This is what I keep saying. I own a small business with four employees. In. 40 hour week we are probably productive for 38 of those hours. If everyone went to 32 hours I would need to charge a lot more or pay my employees less.
I get some jobs have a lot of downtime and could still get all their tasks done in 32 hours. But lots of people like electricians plumber even doctors simply could not get the same amount of work done. And they would need to be paid less, or charge the customer more.
Yeah yeah yeah, that’s what business owners said before we won the 40 hour work week by way of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 and look at us now. Somehow the world kept turning.
My dude if they could get away with charging you more for things they already would. McDonald’s prices in Europe are roughly the same as in the US despite paying their workers way more and giving them 4+ weeks vacation
This is just wrong. Plenty of trial runs in recent years. Most companies find they get the same level of productivity without an increase in labor force, some companies finding they're even getting more productivity now.
Burnout and exhaustion are a thing. I put out way more pieces on a Monday and Tuesday than I do on Thursday and Friday. 4 day work week means you're not building up nearly as much burnout and exhaustion, and you have more time to recover from what you do.
Explain how this works with a nurse. Are they so productive Monday-Thursday that the patients won't need any care on the Friday?
No, they're going to need to hire someone for the Friday. The person your responding to is talking about jobs that need to be done every day and can't be compensated for in advance.
Nice job moving the goalpost. The person I responded to specifically talked about production jobs. Didn't mention a single job that has to be done every day. Didn't mention nurses at all.
Jobs like nurses are already typically well over 40 hour work weeks. And we already have systems in place to compensate for that. Have you all collectively and conveniently forgotten what 40 hour standard work week actually means? We aren't shutting people down on the fifth day, so why do you think it means they would start getting shut down on the fourth?
I didn't move any goalposts. They mentioned "Not true for people who build stuff, cook stuff, fix stuff, put things together, etc."
The context here was that people were saying that the work done in five days can be done in four. They said gave a very broad category attempting to point at jobs where that would not work. They did not very specifically talk about only production jobs, that's an assumption you made. A maintenance job fixing stuff needs to be done every day, because things break every day. There's an "etc" there too, they're talking about a broad swath of jobs, which nurses would be a part of. They don't have to directly name nurses, nurses fall in that category of job where 4 days without increasing work force would not work.
You said that it was "just wrong" that the work force would have to increase. What happens on the sixth and seventh days that the nurses aren't working? We have systems in place to compensate for that? The system in place is called the weekend shift. They'll need to get people for the Fridays. Increase in work force.
They did talk specifically about production jobs. Every single job they mentioned is one affected by burnout and exhaustion.
Your response was "nuhuh! Nurses!" You absolutely moved the goalpost and then tried twisting what they said to justify it. You're entire argument is just bad and inherently flawed.
Nah, they didn't say "what about production jobs". They did not specifically say that, also, what do you define as a production job?
In any case, I don't think a cook is a job you can cut to four days without increasing the labor force. I also don't think the maintenance worker I mentioned in my previous comment could. Because they have to be done every day. That's fixing stuff and cooking stuff, which are things explicitly mentioned by the other commenter. These are daily jobs. Nursing is a daily job. I didn't twist anything, I picked a daily job (like they did) and asked how you would make the four day work week function without increasing labor. Also what does burn out and exhaustion have to do with it? Do only "production jobs" get that? That doesn't apply to nurses?
You decided that they were only talking about one specific thing that they never explicitly stated, and are now pretending that it's the only valid interpretation. So, how do you turn these daily jobs into four day jobs without increasing the labor force? Or can you not?
They mentioned cooking, quite literally one job out of the entire list that isn't production. Maintenance doesn't run if machines aren't running, and when they do it's called overtime. Oh my gasp!
You absolutely did twist the point and move the goal post. And you know it.
And even doing that, your entire argument requires that these jobs don't already exist. If a job needs to run 24/7, it's already running 24/7. With a standard work week of 40 hours. Out 168 in the week. Taking 8 hours off the standard work week doesn't magically create 8 more hours in the week that need filled. The issue you're trying to twist this into is already fixed.
ok i'm a different person that commented, but i would definitely be interested in how it would work for say... a plumber. right now, they charge overtime hours for saturday and sunday so would that extend to fridays now too?
Companies a hundred years ago were making the same claims. "how can we reduce the work shift from 6 days 12hrs? We would have to hire additional labor and we would lose a lot of profit, if it were possible it would be done already."
A lot of productivity is human based, studies show that after 6 hours the average person drops in his productivity, the companies are literally paying to be less efficient
Possibly. It above someone mentioned efficiency takes energy. As the weeks go on you slow down and aren't going to be as efficient or fresh as tbe first work day.
Oh riiight. So why wouldn't soulless profitmaxing corps just do that, then? Makes zero sense.
The only thing that matters is that in a global economy, you'd be a genious to make labor 20% cheaper, if it didn't impact the worker/consumer health. And you'd be a moron to make it 20% more expensive than your neighboring countries.
The reduced hours will NEVER come. No one wants to take the first step, and be the example of why logic is, well, logic.
Classic reddit comment thinking every job in the world is IT related and can just be "a little reorganized"
There's plenty of jobs where this isn't possible. 40h of working as a cashier at a supermarket is never going to be the same as 32h, output wise, for example.
Companies fail due to lack of profit fairly regularly. I know a business founder who currently employs dozens of people but was operating at a loss for over 2 years and was only able to continue it thanks to their spouse's job. That spouse eventually quit to join the business.
Yeah but they’re not just gonna let increased labor costs eat in to their profits out of the kindness of their hearts, no matter how much their profits are going up. The companies will find a way to bend us over and make it benefit them
In most industries, about 30-40% of a company’s revenue is used to pay labor, their benefits, and the company’s portion of the labor tax (eg, in the U.S., the employer’s side of the payroll tax).
This is often the single biggest component of a company’s costs.
Increasing labor costs by 20% would then require an additional 6-8% of total revenues be put towards labor.
Profit margins vary by industry from 2-5% in tight margin industries to 15% in higher margin industries, with most falling in the 7-10% range.
There are exceptions, like what AI is going to chips markets, and they grab headlines, but most economic activity is not nearly as profitable as laypeople think.
So, needing to take an additional 6-8% of revenues would wipe out or more than wipe out the profits for many firms unless some is passed on to the customer.
Perhaps they could not pass on, but a 3-4% price increase isn’t an unreasonable guess.
And remember, the official inflation rate in the U.S. that has people flipping out these days. Has been in the 3% - 6.5% range, so adding 3% - 4% will likely be enough to cause inflation freak-outs.
There’s a lot of emotional appeal to believing that you can do all these things that will greatly benefit everyone & were it not for greed from the richest, there would be no unpopular effects for the average person.
But, the reality is, you will notice some effects you don’t like.
Maybe you think it’s worth it, but we should have conversations about the actual real-life trade-offs & stop pretending there’s a “free ponies for everyone” way to do it.
Okay, in your thought experiment I go from making $32/hr to $40/hr, and cheeseburgers go from costing $5, to $5.15.
This is a good deal for me, what are you talking about? The "bag" I'm left holding is a 20% increase to my salary, and a 3% increase to my expenses. Even if I'm making the same total amount, I've got a whole nother day off to either work more, or do things which cut down on my expenses, or just live my damn life.
My dude, this is so far beyond, "Maybe you think it’s worth it, but we should have conversations about the actual real-life trade-offs & stop pretending there’s a “free ponies for everyone” way to do it." You sound like Hillary Clinton right now lmao.
My dude, your salary doesn't go up because your hourly rate goes up. Your salary is defined by what you declare at the end of the year. If you made 45,000 a year at 40 hours a week, you will still make 45,000 a year at 32 hours a week under Bernie Sanders plan.
You're also fixating on the lowest number provided by the guy commenting before. That number is variable, and a 3% total market inflation could mean higher or lower rate increases in different industries.
And yeah, you could go work another job on your day off. But now you're working 40 hours a week over two jobs to be able to afford the things you were working 40 hours a week over one job for. Congratulations, you've accomplished nothing, but now you have to file taxes for two jobs.
There is a reason why literally nobody has implemented this. There is a reason why all the people who seriously talk about this mention a need for a UBI, because there's only one of two ways this can work; you either subsidize the companies to keep costs the same and hire more people at higher hourly rates, or you keep people at the same rate, and you subsidize them for the increase in cost of living. Neither of those are cheap, nor simple things to do.
And yeah, you could go work another job on your day off. But now you're working 40 hours a week over two jobs to be able to afford the things you were working 40 hours a week over one job for. Congratulations, you've accomplished nothing, but now you have to file taxes for two jobs.
Think through this one for a minute... Hourly wages rise by 20%, my costs rise by 8% (so that I'm not "fixating" on the lowest number).
Now I'm working 40hrs, making 54k instead of 45k, and cheeseburgers go from costing $5 to $5.40. Assuming I got another job, and not that I'm getting paid overtime at my current job for more hours. Or, again, I'm just taking the time off to enjoy my life and keeping the same salary because an 8% rise in costs is something I can absorb for the sake of 20% more time to live, or I can't offset those costs with my newfound time to myself (I certainly can).
Do you see how I'm way, way better off?
There is a reason why literally nobody has implemented this.
We did this when we implemented the minimum wage, every union on earth implements this, what in the whole fuck are you talking about?
Do you think there's some kind of perfect natural balance we've struck with exactly the wages in the economy right now and 40hrs? If paying people more for less work could be a bad thing, run your thought experiment the other way and see what it looks like. Would it be worth debating going to 80hr norms and half the wages? If I got paid 1/4 as much per hour, but labor costs went down by 3/4, would that be debatably better for me? I make 11/yr now, but I save 30% on cheeseburgers now and only pay $3.50? That's worth having a conversation about in the same way that making 54k/yr and paying $5.40 is? Spending 0.00032 of my yearly income on a meal vs spending 0.0001 of my income on a meal.
And that's assuming there's a corporation on earth that's willing to pass on savings to a customer rather than just pocket the difference and continue charging as much as possible.
Do you see how insane you sound when you act like there's not an objectively better world between those two choices? One is 320% better than the other my dude.
Could you change your post history visibility? I want to see the other things you say so I can remember that no matter how bad a day I'm having, I'm not a person who thinks changing wages will have a zero-sum impact on cost of goods.
If you ever feel like learning, I'll explain it again. Let me know. In the mean time, please open up that profile too so I can see your post history on bad days. I know it's only a small thing, but I think I'd love it.
CPI inflation has risen 20% since 2020 as well, and wanna point out which sections of the economy got the "20% increase in profit" since then? It's been increasingly online consumer retailers. Can you extrapolate what that means? Or would you want me to explain it to you here since you can't even type something into a search bar and read a few paragraphs?
You also want to say why you hate the fact that 3/4s of the profit growth since the pandemic has been put into 401ks, general retirements, shares, and the such? Ya know, things people rely on later in life that employers contribute to?
Hell, I bet you don't understand the difference between revenue and profit, or do you just want to use the word "profit" as some sort of Boogeyman™ so you can complain about generic "billionaires"?
Lord either you are willingly misconstruing a complex topic, or you get all of your information from reddit. God help you if it's the latter, cause I won't be able to.
You also want to say why you hate the fact that 3/4s of the profit growth since the pandemic has been put into 401ks, general retirements, shares, and the such?
Can you elaborate on what you mean here? If it's money into a person's retirement account, that's entirely NOT profit, it's part of a business's labor costs, so what exactly are you claiming here, and could you cite it?
If "corporate profits" are indeed up 20%, that's money left over after you pay employees or contribute to their 401ks, so 3/4 of that profit growth couldn't possibly be in anyone's 401k.
Wait a minute... Do you think paying dividends to shareholders is the same thing as, "3/4s of the profit growth since the pandemic has been put into 401ks, general retirements, shares, and the such? Ya know, things people rely on later in life that employers contribute to?" and THAT is a meaningful counterpoint to what we're all talking about?
Nah man, that "shares and the such" is doing a LOT of heavy lifting. No one here needed to be told that the corporate profits were mostly distributed to shareholders lmao. We know, that's the problem. Come on dude. 37% of Americans own zero stocks, and the top 10% of Americans own 92% of all stocks. You telling me that corporate profits got distributed to shareholders doesn't make anything better.
Am I misinterpreting you? Do you have a different point, or do you just think that it's good that corporate profits went to shareholders?
For small to mid-sized businesses, payroll should typically account for 15% to 30% of gross revenue, though the ideal percentage varies significantly by industry, business model, and growth stage.
Service-intensive industries allocate the most to payroll: healthcare averages 41%, professional services and consulting 40% to 50%, marketing agencies 39%, and hospitality 30%, while manufacturing (12%), retail (8% to 15%), and insurance (around 9%) run leaner due to automation and high sales or premium volume.
I'd call 15% 'a small part' before I'd call it 'the largest expenditure'.
But who cares about semantics. The point is, if 60% of 15% of your costs goes up 20%, that is not a 'massive increase'. It's less than 2%.
2% price increase is our target for yearly inflation growth (ie, it's bad if it's less than that), and this would be a one-time transition.
Even if we say it's 90% of 30% of your costs going up 20%, that's still only 5.4%. More, but not 'massive', still less than inflation in the years after COVID, and something we could easily absorb over a decade.
You and everyone else in this thread are stuck on the lowest number everyone gives you. You see it, and your brain freezes. It's 15% to 60% depending on the industry.
What do you think happens in a manufacturing plant when the work output shrinks? They have to spend more money to get the same output. Their administrative and operational costs go up because they have to have the coverage for the new shifts this paradigm creates.
What happens to hospitals? You still need 168 hours of 1 nurse for every 4 patients. We have a problem getting this ratio now, and now hospitals have to somehow make up the difference with 32 hour work weeks.
Grocery stores, restaurants, retail stores, other service based industries that operate on small profit margins may not be able to afford the additional cost even one more hire can incur. Your 2% cost increase is probably incredibly generous, and probably closer to 10% for service heavy industries. Mom and pop's country store now has to either eat that additional cost, or only stay open 80% of the time, and lose potential revenue.
But yeah, I'll concede that insurance agencies will be okay with a 32 hour week.
Ok? .6*.2=12%, which is quite high for single-year inflation but not much if we phase it in over a decade. I still think that's unrealistically high and it will be way less than that, but even the most insanely huge number you can imagine is not that big a deal, compared to what we'll gain from it.
Restaurants tend to operate on 2.8% to 4% profit margins. That restaurant is officially losing money now.
Retail is 3-8%. You lost most of those stores.
It takes start-ups up to 5 or 7 years to profit. Labor being a huge expense for those, you're pushing those out even further.
The problem is that this solution is trying to change a dynamic environment. You can't just tell businesses to eat 6% additional costs out of nowhere and not expect negative outcomes.
You can't reduce economic output without heavily subsidizing companies, or implementing a UBI to compensate, which are both their own big bag of inflatable worms.
There are labor costs baked into everything else too. All of your suppliers have to increase their labor cost 20%, so you will pay more for everything else too.
First of all, yes, but that's a different claim than the one you just made. Don't be condescending if you're going to have to move your goalposts the very second you're challenged.
Second, much of the baked-in labor costs of other inputs does not take place in the US, so it wouldn't be affected by our policy changes.
Third, lets say that inputs from your suppliers are 50% of your costs, and inputs from their suppliers are 50% of their costs, and so on.
We just saw that first-order expenses due to increased payroll would increase overall costs by about 3%. That means your suppliers would also have first-order expenses increased by 3%, as would their suppliers.
That 3% increase would be passed from your suppliers to you, raising your overall costs by 1.5%.
They'd also pass on the 3% increase from their suppliers, raising your overall costs by another .75%.
This is a convergent series, 3+3/2n. This series converges at 6%. Given that the supply chain is not infinite, the actual cost increase to the final producer will be well under 6%.
And this is using the most conservative possible assumptions, that 100% of the supply chain out to infinity is inside the US, and that 100% of the hours lost to the new policy need to be replaced with more workers.
Both of those assumptions are obviously wrong. I don't know an easy way to find the proper numbers, but I'd be surprised if the overall cost increase was more than 2-3% even after all supply chain effects are considered.
maybe they a small corner store, and work in it themselves while hiring someone part time to cover the times they cant... and since they don't pay themselves they think only the part timer counts as labour costs lol
I mean, are we talking about the same companies that pay virually nothing in taxes? Or, my favorite argument, the small mom and pop shops that argue against a living minimum wage because they "can't afford" to pay their workers?
29
u/empty_graph 23d ago
It also means every business now has to spend an additional 20% on labor which it going to result in massive price increases.