YOUR OWN BUSINESS.. Unfortunately we have a very unfriendly business environment with all of the regulations these days.

I am totally with you. Depending on how close you are to your employer, sometimes it can be negotiated.

In some instances, I simply said to my boss "Hey, how about I work 2 extra hours each day, and take Friday off? I promise I won't ask for overtime"
Not every business can afford it, but those that can, benefit nicely.
I didn't always cut my hours, but I made adjustments that helped everybody. I never got caught up on counting hours, I just made sure I was paid fairly, on time ,and my employer is satisfied with my results.

tttppp
02-06-2012, 01:42 AM
what's an example? I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm very curious what you are talking about. ANd yes, you are right, if there's no competition, you might be an easy replaceable. You sound like you're referring to businesses where their employees have and require no skill, in which case yes, they're used as time wasters, but still they are paid for time most of the time. Suck ups are cheap, I'm still very interested in what you are talking about.

I worked as an auditor for a big accounting firm, then later a regional accounting firm. As an auditor your job is simply to follow rules. There's very little room for innovation in an auditing firm. Not to mention they bill their customers by the hour. So if you screw up and waste time, you end up making more money for the company. This is why employees get by on sucking up. Managers don't care about results or how to improve their process, so kiss asses move ahead.

This profession requires a lot of education by rule, but yes it does require little skill. Most auditors are idiots, and thats ok because the work is so pointless anyone off the street can do it.

One example I can use of them wasting our time is almost everyday at work around 5:30 I'd have all my work done and my boss would have no more work for me. But my boss would insist on me staying at work with him for 2-3 more hours just to hold his hand. In the big 4 accounting world, this goes on all the time. Even during the slow season, almost everyone puts in extra hours just for the hell of it.

Its important to note, because of regulations, most industries are like this. The technology industry is the only one I can think of where there are few regulations and where innovation can get you ahead. But even in that industry there's reports of companies like Apple opening sweat shops and working people to death. In reality there are very few companies that create a comfortable work atmosphere that focuses on results.

onlyrp
02-06-2012, 01:54 AM
I worked as an auditor for a big accounting firm, then later a regional accounting firm. As an auditor your job is simply to follow rules. There's very little room for innovation in an auditing firm. Not to mention they bill their customers by the hour. So if you screw up and waste time, you end up making more money for the company. This is why employees get by on sucking up. Managers don't care about results or how to improve their process, so kiss asses move ahead.

This profession requires a lot of education by rule, but yes it does require little skill. Most auditors are idiots, and thats ok because the work is so pointless anyone off the street can do it.

One example I can use of them wasting our time is almost everyday at work around 5:30 I'd have all my work done and my boss would have no more work for me. But my boss would insist on me staying at work with him for 2-3 more hours just to hold his hand. In the big 4 accounting world, this goes on all the time. Even during the slow season, almost everyone puts in extra hours just for the hell of it.

Well, I hope some smarter business knows better and bills cheaper. Like you said, there may be less competition.

Thanks for giving me an example

PaleoForPaul
02-06-2012, 07:57 AM
Remove the regulations that burden the businesses, null the fed's control of interest rates, and the manufacturing of products can actually happen in America, and be profitable. There is no incentive to produce due to the aforementioned interventions.

There would still be more incentive to produce overseas. Even if you can remove all worker and environmental protections then you have to offset the fact that foreign governments
Are willing to pay for businesses to produce in their
Country. For instance the Chinese government will often pay to build a manufacturing facility for big companies, and they will build a barracks to house the workers on site. Chinese workers will live where they work and do 10 hour shifts.

The only solution is to compete using the same tools (ie an authoritarian govt with little to no workers rights) Which is a race to the bottom. Or you can just have a tariff, like our founding fathers favored.

xFiFtyOnE
02-06-2012, 08:29 AM
People seem to often get stuck on

"I want $30K a year, because I need to buy this"
"I need a house, or else I can't be happy"
"How do you expect me to have a life if I don't have an SUV?"
"No, I won't work for minimum wage because I can't pay my bills"
"No, there's either $15 an hour, or there is volunteer slave work, there is no in between"
They forget that if we gave people the dollars they need for what they want to buy, prices will go right up.
If you know what you need, work for it.
You make your choices, and deal with it.
People who are picky on how much hours they work, how far they travel, how much they are paid still live in pre-recession luxury world, and unemployment benefits arent going to last forever.

I'm not against using government to fix a problem if it's actually a problem that CAN be solved that way, practically and morally, but this isnt one of them.

Whos goal is it to get a job payin $30k a year? 30k doesn't fly when you have kids and a mortgage. Trust me.

Travlyr
02-06-2012, 08:48 AM
A lot of people don't work for income at all and are quite wealthy. A lot more people work at meaningless tasks and make millions. The slaves work 40 hour weeks some for peanuts, others get cashews, and still others get macadamias.

If you wish to work less than 40 hours per week and be very successful in life, then you must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is more compatible with individual prosperity.

Icymudpuppy
02-06-2012, 09:46 AM
It sounds like you know how to manage people. Most business don't. They want their employees to be slaves for them and don't care about anything else. They don't care if employees get the job done, all they care about is wasting their employees time. It appears most companies' goals are simply to waste their employees time.

I just have a business that makes it easy.

Of course I have to hire responsible people. I get a ton of applications everytime I have an opening, but usually only 1% are worth an interview, and only 10% of interviewees are worth training, and only 50% make it through training.

I do wildlife pest control. My employees keep their service truck and equipment at their own house. I send them jobs through microsoft outlook directly to their company blackberry calendars with the time the client made an appointment for. They leave directly from their house to the client's. Once a week they send their paperwork to my office for processing. I see them at least once a month for group training, and sometimes more often if they need special order supplies that I keep stocked.

If they are running ahead of schedule on any given day, they are welcome to call their clients directly and get them bumped up so they can finish early. We usually have long days in the spring when things are busy, and very short days in the winter when things are slow. Summer and fall are pretty average.

Obviously my employees have a lot of autonomy, and so I can't have people that need a foreman to stay on task. They work alone, and are expected to work to standard. If I get a customer complaining about the quality of workmanship, and I go out and inspect the work to find it below the standards they were trained on, they will lose all commissions on that job. The second time it happens, they'll lose their job. Failing to meet clients at the appointed times will also get them canned if it is a regular occurrence. Calling a client if you are running behind because of traffic and letting them know you'll be a little late relieves this concern.

oyarde
02-06-2012, 11:13 AM
I work for myself. I often put in over 70 hours a week during busy season, but less than 20 during slow season. My employees are given tasks and go home when they've completed their daily assignments. I pay them a salary + commissions.

I love my job and don't consider it work at all really, except the figuring taxes and payroll deductions part. That is work, and decidedly unpleasant. Most guys dump the tedious part of bookeeping off on the wife :)

oyarde
02-06-2012, 11:17 AM
Whos goal is it to get a job payin $30k a year? 30k doesn't fly when you have kids and a mortgage. Trust me. Probably better shoot for at least 50k ;) , depends on where you live though , in a major city you would need more....

Czolgosz
02-06-2012, 11:43 AM
I can work a 6 month contract and be completely fine to take the other 6 months off. Sometimes the contract is longer or shorter. For me, the key is to stay rather liquid.

If I could find something that pays as well but would allow me to work 20 hours a week, 12 months a year, I'd take it.

Brian4Liberty
02-06-2012, 12:00 PM
Productivity has gone way up but wages have not gone up at the same rate. The productivity has led to needing less people to do the same work and thus layoffs.
...
Anyways, I know I am sure this is not a perfect idea and there could be issues with implementing it.


30 hours is just as arbitrary as 40.


The 40hr week turning into 60-70 is another problem.

I agree with your sentiments in the OP. The 40 hour workweek is completely arbitrary. With massive increases in productivity, the standard amount each person has to work per week to sustain an average living should have decreased. Instead it has gone the other direction, with double income households often required to bring home the same buying power (of constantly devaluing Federal Reserve dollars).

The solution is the tricky part. Why do we have a 40 hour work week in the US? How many laws and regulations are in place that enforce that arbitrary number? Maybe we should first work on removing those laws. And how many Union agreements have mandated a 8x5 workweek? Can those be changed? To use an over-used cliche, it takes a paradigm shift in society.

The second issue is how much value can you get for your time or labor? Once again, that is a somewhat arbitrary number. (Let's take it for granted that any number you negotiate today will be degraded over time by the Federal Reserve's monetary inflation.) We should apply the most basic of economic laws when considering this: supply and demand. When supply exceeds demand, value decreases. When demand exceeds supply, value increases. The latter is the most ideal situation. That is a vibrant, expanding economy.

While we may all agree that government should not be involved in these processes, the government has and will continue it's interference in the market. All we can do is constantly work to minimize it. It's at this point where I will mention that Alan Greenspan eventually confided that in his economic manipulations he encouraged massive increases in the labor supply to reduce wage inflation (and the value of labor), which conveniently offset monetary inflation. This allowed government deficit spending and monetary inflation to occur, while hiding it with deflating labor value (which kept the "total" inflation number low).

tttppp
02-06-2012, 02:37 PM
I just have a business that makes it easy.

Of course I have to hire responsible people. I get a ton of applications everytime I have an opening, but usually only 1% are worth an interview, and only 10% of interviewees are worth training, and only 50% make it through training.

I do wildlife pest control. My employees keep their service truck and equipment at their own house. I send them jobs through microsoft outlook directly to their company blackberry calendars with the time the client made an appointment for. They leave directly from their house to the client's. Once a week they send their paperwork to my office for processing. I see them at least once a month for group training, and sometimes more often if they need special order supplies that I keep stocked.

If they are running ahead of schedule on any given day, they are welcome to call their clients directly and get them bumped up so they can finish early. We usually have long days in the spring when things are busy, and very short days in the winter when things are slow. Summer and fall are pretty average.

Obviously my employees have a lot of autonomy, and so I can't have people that need a foreman to stay on task. They work alone, and are expected to work to standard. If I get a customer complaining about the quality of workmanship, and I go out and inspect the work to find it below the standards they were trained on, they will lose all commissions on that job. The second time it happens, they'll lose their job. Failing to meet clients at the appointed times will also get them canned if it is a regular occurrence. Calling a client if you are running behind because of traffic and letting them know you'll be a little late relieves this concern.

Too bad the cable companies can't run their companies like that. Being late and screwing up is a common occurrence for them.

tttppp
02-06-2012, 02:38 PM
Whos goal is it to get a job payin $30k a year? 30k doesn't fly when you have kids and a mortgage. Trust me.

When I got my first job out of school, I made $50,000 a year and I still couldn't even afford a place of my own.

heavenlyboy34
02-06-2012, 02:53 PM
I would think that in this economy, people should just be happy to have a job.
I would if I had one. :(

Travlyr
02-06-2012, 03:15 PM
Everybody who wants a job would have a job if sound money was the order of the day. Sure, some jobs would be better than others, but there is a lot of work that goes undone because your overlords say, "No."

That's what Ron Paul means when he says, "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity."

There is no shortage of food. There is no shortage of money. There is no shortage of work. Shortages are all man-made. The world is abundant.

Work diligently for honest sound money. Understand it. Work for it. "Gold, Peace, and Prosperity (http://mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf)" by Ron Paul

nbhadja
02-06-2012, 04:54 PM
Agree with the OP. Life is about fun, not wasting it away being some slave to a corporation just so you can get stupid useless material items.

If we got rid of the Fed and the wars we would have a lot more wealth and it would be pretty easy to live on 30 hours of work a week. In this current system of endless bills for the wars and bailouts it is impossible to do that.

Anyone thinking that the market has set the current work hour rates is clueless. The corporations, banks write the laws and we are all their slaves.

If we got rid of the corporatist status quo, the fed, the wars then you could pretty work as low as you want. I would work a max of 30 hours a week. I'd make less money sure, but I don't give a damn about money and material items. Give me free time, nature, family, love.

onlyrp
02-06-2012, 05:38 PM
Whos goal is it to get a job payin $30k a year? 30k doesn't fly when you have kids and a mortgage. Trust me.

I knew somebody would miss the point. Having a kid and mortgage is a lifestyle choice you make, I understand $30k isnt enough if you have those, which is why you secure your income BEFORE you decide to have such expenses . Not choose your debts and then ask for means.

onlyrp
02-06-2012, 05:40 PM
Too bad the cable companies can't run their companies like that. Being late and screwing up is a common occurrence for them.

and they get mad at you for asking about it. as if you owe THEM something

onlyrp
02-06-2012, 05:42 PM
When I got my first job out of school, I made $50,000 a year and I still couldn't even afford a place of my own.

Really?
What was your post tax net income?
What did it cost to get your own place? (do you just mean move out of parents' house or actually buy a house?)
Unless you're in upper manhattan, why wouldn't $4,000 a month be enough?

tttppp
02-06-2012, 05:51 PM
Really?
What was your post tax net income?
What did it cost to get your own place? (do you just mean move out of parents' house or actually buy a house?)
Unless you're in upper manhattan, why wouldn't $4,000 a month be enough?

I don't remember what my net income was. This was a while ago.

At the time I was working in Stamford, Connecticut. Their prices are high mainly because its close to New York. I could technically get my own apartment, but it would have been really crappy. Not to mention I would save up no money after all my expenses were paid. That was not worth it. If I was going to spend all my money to move out of my parents house, I would only do it if I could move into a respectable place.

At the time I talked to people at the same company from North Carolina who made the same as me, and they were all able to afford their own houses.

Connecticut is one of the shittiest places. Its incredibly expensive, salaries are not higher than the cheaper states, and there is nothing to do here. Not to mention its a dump.

tttppp
02-06-2012, 05:51 PM
Really?
What was your post tax net income?
What did it cost to get your own place? (do you just mean move out of parents' house or actually buy a house?)
Unless you're in upper manhattan, why wouldn't $4,000 a month be enough?

I don't remember what my net income was. This was a while ago.

At the time I was working in Stamford, Connecticut. Their prices are high mainly because its close to New York. I could technically get my own apartment, but it would have been really crappy. Not to mention I would save up no money after all my expenses were paid. That was not worth it. If I was going to spend all my money to move out of my parents house, I would only do it if I could move into a respectable place.

At the time I talked to people at the same company from North Carolina who made the same as me, and they were all able to afford their own houses.

Connecticut is one of the shittiest places. Its incredibly expensive, salaries are not higher than the cheaper states, and there is nothing to do here. Not to mention its a dump.

onlyrp
02-06-2012, 05:56 PM
I don't remember what my net income was. This was a while ago.

At the time I was working in Stamford, Connecticut. Their prices are high mainly because its close to New York. I could technically get my own apartment, but it would have been really crappy. Not to mention I would save up no money after all my expenses were paid. That was not worth it. If I was going to spend all my money to move out of my parents house, I would only do it if I could move into a respectable place.

At the time I talked to people at the same company from North Carolina who made the same as me, and they were all able to afford their own houses.

Connecticut is one of the shittiest places. Its incredibly expensive, salaries are not higher than the cheaper states, and there is nothing to do here. Not to mention its a dump.

Ok, so it's not impossible, just not worthy. I'm glad you made the better choice of saving.

camp_steveo
02-06-2012, 06:07 PM
I worked 85 hours one week this summer, and averaged 70. Now I am getting around 50 a week.

JVParkour
02-06-2012, 06:21 PM
I don't understand how i've read pages of this conversation and no one has mentioned basic economics. People make decisions based on their perceived self-interest. This changes from person to person, and this is one of the reasons why supply and demand curves move like they do. If it is in a persons perceived self-interest to work more and make more money, then they will do it. If it is in their interest to work less and make less, they will do that. All government regulation does is set up barriers that make this decisions more momentous. For example, an employer would have been able to hire a worker for 5$ an hour if it was in the employer and the employees self-interest. When the government erects a barrier, ie minimum wage, it makes the decision harder because an unnatural barrier is placed in the way, ie having to pay the worker $7.25.

It really just comes down to self-interest and choice.

axiomata
02-06-2012, 07:19 PM
I work 38.75 hours per week standard. Half day Friday.

Want to work less? Invent a machine or program a computer to do your job more efficiently (and don't tell anyone else how to run it.)

tttppp
02-06-2012, 07:49 PM
I work 38.75 hours per week standard. Half day Friday.

Want to work less? Invent a machine or program a computer to do your job more efficiently (and don't tell anyone else how to run it.)

Most employers don't care about your productivity. Thats the point. They only want to make sure you are busy for 40 or more hours a week. If you created a program to do your job efficiently, your employer would still make you work full time and they would get all the benefits.

AZKing
02-06-2012, 08:14 PM
Most employers don't care about your productivity. Thats the point. They only want to make sure you are busy for 40 or more hours a week. If you created a program to do your job efficiently, your employer would still make you work full time and they would get all the benefits.

Indeed, when I worked I HAD to work 40 hours a week, even if one of the days in a week was a federal holiday.

I've been working for myself for several years now, but I usually work an average of 40-50 hrs a week over the full 7 days, by choice though. I could easily hire someone and reduce my hours to 10-20 over the week (I already employ 2 people, though).

Icymudpuppy
02-06-2012, 10:12 PM
Most guys dump the tedious part of bookeeping off on the wife :)

If my wife had any computer or math skills, that might be a good idea. Sadly, the Philippines public education system makes ours look down right Ivy league.

onlyrp
02-06-2012, 10:21 PM
If my wife had any computer or math skills, that might be a good idea. Sadly, the Philippines public education system makes ours look down right Ivy league.

oh really? I thought the US has the worst education system and actually dumbs down people...

Icymudpuppy
02-06-2012, 11:18 PM
oh really? I thought the US has the worst education system and actually dumbs down people...

Not my experience. There may be some poorer schools, but I actually received a very good education at my local public school district. Indeed, in my area, the public school graduates consistently perform better than the Adventist, Catholic, and Pentecostal private school graduates in the same area.

Vessol
02-07-2012, 12:04 AM
I work an average of 45-50 hours a week and my schedule is wacky as hell too. All in the same week I'll sometimes work nights, sometimes I work the graveyard/early morning shift, sometimes the day shift. Sometimes I work 14 days in a row, sometimes I'm lucky to get 2 days in a row off. Sometimes I have to be at work 6 hours after I get off. All for the grand sum of 8.25$ an hour, or roughly 15,000$ a year. Ah, the life of a gas station assistant manager. I tried going to school fulltime while working fulltime, and I couldn't. And as homework doesn't really pay the bills, I had to choose between one or the other. It's soul sucking and I hate every part of it to be honest.

I understand the OP's sentiment, but I'm glad that a lot of people here chimed in on why the modern Federal Reserve system really fucks it all up.

oyarde
02-07-2012, 11:55 AM
I would if I had one. :( Still nothing ?

oyarde
02-07-2012, 11:56 AM
I know it would be a really crappy time to be looking in my area , the competition would be stiff ....

oyarde
02-07-2012, 11:57 AM
Unless you can assemble widgets , 7 days a week for ten bucks an hour on night shift and be ok with that.

Mogambo Guru
02-08-2012, 07:40 PM
Living in 1900 was a better standard of living than 1800? Ok, we get that.
What about 2000 compared to 1900?

Of course it is better... but you conveniently left out the next sentence in my post. "while working less hours"(roughly about 40% less) & also while absorbing the rapid increase of our population via immigration during that time. Now to enjoy that increased standard of living, we need to have two working parents, and just about a lifetime of debt.... when our increased productivity should have provided the increase in living standards, not all the increased hours we now have to work to obtain that standard.



http://www.preservenet.com/endgrowth/013-USWorkHours.gif

http://one-simple-idea.com/InflationHistory1800-2003.gif

onlyrp
02-08-2012, 08:47 PM
Of course it is better... but you conveniently left out the next sentence in my post. "while working less hours"(roughly about 40% less) & also while absorbing the rapid increase of our population via immigration during that time. Now to enjoy that increased standard of living, we need to have two working parents, and just about a lifetime of debt....

then answer this for me. If we wanted to enjoy the non-increased standard of living, that is to say, the standard of 1900 or 1950, would we need to have 2 working parents and a lifetime of debt?

Mogambo Guru
02-10-2012, 04:36 PM
no, we wouldnt. That is not the point... the point is before, they made all the gains in their standard of living while working less. They worked less, and got more because of the increased productivity and efficiency.

What are you missing.. Pre 1900, less hours and increased standard of living. Now increasing hours and debt, with standard of living increase... we shouldnt need both working parents and all that debt, just to have the benefits of an increased living standard.

The discussion is definitely bigger and more complex, but the heart of the issue is at our monetary system.

onlyrp
02-10-2012, 04:46 PM
no, we wouldnt. That is not the point...


oh, really? LOL



the point is before, they made all the gains in their standard of living while working less. They worked less, and got more because of the increased productivity and efficiency.


why do you assume technology and reduction of labor always happen at the same rate? Do you understand that if it doesn't, the argument is completely pointless?

Did you know that in year 1200, 1400, 1700, the fastest way to travel was by horse?
Did you know that in year 1900, the fastest way to travel is by automobile?
Did you know that in 2000, the fastest way was either plane or maglift?
Did you know that in 2500, we still can't exceed the speed of light?



What are you missing.. Pre 1900, less hours and increased standard of living. Now increasing hours and debt, with standard of living increase... we shouldnt need both working parents and all that debt, just to have the benefits of an increased living standard.

The discussion is definitely bigger and more complex, but the heart of the issue is at our monetary system.

so we shouldn't need a million dollars for everybody to get a personal jet plane, that's just absurd and slavery. Just because jet planes make lives better doesn't mean we have to go into a million dollars of debt just to have that increase standard....forget that you have choice bro! No, the issue is NOT our monetary system, its your choices.

Nobody is forcing you to live 2000 lifestyle, or have a jet plane. You are free to live 1900 or 1950 lifestyle, and you'll save tons of money.You admitted, that IF we wanted to live 1950 or earlier lifestyle today, we'd not need increased debt or work, so that's HARDLY the monetary system to blame.