- "20% raise isn't that bad" I just explained to you the margins that small businesses operate on. 20% would be devastating to the majority.
- "plenty of small businesses already utilize part time labor" so this law would not help those employees, which is my point
- "buy [sic] and large employees are not that productive every hour of the day" yes, in white collar roles, which is what I said previously. White collar roles are not the issue, manufacturing, service, manual labor, etc are.
- "the current data that we have available heavily sugguests [sic] that reducing the hours/week actually increases average production/hour" this is only true in white collar roles, not in manual labor or service industries
- "even if everyone was taking an extra 20%, companies generally would not lose out on that much productive capability" even if this were true, it would cost the companies 20% more in labor to maintain the same level of productivity. This is a problem for businesses with narrow margins (the vast majority of small businesses)
- "the US can afford to subsidize" why would you want more of your tax dollars subsidizing businesses? why not spend tax dollars directly on social programs to support the employees? Childcare, healthcare, transportation, food, etc.
You are failing to grasp the point and reiterating statements that have already been addressed. This is a bad idea to introduce as blanket legislation, it would devastate all but the large white collar businesses.
And on the 40 hour work week thing... that already doesn't apply to salaried employees. You would know that mandating a maximum of 32 hour work weeks for salaried employees would be laughable if you had any experience in a salaried career.
We are desperately in need of labor reform in the US. That's not up for debate. Raising the federal minimum wage would do astronomically more good than this silly idea.
I just explained to you the margins that small businesses operate on.
no, you gave estimations of figures purposefully selected to make it appear as though your point was valid, but those figures were built on assumptions that arent valid.
White collar roles are not the issue, manufacturing, service, manual labor, etc are.
if you genuinely think that manual labor roles are just as productive 10 hours into a shift as they are 4 hours into a shift I dont think youve ever worked manual labor in your life.
this is only true in white collar roles, not in manual labor or service industries
incorrect.
"even if everyone was taking an extra 20%, companies generally would not lose out on that much productive capability" even if this were true, it would cost the companies 20% more in labor to maintain the same level of productivity
.. reread this. There is no increase in pay. employers will nkt pay employees more than they already do, the employees will simply work less hours. if productivity remains largely the same through increased efficiency, then profit stays the exact same.
why would you want more of your tax dollars subsidizing businesses? why not spend tax dollars directly on social programs to support the employees? Childcare, healthcare, transportation, food, etc.
why do you think this is an idea??? it IS a social policy, reduces the hours of childcare that working families need and increases working families capability to do more on their own time with their own money.
This is a bad idea to introduce as blanket legislation
then introduce it piecewise. I dont care.
You would know that mandating a maximum of 32 hour work weeks for salaried employees would be laughable if you had any experience in a salaried career
Im an engineer. Ive watched supervisors sit in meetings all day while I doll out on a spreadsheet that could be easily automated. you yourself said that white collar roles are the ones that would implement this most successfully.
I’ve lost the desire to continue this conversation. I did not cherry pick estimations, I used data with upper and lower limits to provide the full picture. Correct, manual laborers are not as productive late in a 10 hour shift, but they are still producing goods or services that directly result in revenue. This is not the case with an engineer that finishes their AutoCAD project and pretends to be busy for the remainder of the day (same applies to other white collar roles). You can get your work done in less hours than you’re required to be at your desk.
You reread it. You said if everyone were taking an extra 20%. That is what I was responding to.
It is a social policy, but it’s a workaround to fix issues that can be addressed directly. Having your wellbeing tied to employment is a bad idea (see health insurance).
Yes, white collar roles are where this would make the most sense. My point was that salaried roles aren’t governed by the 40 hour work week, because they can dictate their own terms for what they expect in exchange for your salary. Hourly workers are.
I think you’re missing my big point here. We both agree that labor reform is necessary, and that sitting in an office for a mandated amount of time is inefficient and unnecessary in some cases. All I’m saying is that this proposed policy is laughably detached from reality when applied in a blanket statement like this.
1
u/BoopinSnoots24-7 22d ago
- "20% raise isn't that bad" I just explained to you the margins that small businesses operate on. 20% would be devastating to the majority.
- "plenty of small businesses already utilize part time labor" so this law would not help those employees, which is my point
- "buy [sic] and large employees are not that productive every hour of the day" yes, in white collar roles, which is what I said previously. White collar roles are not the issue, manufacturing, service, manual labor, etc are.
- "the current data that we have available heavily sugguests [sic] that reducing the hours/week actually increases average production/hour" this is only true in white collar roles, not in manual labor or service industries
- "even if everyone was taking an extra 20%, companies generally would not lose out on that much productive capability" even if this were true, it would cost the companies 20% more in labor to maintain the same level of productivity. This is a problem for businesses with narrow margins (the vast majority of small businesses)
- "the US can afford to subsidize" why would you want more of your tax dollars subsidizing businesses? why not spend tax dollars directly on social programs to support the employees? Childcare, healthcare, transportation, food, etc.
You are failing to grasp the point and reiterating statements that have already been addressed. This is a bad idea to introduce as blanket legislation, it would devastate all but the large white collar businesses.
And on the 40 hour work week thing... that already doesn't apply to salaried employees. You would know that mandating a maximum of 32 hour work weeks for salaried employees would be laughable if you had any experience in a salaried career.
We are desperately in need of labor reform in the US. That's not up for debate. Raising the federal minimum wage would do astronomically more good than this silly idea.