32-Hour Workweek for America Proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders (theguardian.com) 390
The Guardian reports that this week "Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont who twice ran for the Democratic presidential nomination, introduced a bill to establish a four-day US working week."
"Moving to a 32-hour workweek with no loss of pay is not a radical idea," Sanders said on Thursday. "Today, American workers are over 400% more productive than they were in the 1940s. And yet millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages than they were decades ago. "That has got to change. The financial gains from the major advancements in artificial intelligence, automation and new technology must benefit the working class, not just corporate chief executives and wealthy stockholders on Wall Street.
"It is time to reduce the stress level in our country and allow Americans to enjoy a better quality of life. It is time for a 32-hour workweek with no loss in pay."
The proposed bill "has received the endorsement of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, United Auto Workers, the Service Employees International Union, the Association of Flight Attendants" — as well as several other labor unions, reports USA Today: More than half of adults employed full time reported working more than 40 hours per week, according to a 2019 Gallup poll... More than 70 British companies started to test a four-day workweek last year, and most respondents reported there has been no loss in productivity.
A statement from Senator Sanders: Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, and Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, predicted last year that advancements in technology would lead to a three or three-and-a-half-day workweek in the coming years. Despite these predictions, Americans now work more hours than the people of most other wealthy nations, but are earning less per week than they did 50 years ago, after adjusting for inflation.
"Sanders also pointed to other countries that have reduced their workweeks, such as France, Norway and Denmark," adds NBC News.
USA Today notes that "While Sanders' role as chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee places a greater focus on shortening the workweek, it is unlikely the bill will garner enough support from Republicans to become federal law and pass in both chambers."
And political analysts who spoke to ABC News "cast doubt on the measure's chances of passage in a divided Congress where opposition from Republicans is all but certain," reports ABC News, "and even the extent of support among Democrats remains unclear."
"It is time to reduce the stress level in our country and allow Americans to enjoy a better quality of life. It is time for a 32-hour workweek with no loss in pay."
The proposed bill "has received the endorsement of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, United Auto Workers, the Service Employees International Union, the Association of Flight Attendants" — as well as several other labor unions, reports USA Today: More than half of adults employed full time reported working more than 40 hours per week, according to a 2019 Gallup poll... More than 70 British companies started to test a four-day workweek last year, and most respondents reported there has been no loss in productivity.
A statement from Senator Sanders: Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, and Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, predicted last year that advancements in technology would lead to a three or three-and-a-half-day workweek in the coming years. Despite these predictions, Americans now work more hours than the people of most other wealthy nations, but are earning less per week than they did 50 years ago, after adjusting for inflation.
"Sanders also pointed to other countries that have reduced their workweeks, such as France, Norway and Denmark," adds NBC News.
USA Today notes that "While Sanders' role as chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee places a greater focus on shortening the workweek, it is unlikely the bill will garner enough support from Republicans to become federal law and pass in both chambers."
And political analysts who spoke to ABC News "cast doubt on the measure's chances of passage in a divided Congress where opposition from Republicans is all but certain," reports ABC News, "and even the extent of support among Democrats remains unclear."
Juggle more jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
This might help some people better juggle their multiple jobs.
not radical, not new (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone who thinks this is some radical lefties demand hasn't paid attention. This has been on the table for decades, at least since the 1970s. Automation (industrial robots at that time) was always seen as something that would allow people to work less while earning the same.
And, fun fact, some research indicates that we now spend more of our life time on work as in any other period in human history. Many primitive societes may have worked just a few hours each day.
The current mental health crisis has a lot to do with overload. Work, social media, hypernovelty, etc. all create mental load.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep , Aboriginal societies here in australia, although in some respect life was tough because the environment was harsh, had fairly idylic work days. The men would go hunting in the morning, usually back in by 12, then the rest of the afternoon was teaching the boys or just chilling out. The women would do some casual gathering (berries and other plants) , then in the afternoon there would be a big cookup and the whole village would have a f
Re: (Score:2)
Though after reading "The Biggest Estate on Earth", I'd consider Australia an exception. The easy hunting and gathering was the result of centuries of careful land management.
Re:not radical, not new (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of that though comes down to we have redefined what work is. Today's definition seems to be any activity not directly tied to my most immediate hedonistic desires is work.
'rest of the afternoon teaching' -> we now consider educating children is certainly considered work today by many.
'women would do causal gathering' -> I would question how casual it was. They tribe probably needed those calories and certainly the nutrients. I'd be those women went gathering even when they 'really did not feel up to it' or otherwise wished to do something else. It was chore, perhaps not as soul crushing as some factory work or but still a chore.
go on walkabout -> Right that would have been 'scouting' as much as anything. Where are the game trails, where are other resources useful plants to harvest etc, where might we move the village later..
It might be work you'd rather do than the activities you do today. It might have been a lot more self directed, but that does not mean it wasn't 'work' or that it was in any way 'optional.' Doing it was needed for surviving, being successful and efficent meant your group might be thriving, and failing or not doing those activities resulting in starving.
Cut back on social media, not work (Score:3)
Anyone who thinks this is some radical lefties demand hasn't paid attention. This has been on the table for decades, at least since the 1970s.
What makes you think we did not have radical lefties in the 1970s, or earlier?
The current mental health crisis has a lot to do with overload. Work, social media, hypernovelty, etc. all create mental load.
The effective solution is to cut back on social media, not work.
More hours != more work (Score:3)
The current mental health crisis has a lot to do with overload. Work, social media, hypernovelty, etc. all create mental load.
The effective solution is to cut back on social media, not work.
It might help a little but we still need to cut back on work. 40 hour work weeks and multiple jobs are corrosive in the medium to long term. The biggest problem with our current system is that there are too many simpletons in management who think that more hours = more productivity and advocate for the constant crunch. Unfortunately what they don't realise is that human minds aren't built for prolonged concentration, and even if you can keep them on task by using automated systems like Amazon warehouses do,
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think we did not have radical lefties in the 1970s, or earlier?
Where did I say that or what part exactly made you think that's what I was saying?
The effective solution is to cut back on social media, not work.
I don't see that as being mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh it's much older than that. According to this historian [youtube.com], work was dramatically different (and shorter) before the invention of the clock, roughly equivalent to getting 3.5 months of vacation.
Re: (Score:3)
Automation (industrial robots at that time) was always seen as something that would allow people to work less while earning the same.
Actually, I think The Jetsons nailed it with George pressing one button at the beginning of his shift and then sitting there for the remaining 8 hours doing absolutely nothing. Even if automation makes everything easier, corporations are still going to demand their pound of flesh, because they're the ones who own the robots.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want the idyllic aboriginal lifestyle you can do,that but,you';l need to give up,-everything- our higher stress society creates.
Go find a cave. You can bring some sharpened sticks and rocks and the manufactured clothing you're wearing and go live that life. No cheating! You don't get modern medical You don't get social welfare programs. You don't get Uber. You don't get the internet. If you're cold, cut wood with your axe that you made by hand and build a fire. Except you don't have matches.
Re: (Score:2)
Their lives were short and brutish.
I wouldn't want to live in a cave, either (though more recent research indicates that caves were mostly used for storage and safe retreats, not as permanent dwellings, but that's beside the point).
It's also a misconception that people died at 35. Average life expectancy numbers figure in the incredibly high child mortality (over 50% for most of human history).
All that said, we don't need to go back to pre-historic times. Every society ever has had lavish festivals, or their equivalents of pyramids and stone
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get Uber.
Oh no! No uber! The horror! What ever will I do without an app I haven't got installed.
Back to the wage grind for me.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it depends on what you define as work. I've heard people say that n medieval times people supposedly worked much less than today.
And I have this suspicion they only calculated the time they spent working for their liege and completely ignored the time they spent on feeding themselves and in the dark hours mending clothes and tools.
I do think those people had probably better stress management, outside of actual famine and war, but that they worked any less? No... Hard to imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it depends on what you define as work.
True, but for other reasons. In most of human history, the line between work and not-work was more blurry. Is it work when you and the rest of the guys prepare the village festival? And the other way around, do you count your commute time to your work time?
I'm not an expert on this, I just read a lot. All of these things are estimates from limited sources.
Re: (Score:2)
A 4 day week is becoming a major draw for employees. If employers want the get the best people, or any people where there are shortages, they will need to start offering better work/life balance and lower hours.
One of the reasons they really hate TikTok is that gen Z is using it to organize unofficially, kind of like a union but done on social media and emboldening individuals instead of via collective bargaining.
Re: (Score:3)
You are stupid. People COULD work much less if they were happy with the economic standard of the 70s or 40s. 3 % growth for 50 years (mid 70s till today) = 338 % higher GDP/capita. *EVEN* if inequality has increased, the poor has several times higher living standard today compared with the 70s (the corresponding numbers for 80 years, mid 40s till today is 964 %, and growth was much higher in the 50s and 60s than 3 % so the actual number is even higher).
No loss in pay (Score:5, Interesting)
Not happening. If companies are forced to pay OT past 32 hours, they'll freeze pay at current levels and do staggered shifts. It might increase hiring numbers, or it might just shut down some businesses that have too great a percentage of their operating budget tied up in labor costs.
In some cases, larger companies will do most of the above and just force 8+ hours OT to make up the difference in productivity, and raise the price of product to compensate.
Either way, hamfisted measures like this won't necessarily have the desired results. It'll encourage companies to automate away even more positions wherever possible. Nobody should expect good ideas or positive results from doddering old fools like Bernie Sanders.
Re: No loss in pay (Score:5, Insightful)
Not happening. If companies are forced to pay OT past 32 hours, they'll freeze pay at current levels and do staggered shifts. It might increase hiring numbers, or it might just shut down some businesses that have too great a percentage of their operating budget tied up in labor costs.
If a business shuts down because it can't afford its operating costs with its revenue, isn't that the definition of a business that failed? That's not the employee's fault. It's not their job to let themselves be underpaid just to keep the owners business plan viable.
You know what wouldreally help businesses lower labor costs? If they didn't have to pay employees at all! So clearly the best course of action isn't to reduce the rules on what's considered a normal work week, we should be bringing back slavery! Right?
Re: (Score:3)
If a business shuts down because it can't afford its operating costs with its revenue, isn't that the definition of a business that failed? That's not the employee's fault. It's not their job to let themselves be underpaid just to keep the owners business plan viable.
Lol, if a non-viable idea mandated by government causes businesses to fail, then that's the businesses' fault?
Re: (Score:3)
Lol, if a non-viable idea mandated by government causes businesses to fail, then that's the businesses' fault?
That would be a valid point, if not for the fact that others are successfully implementing it. If others are able to do it, it isn’t non-viable.
Re: (Score:3)
So clearly the best course of action isn't to reduce the rules on what's considered a normal work week, we should be bringing back slavery! Right?
Can't bring back what you never got rid of. The state simply reserved for itself the right to determine who could be enslaved — you can be legally enslaved once you have been convicted of a crime. See: 13th and 14th amendments.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody should expect good ideas or positive results from doddering old fools like Bernie Sanders.
Ever see any of the really old videos of him? He's been doing this for practically his whole adult life. I feel bad for the guy because he genuinely does seem to want to make things better for lower income folks, but he's clearly bit off more than he can chew.
Re: (Score:2)
If companies are forced to pay OT past 32 hours, they'll freeze pay at current levels and do staggered shifts.
Pay isn't set that way, it is set by supply and demand. Freezing pay only works if the workers have no other options, and the demographic trends of the Baby Boomers retiring in large numbers and a smaller generation following means more jobs than workers -- meaning worker choice. Forcing more overtime is one possible option, constrained by the same supply-demand. The bill Sanders is proposing [senate.gov] mandates time-and-a-half past 8 hours and double-time past 12-hours a day. Short of a good old fashioned dose of Nix [cato.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You say that as if companies aren't already trying to automate away as many positions as possible every time there's an opportunity to do so.
If you're old enough, you might remember when self-serve gas pumps didn't exist and a gas station would have a few employees to handle pumps. Now self-serve is the norm in all but a couple of places in the country.
Retail businesses keep attempting to move to self-checkout only, even people hate them and they allow more theft to occur.
We have a whole raft of employers
Re: (Score:2)
It'll encourage companies to automate away even more positions wherever possible. Nobody should expect good ideas or positive results from doddering old fools like Bernie Sanders.
The original Luddites opposed the automation of textiles. Are you wearing hand-woven textiles right now?
Let me guess: all the automation that has happened already is great, all the automation about to happen is a tragedy.
Re:No loss in pay (Score:5, Informative)
The original Luddites opposed the automation of textiles. Are you wearing hand-woven textiles right now?
That's a dumb lie. The Luddites opposed the automation of textiles manufacturing (and other tasks) only as long as the profits went to a few rich people at the top of the social pyramid, instead of benefiting all people including the weavers being replaced by machine looms. They were not protesting progress, they were protesting progress being used to discard former workers in a ditch.
No doubt you didn't mean to lie, you just believed some stuff you half-heard about the Luddites once. But you're repeating an intentional lie, whether the intent was yours or not, so you're now a party to it.
Re: No loss in pay (Score:5, Insightful)
"Society did not collapse though, there was not mass starvation."
A number of people did in fact starve due to the industrial revolution destroying their jobs. We also had to institute social safety net programs to reduce the deaths, or there would have been more. Now we're implementing technologies which can eliminate some more highly trained employees. I don't need a crystal ball to see where this is going. You shouldn't either.
Quitting cold-turkey (Score:2)
Look why don't we focus on having people work a 40 hour work week and taking a few weeks off leave each year before get all aspirational.
The problem in America isn't the working week, or the crap leave entitlements. It's the fat that despite the entitlements are so low people continue to overwork and not take leave.
You can't fix culture through a legal system.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not look at the French, who have a 35 hour week and take a few months off each year (the holidays go in between the strike days).
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed my point. Bernie Sanders won't make Americans French by proposing a law. Americans need to *want* good work life balance. They don't. Statistically they overwork, and statistically they have not only some of the lowest amount of leave granted each year, but also some of the highest unpaid leave.
Americans: There's a dollar to be earned, I can't just go enjoy my life instead!
Flight Attendants? (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand how certain more cerebral jobs could easily be knocked down to 30 hours a week with little to no loss in work output, but anything manual labor related like manufacturing or flight attendants, both mentioned as being in favor of this hours reduction, would require extra bodies to fill the hours. Airlines aren't going to run 20% less flights a week because the government decided people should work one day less.
The lack of labor will drive up wages, which isn't bad given the current state of pay in America, but it is a factor to consider, and in some cases companies may choose to keep the same hours and employees but pay overtime for the extra 8 hours, so pay would go up but work hours would be otherwise unchanged for the employees.
It's an interesting question, and definitely not as simple as just allowing everyone to only work four days a week from now on.
Re: (Score:2)
A larger pool of trained labour working shorter shifts makes it easier to find someone willing and able to pick up an additional shift to cover sickness or holiday. That's a significant benefit to the employer.
Oh noes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Alternatively, you could try considering the arguments & reading up on the already dozens of successful pilot schemes around the world. You know, if you'd like to like in a world where people are happier & healthier at no additional cost.
Re: (Score:3)
Define "successful". In a market economy with competition, a successful change will propagate organically. If it doesn't it is not successful. Why don't you start your own company where you work 32 h/week and prove your point?
Henry Ford (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Henry Ford created the 40 hour work week because it made sense financially. He was able to coax workers away from his competitors. They had to follow suit. We will get a 32 hour work week when it becomes economically possible. Someone, like Henry Ford, will create the 32 hour work week because it makes economic sense to do so at the time. Competitors will have to follow.
You're imagining a system in which we have meaningful competition. That no longer exists due to anticompetitive consolidation which has been permitted to proceed by our government, which has the power to stop mergers if they are not in the public interest. However, the majority of politicians have been bought off by corporate criminals, so the consolidation has been permitted to continue. The only new automaker which has been created in decades, for example, in fact profits from inferior treatment of worker
Charade (Score:3)
People of the conservative persuasion (to which I often count myself too, mind), seem to imagine that more than five percent of the people actually do work all hours that they clock.
I would bet many of them even overestimate their own work ethic.
As someone who has dealt with bore-outs, let me tell you that it is EXHAUSTING trying to look like you're working when you aren't.
Having fewer hours to squeeze your work in might have enormous benefits in this regard. Deadline pressure makes it easier to find motivation and fewer hours to play this damn charade might free up SO much efficiency. Seriously, I see a lot of potential there.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why god invented remote work.
AI (Score:2)
Bernie, incorporate! (Score:3)
Bernie needs to start his own company and offer a 32 hour work week. Because it's such a great idea, everyone will flock to his company, and he will blow the competition out of the water.
Or is it that Bernie is just good at telling other people what they should do?
Re: (Score:2)
This has to be a parody.
Re:Socialism at its finest... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is actually reversing, sort of. On one hand, there's a massive population decline in working adults category in PRC. There's also the trade war. This caused some repatriation of industry. There's also Germany's slow collapse from industrial nation to de-industrialized nation, as natgas used for industrial inputs is now expensive and makes entire downstream industry non-competitive with US and it's borderline free natgas from fracking.
On the other end, there's the social instability and increasingly onerous regulations in US. Taiwanese semiconductor fab that was sponsored under chips act among other things makes for a great example. Taiwanese came in expecting what they were promised - a trainable/trained cadre of specialists willing and able to work 12-16 hour workdays when job demands it.
What they got is a handful of specialists who cannot even be convinced to work 10 hours most of the time, and they also have to onboard a massive amount of DEI anti-productive bureaucrats who insist that significant percentage of total work force must be from far less trained and intelligent and far more criminal backgrounds. Which leads to inability to hire the needed amount of hypercompetent people needed to actually build and run the fab. Current Mandarin side in Taiwan is pretty much openly talking how TSMC specialists went in to start the fab, expecting local support staff to at least be trainable. Get saddled with a bunch of diversity hires who couldn't be trained. Asked for more support from home. DEI bureaucracy blocked that as well because incentives promised had DEI requirements. Massive culture shock for Taiwanese used to be able to actually have a decent pool of intelligent people to hire for these sorts of jobs and not be saddled with anti-productive people who are forced on them and do damage to the project, so can't really get the project going. They went back home, complained to their superiors (and word spreads locally in Taiwan, which is how we know the current narrative). Some exchanges between higher ups in Taiwan and US, some minor adjustments are made. Taiwanese specialists go back, and slam straight into the exact same problem.
I think we're on round three now or so, and we have more reporting that fab isn't opening, and "more incentives will be needed" from US media this year. Which on Taiwanese side is now pretty much clearly delineated as "we need to be able to hire capable locals who are able and willing to work long hours for a long period of time, and not diversity hires who actually damage the project rather than benefit it, and capable locals who leave after their 8 hours are done". As in money is mostly fine. Taxation is mostly fine. But it's not doable with HR politics the way they are.
Sanders being in the "DEI is great, electricity comes from the socket, food from the supermarket and value of money from the money printer going BRRR" camp doesn't seem to understand that lowering productivity by increasing cost of labor is going to make many jobs go away because it makes a lot of industrial projects economically/systemically non-viable. Because jobs aren't state projects to keep people busy as they are in socialist and communist states. They're means to produce things that other people are interested in getting, so they must generate things people want and are willing to pay enough for to make entire project viable.
That said, NAFTA 2 allows for a lot of production to just move from PRC to Mexico. Which is exactly what is happening. Cheap labor that is actually hard working and sufficiently intelligent and trained on average that has a free trade agreement with US. Going to be interesting to see how Trump if he's elected to his second term deals with it, considering he was the one presiding over creating and implementing NAFTA 2. It's his work, and now he's denouncing parts of it as a potential bloodbath for US automotive sector, and as we'll probably start realizing soon a lot of other sectors as well. Why make anything in US when Mexico is integrated in the same
Re: (Score:2)
There's also Germany's slow collapse from industrial nation to de-industrialized nation,
At this point anybody can stop reading, because that is not actually happening by any sane measure. Obviously, you are not sane.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>Europe is working towards electricity that is too cheap to meter for industrial processes
Reality check: too expensive because of fluctuations to guarantee process continuity. Because it's free at some point, and prohibitively expensive the next makes it non-viable to run any long term production cycle.
>Nobody should be working 10 hours a day.
I don't see you renounce all technology down the stone age, and living back in the trees. Because the large minority of productive people working long hours and
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a thought for you. Roads are free to use in most cases. Few countries price by the mile driven, although weight classes are a thing. They are funded from general taxation, with occasional toll roads.
So if electricity becomes so cheap that it's no longer commercially viable to not artificially inflate the price, wouldn't it be a massive benefit to the economy to subsidise it from taxation? Then it can be progressively paid for, and similar to roads there would be additional charges for heavy users etc
Re: (Score:3)
Congratulations I think you have the dumbest hot take on the entire thread and that's even with IAmWaySmarterThanYou desperately spamming as many comments as the rate limiting will allow.
I don't see you renounce all technology down the stone age, and living back in the trees. [...] You do not live what you preach, liar.
You know there's a middle ground between working yourself to death to enrich a boss and renouncing all technology and living in the trees.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe is working towards electricity that is too cheap to meter for industrial processes. It's already happened in Spain, where in the last few weeks electricity prices have been below 10 Euro/MWh, sometimes under 2 Euro.
That's something of a stretch. The spot prices heavily fluctuate, sometimes going to zero (even negative?) Here's fun one to pick over.
https://www.omie.es/en/market-... [www.omie.es]
Went negative during peak sunny times yesterday, but on some days in February it didn't drop below EUR50 at the lowest poi
Re:Another commie idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another commie idea (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is exactly what the Republicans will say to get their voters
That's only if the border or some culture war issue isn't presently stomping around more loudly in the rent-free space inside their heads. Economic issues just don't get the kind of rage clicks the Republicans going for these days.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And this is exactly what the Republicans will say to get their voters
That's only if the border or some culture war issue isn't presently stomping around more loudly in the rent-free space inside their heads. Economic issues just don't get the kind of rage clicks the Republicans going for these days.
Keep it up, please :) Acting as if very real problems caused by you are just "Republican craziness" is how you lose. (ref 2016, 2000, 1980 ...)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wut? Do you ever visit conservative message boards?
I'm probably going to regret this, but I'll head over to /r/conservative and see what the first few posts are at the moment. We've got:
Several posts about some "bloodbath" thing which I really don't feel like diving deeper into just to see what they're on about.
A post claiming "woke" people are more likely to be unhappy and depressed.
A bad joke involving a somewhat dated play on words and guacamole.
A post reinforcing the "illegals are rapists" meme that the former president said at one point.
Some graphs ab
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. We all heard the comment. His bullshit excuse, which you mindlessly repeated like a brain-damaged cockatoo, is bullshit.
Going out on a limb and saying you didn't hear a damned thing, or you're just plain lying. Here is the whole quote:
Let me tell you something, to China, if you're listening, President Xi — and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal — those big, monster car-manufacturing plants that you're building in Mexico right now, and you think you're going to get that, you're going to not hire Americans, and you're going to sell the cars to us?
No, we're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that's going to be the least of it, it's going to be a bloodbath for the country, that'll be the least of it. But they're not going to sell those cars, they're building massive factories.
Sounds a lot less like what it's being portrayed as when it's not take out of context, doesn't it?
With all of the above said, fuck you for making me defend Darth Cheeto.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another commie idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Kinda like how the Democrats love to tell the poor & minorities that they care about them, yet in every way they can fuck them over as hard as possible?
Works every time..
Whom do you think this massive damn flood of illegals hurts the most? You think it hurts the rich? Hrm... Massive and largely unexpected pressure on social services, law enforcement, and emergency services.. Or do you suspect it might have a fairly large impact on the poor and especially on the ONE MILLION legal, new, immigrants
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Way to go, showing the world you haven't a clue on what terms mean.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
You want precision? Bernie's form of socialism is communism. There.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another commie idea (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Convert comfortable into miserable ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Cuz commies are great at economics. But I'm sure this one will definitely work and not have any catastrophic, completely unforeseeable effects he can't blame on Republicans.
It will work as planned, the plan being to create the economic pain and suffering necessary for people to consider marxism. Comfortable people don't consider marx, other than wannabe revolutionaries who buy the che guevara t-shirt but not his book. If they read his book they will learn that transitioning the comfortable into the miserable to bring about their support for revolution is literally a tactic of the revolutionary.
Re:Convert comfortable into miserable ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting.
I see a fiscally-prudent plan to grow the economy by stimulating demand and reduce the burden of excess absenteeism on employers. This is a (little 'c') conservative plan.
Re:Another commie idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Communism didn't fail because it was a bad economic system, it failed because the Soviet Union was never entirely self-sufficient, and they were blocked from trading with a large part of the World for those things they lacked. It was actually pretty successful as an economic system despite this, but wasn't as able to cope with the pressures of the Cold War as Capitalism. One of the few benefits of a Capitalist system is it's resilience, which is why it's probably the best system to use when resources are scarce. However, when reosurces are plentiful it becomes a liability rather than a useful system.
The problem with Communism lies more in the political than the economic. While a hierarchal system of politics is being used, putting all the economy in the hands of that hierarchal system is inherently dangerous. It gives your Leader far too much control over everything, and therefore makes it easier for Tyranny to take hold. Capitalism at least spreads out control over the economy over a much larger group of people, and so your Leader can't usurp it for their own ends so easily. Communism should only ever be considered as a system once a true non-hierarchal poitical system has been established andf is firmly bedded in.
Even then, Communism is not that great an economic system. It lacks many of the major disadvantages of Capitalism, but has many other disadvantages that Capitalism lacks. Overall, economically they are fairly equal in their balance of pros and cons, both having far more cons than pros.
Socialism, while often equated with Communism, is a very different system. Socialism at it's best retains the market economy aspects of Capitlaism that are it's main pros, while while lacking Capitalism's habit of siphoning most of the wealth up into a few hands, which is one of Capitalism's major cons. We could keep the best elements of Capitalism by making the populationh of a Country the shareholders in essential services. These shareholders, the ciutizens, can then take part in the yearly AGM and vote on the make-up of the Board that runs the Company. All essential services can be run this way, removing the need for a Government. The profits from the profitable parts, mail, energy, telecomms, transport, etc can be used to pay for the non-profitable parts such as health, police, defence, etc. A Citizen's Parlliament can convene yearly, before the annual AGM round, to look at the Governance of these various Companies over the past year and allocate dividends from the profitable ones to the non-profitable, costly ones to keep them running. This Citizen's Assmbly can be picked by lottery.
Some of this would be National, some local. It depends on which is the best fit for each particular service. Hence the Citizen's Assemblies would be a mix of local and National, as would the allocation of shares among the Citizens. Any created wealth left over, after funding the non-profitable services and R&D can be paid out to the shareholders, replacing the Welfare State.
Other aspects of the economy considered non-essentail to the functioning of Society can continue as-is. The essential services will require workers, and any not required by these can also run Private Companies that provide luxuries. Wages from these can also be taxed if necessary to help fund the essential services, but if these services are run properly these taxes should be minimal at worst. Probably more used as a Welfare State to augment the dividends where necessary.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How was it that the USSR, with a HUGE abundance of natural resources couldn't be independent? Excuse me?
They had more than enough land to feed their people. Bountiful mineral wealth. A vast range of land suitable for cities, farming, factories, resource mining, anything and everything.
They failed because communism doesn't work. It can't work. It violates very critical basic aspects of human nature. It is a terrible economic system.
When you were in college, you did home work, took tests you studied for
Re: Another commie idea (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another commie idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's be honest though, the unrealistic part is where you work 32 hours and expect to be paid the equivalent income of 40. Plenty of businesses already do a 32-hour workweek, they're called "part-time jobs".
The problem with just saying that everyone needs to earn higher wages for less work is that the market responds with inflation to put your actual buying power mostly right back where it started. This is why actual communism involves seizing the means of production, because ostensibly then you can produce enough for everyone. I used "ostensibly" correctly here, because in actual practice communism usually goes horribly wrong.
I guess one day when AI takes over it might finally create a completely fair economic system, or it might just decide to wipe us out, could go either way.
Re: (Score:2)
If technology makes you more efficient, why not being paid the same or even more?
Re: (Score:3)
Because you're already getting paid more due to technology. You get better stuff for less. An iPhone costs $1000 today. 20 years ago there was no.iPhone at any price. In 2007 you got a first gen iPhone for $1000. Today's iPhone is much better for -effectively- less money due to inflation destroying the value of a dollar.
You have to look at all sides.
If we raised the minimum wage to a million dollars, then poor people would all be multimillionaires. Think about that then answer your own question.
Re: (Score:2)
If we raised the minimum wage to a million dollars, then poor people would all be multimillionaires. Think about that then answer your own question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
At the top is Switzerland with an approximately $36per hour minimum wage compare to $7.25 in the US.
There's some scandies with no minimum wage but very strong unions which do a similar job, and a bunch of other countries all of which have higher minimum wages than the US.
Re: (Score:3)
The US has a history of fighting for injustice, rebelling against the powers that be, but somewhere in the last 50 years it became a haven for laissez-faire capitalism, and the working population was taught to beg for more abuse. Yep, let's just fall on our backs and take it. We can't control the market, just let the rich do
Re: (Score:3)
According to Wikipedia, the 32 hour workweek (as four days 8 hours) was first mentioned in 1956 by Richard Nixon who was, still according to Wikipedia, "a leading anti-communist".
Benjamin Franklin and Keynes previously mentioned work time reduction, but with other numbers.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder what other revolution might have happened
Does it matter? Point is the 32 hour week has also been proposed by politicians on the right side, it's not specifically a leftist idea.
Since you mention other continents, the possibility of 32 hours workweek was approved in labour laws in the following occasions:
* in France 1996-2000 under a right side government (minister of labour Gilles de Robien). It ran as a four year experiment for volunteer companies; next government, which was on the left and included actual members of the Communist Party in the ca
Re: (Score:3)
And morons like you are the reason why in the US, people are working their asses off while getting less and less for that. Good job!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Sort of worked." At one time, in a limited context. Ringing endorsement.
Re: Another commie idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another commie idea (Score:5, Informative)
Communism is not a dictatorship
Only if you are being hyper-pedantic. In the sense that Marx maintained that the dictatorship of the Proletariat was a transitionary phase and that "True Communism" would transcend it. Of course, there hasn't been a single case were Communist government has even been able to get out of that dictatorship phase.
But it would be more accurate to say a dictatorship is a necessary part of getting to a Communist society. At least according to Marx. (And Engels, and Lenin, and Mao) So if you decide to go down the path to Communism, you may not ever get there but you will definitely have a dictatorship along the way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Another commie idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Incorrect... what you saw is the ultimate culmination of communism, always ends with a dictator, at least that's what history has shown us every time....
Re: Another commie idea (Score:5, Informative)
You are an utterly ignorant idiot. You can't understand the distinction between communism and socialism, you ignore the socialists who have been the government at times everywhere from Canada to the UK to Germany to Norway, and point to the disasters. You can't even distinguish between, say, the Soviet Union and the UK who is about to vote a Labour government in.
Well, gee, you should have lived in the capitalist paradise of the US in the 1880s and 1890s, with "normal" 16 hour days 6 days a week, for pennies an hour.
And Bernie's a socialist, not a communist.
Henry Ford started 40 hours, productivity went up (Score:2)
>> "A foolish idea, 32 hours for the same pay"
That is exactly what people said in 1926 when Henry Ford introduced the 40hour work week. with no change in wages.
Yet, it worked great, productivity went up, inflation did not explode.
Ford used a bell curve to pick optimal of 40 (Score:2)
>> "A foolish idea, 32 hours for the same pay" That is exactly what people said in 1926 when Henry Ford introduced the 40hour work week. with no change in wages. Yet, it worked great, productivity went up, inflation did not explode.
A graphical plot of hours vs productivity will not be linear, it will be a bell curve. Ford chose the number 40 based on data not politics, that's about where the peak of the bell curve will be according to his research. Both 48 and 32 being suboptimal according to Ford's research.
Re:Ford used a bell curve to pick optimal of 40 (Score:4, Insightful)
>> Both 48 and 32 being suboptimal according to Ford's research.
Yes, true for 1926.
Work conditions, efficiency, society, automation, social environment.... All this changed since, and this moves this bell curve.
Re: (Score:2)
Also 1920s factory work is different from heavy physical labor, receptionist, inspiration-based jobs -- there's no way 40 hours is the perfect optimum for each of these.
Re: (Score:2)
Care to explain why working fewer hours for the same paycheck you receive now would lead to rampant inflation? You just state it as fact and then don't touch on it again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if you get paid for 400 hours for every hour you work? Would that cause inflation? Cause if so, there's some CEOs who are ruining our economy.
Econ 101 Supply and Demand curve (Score:2)
Care to explain why working fewer hours for the same paycheck you receive now would lead to rampant inflation? You just state it as fact and then don't touch on it again.
Because I produce less output in 32 hours than 40, my employer has less product or service to offer customers. Go look at the Econ 101 Supply and Demand curve. What happens to price when supply decreases but demand remains the same? Answer: higher prices.
Bullshit jobs. (Score:2)
>> Because I produce less output in 32 hours than 40, my employer has less product or service to offer customers.
That is very short term.
In medium and long term, your employer increases efficiency by removing bullshit jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A foolish idea, 32 hours for the same pay will just lead to even more inflation. Wiping out any theoretical advantage.
Those two statements are disconnected. First, free time can't be cancelled by inflation, in fact many people would like to work fewer hours (even unpaid, but they'd be fired). Secondly, there's zero chance that the inflation perfectly cancels the pay raise, there will be changes to the work efficiency and the import/export ratio.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1% can just pay their fair share and cover our bills.
Your sarcasm set aside, the 1% can afford to pay and should pay a proportional tax burden as the 'normies'. Why shouldn't they?
The GOP preys on 'low information voters' using dis/misinformation so as to pay back their donors. It's legalized bribery.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have missed that this comes with _no_ loss in productivity. Seriously, learn to read.
Re:Seriously out of touch (Score:4, Insightful)
Real wage growth is outpacing inflation https://www.statista.com/chart... [statista.com]
Cherry picking data is a common way of making false arguments. Qualifying layoff data in a specific sector doesn't necessarily provide a true indicator of overall economic health. It actually shows that capitalism for all its flaws is working as expected.
And finally, the age old "let's blame the immigrants" trope. How ironic the same people who complain about inflation run scared of legal immigration. When are people going to remember that not only are they the offspring of immigrants, but that it is also what made America great?
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/02/immigration-taking-pressure-off-the-job-market-us-economy-expert.html
We've got plenty of problems, but let's get the facts from something other than a campaign year pile of propaganda. Let's make an effort to think for ourselves.
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't easy to take any policy seriously from someone so divorced from actual employment in the private sector.
It's easy to dismiss what you're saying when Sanders is the senator who spends the most time interfacing with actual constituents. NONE of those people are directly connected to doing Real Work(tm) for a living, but many of them do actual work in their jobs. Remember, if you're a programmer or another knowledge worker, a lot of people think YOU are divorced from actual employment — they think they have to work for a living and you don't. That is, they would say exactly the same thing about your opinio