Jb350 wrote..

We would be much better off with twice as many professionals each working half as much

Blah blah

Who the **** is this WE? I think you mean _you_, or in that sentence I.

For both Misaki and Jb350. I cant decide if you two are just evil, or just useful rubes.

But since the proposal has links to a WH site asking the president to do it, i imagine, rather then letting people contract in ways that makes sense for them, if it is 60 hrs/wk or 20, or 40 or whatever - you think the proper function is to pass a law and steal peoples property and/or kill anyone that does not agree with you.

Pure fukking genius.

So i will go with evil. As Resistance said, "Misaki is your enemy. Know him well." I'll add Jb350 to the list as well.

EABODADIAF

EDIT: And really you can't even look at what you write, and see what is the, not likely, not probable, but the 100 % guaranteed result of this 1.2x/.8 wages proposal.

Since you missed it, here it is. Since the more productive people tend to be much more then 1.2x productive then the average, People will work for two different firms @ 1.2x to make their 40 hr week. DUH.

I guess you are just that fukking stupid.

So how will you prevent that.. NVM, you will fine/jail/kill those that work > 20 hrs, right ?

Quote:

It is an equitable and just means of redistributing wealth.

All you need to know about Jb350. Marxist - period.

Wealth is redistributed constantly through normal market forces. It is the height of sheer laughable ignorance to suggest that terms such as "wealth redistribution" have anything to do with marxism, socialism or any other form of "forced wealth redistribution". Come on, what the hell happened here? Did everyone get hit by the stupid bus?

Antone, you asked what I was suggesting. Yes, I was suggesting everyone who chooses to do so would work less hours and earn less money. It is a perfectly valid choice in a free society. Many people make this choice. And you can easily deduce the quality of any given society by the number of people who choose to work less. This is a truism. The reverse is also true. If everyone is working 60-90 hours a week you can generally conclude that the society must have a very low standard of living.

Lowbeyond, you asked who the F is WE? We is me and you and everyone else who either chooses to live together in peace and harmony or live like animals. I am merely stating a simple fact that the more people we have working 20 hours a week vs 60 hours a week, the more affluent and peaceful the society is going to be. Are you seriously arguing against that?

jb350 wrote..

Lowbeyond, you asked who the F is WE? We is me and you and everyone else who either chooses to live together in peace and harmony or live like animals.

Oh ok. So i choose to work 40hrs plus/wk and that makes me an animal or does that make me a peaceful loving person who wishes to live in harmony ? I am sooo confused. Who gets to define my or other people's choices again? Oh i guess that is you, AmIRite ?!?!

And really you are not talking about voluntary actions. The OP posted links to the WH, asking to sign a petition demanding action on their s00per d000per plan.
You are talking about laws. Laws where if you object, you die.

jb350 wrote..

I am merely stating a simple fact that the more people we have working 20 hours a week vs 60 hours a week, the more affluent and peaceful the society is going to be. Are you seriously arguing against that?

Yes. Because it is not a simple fact. In fact its demonstrably false

Assume 1 job in the country that takes 60hr/wk.

Assume this job pays 60 bucks/wk

1 guy working at it take the $60. 3 people working 20 hrs each, each take $20. 60 people working 1 hr/wk each takes 1 buck

The total is the same 60 vs 60. If society is made up of those people, then the net affluence of society gained by working that job remains 60 bucks no matter how many people work at it.

Then again you say you are from Detroit metro, ground zero of union leeches, so its no wonder why you think this way. You drank too much kool-aid

For people bothered by the petition approach:

If people are to make a dramatic reversal of attitude and agree that perhaps GDP is not the only important number when it comes to how 'successful' an economy is, there might be questions about whether we should expect people with say, $100~500k incomes to decide to work less before people with $10m+ incomes do.

But this is the wrong question, one which implies that we can have an expectation of who might decide to work less. Even if reducing the hours worked was a moral imperative for anyone who could do so, we should still not expect any specific individual to work less because the United States is based on ignoring the prevailing opinion if it is within your interests to do so, and it has already been shown there can be harmful effects when too many people agree on what the "right" thing to do is.

So it is completely fine to say that as a society, we should encourage the use of the accelerated work week [the idea of working less] while personally choosing not to do so, even if unemployment remains high. If everyone were to agree that the accelerated work week would be good for society and yet no one expresses any desire to work less despite that it is seen as socially acceptable to do, then we simply have another conversation about whether we prefer high unemployment, or taxes or inflation from fiscal stimulus.

But the accelerated work week doesn't work unless the entire management of a company supports it, otherwise working less just leads to discrimination in promotions. Anyone who is interested in fixing unemployment should be prepared to spend at least a little time convincing themselves that this would, in fact, fix unemployment and associated problems, with a minimal or no net cost to the company.

Antone wrote..

Are you insane? When dealing with a pie, slicing smaller pieces does not make the pie bigger.

Why make a pie bigger than you can eat, and then throw away the leftovers instead of giving them to the poor? Or better yet, let the poor help make the pie so they can get a share too.

Antone wrote..

You ****ing people have absolutely no concept of capital.

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johns....
http://slackwire.blogspot.com/2011/10/di....
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/17/t....

Lack of capital is not the problem. "Lack of demand" is the problem.

http://logistics.about.com/b/2009/02/18/....
http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2....


Jb350: thank you.

Antone wrote..

What are you trying to suggest? That people earn half as much, or that they are paid the same for doing half the work? Neither of those options is going to "fix" anything. All you'll do is reduce GDP and company earnings. That doesn't create capital, which is the only thing that's going to get us out of the mess we're in.

Right now we have plenty of people who can be hired to do any leftover work. Not the unemployed (who are mostly high school graduates or lower), but people who are currently overqualified for the jobs they managed to find... which includes PhDs due to the lack of jobs outside of finance.

We have plenty of capital, that isn't the problem.

You might as well suggest that every able-bodied person be forced to work if you want GDP to be higher, and not only is there nothing for them to do but many people are choosing not to work without getting welfare either. For example, do you think that "1% wives" should be forced to find work?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch....

Rjazz117 wrote..

Misaki: I needed the work, back then...and still do.

Then this would help you find work, since other people would be more willing to work less. (A detailed example: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012....)

Many people with high school degrees are completely qualified to do many of the jobs out there, and this will still be true in the future (see http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/rocket-sci....)... they just can't get jobs because employers prefer college graduates even for retail.

Rjazz117 wrote..

Jb350: The vitriol comes from suggesting that the productive people work less, so those that are currently sitting their asses can work at all. It's just a different form of welfare.

That's the first time I've heard someone call working in the private sector, with no government money involved "welfare".

Lowbeyond wrote..

Since you missed it, here it is. Since the more productive people tend to be much more then 1.2x productive then the average, People will work for two different firms @ 1.2x to make their 40 hr week. DUH.

You really think they'll be working for employers who are that willing to let people decide their own schedules?

Part of the bargain for getting a higher rate (1.2x) is that when the company needs you, you would work more up to a reasonable amount. Good luck doing that when another employee already has you scheduled for those hours.

And the "normal" rate would be the rate FOR THAT WORKER. Someone who already makes $100k per year (like the police officer linked earlier) would have a base rate that lets them still make $100k per year with their current hours, it's just that 60% of that would be for the first 20 hours and the last 20 hours would only make up 40%.

Lowbeyond wrote..

The total is the same 60 vs 60. If society is made up of those people, then the net affluence of society gained by working that job remains 60 bucks no matter how many people work at it.

In your first example, the one guy makes $3000 over the year, and spends $700 of it on an iPhone. This money completely leaves the country. He also spends $1000 on a house/apartment with a good location, that cost only a fraction of that to build. Etc. The result is that most of his money leaves the country; foreign goods are usually seen as superior/luxurious (at least those made in developed countries).

In the second example, with the three workers voluntarily working just 20 hours per week, no one feels they need an iPhone or any other pointless status symbols and can afford roughly the same standard of living by doing 1/3 of the work, and the money circulates within the economy so the number of jobs in the country stays constant instead of decreasing. They pay a lower tax rate too.

(Note: profit from iPhones doesn't go to the US, it goes to tax havens like the Bahamas or whatever)

Misaki wrote..

That's the first time I've heard someone call working in the private sector, with no government money involved "welfare".

Requiring the "productive" to step aside in order to allow the currently unproductive to work IS demanding that they provide (in this case work) for their welfare.

I would say "No" to that in a heartbeat...without reservation.

Why? I'm a capitalist, and I am free.

Free men don't accede to demands that require them to provide anything, to anybody else, for any reason.

Make it illegal for women to work and you've solved your problem Misaki while increasing quality of life by a lot more.

heh.

20 hours at 1.2x 20 hours at .8x

Well women are approx 50% of the workforce (close enough anyway), yea pass a law banning them from working

Problem solved.

Think that is a war against women, well ok fin, ban men from working

Oh that's sexist? Ok ban people from 18-42 from working, oh that gives a preference under the law to the older? Ok reverse it ?

Still have a problem? Ok in the odd years, ban those that were born in an odd year from working, apply the same logic to those that were born in the even years.

Of course all this is punishable by death if you object

What a fine modern caring society this will be.....

Grashopa wrote..

Make it illegal for women to work and you've solved your problem Misaki while increasing quality of life by a lot more.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch....

Then there was a big debate on "having it all", where males and singles also said they sometimes wanted or needed to work less. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch....

Rjazz117 wrote..

Free men don't accede to demands that require them to provide anything, to anybody else, for any reason.

If you really think people won't start rioting when the next President doesn't fix unemployment, feel free to ignore the problem. http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012.... < title says it all

Resistance and Low nailed it. They are our enemy. They are evil.

Misaki,

I remember when these kinds of ideas seemed quite attractive - they provide a path to an improved situation for those looking for a piece of work to do in exchange for the ability to meet their needs.

I'm a lot less clear these days, after actually trying to accomplish larger projects, how all this would work from the perspective of someone with the goal of creating wealth - particularly that lovely 'food' stuff I'm so fond of.

Can you explain the advantages/consequences for the producer in your scenario? Do my projects (through my own work plus employees) create less wealth, or does the organization pay more to do it, or do we raise prices? Something else? I'd rather puzzle this out before pronouncing on its value.

Thanks

Oculust,

I should mention a controversial TED speech a few months ago, about how it is the middle class who are the "job creators", not the rich: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch....

Getting more money into the hands of the middle class therefore creates jobs. But as you say, it is also important that organizations that choose to use this are not penalized.

The direct advantages would basically be the same as with other flexible work policies, this article has a good summary: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch....

Just like with family-friendly policies (family leave formerly known as maternity leave, etc.), flexible work policies attract talent:

Quote:

And this is how respondents saw the strategy's positive impact on the firm:

83%: Ability to recruit talent
82%: Ability to retain talent
74%: Ability to compete in a global workplace
66%: Overall productivity
65%: Ability to provide quality client service
65%: Ability to develop talent
65%: Ability to flexible manage resources (e.g. real estate, matching talent to business cycles, office resource sharing, etc.)

So you do not raise prices. Many studies show that people tend to be more efficient when they work less, especially if it means they get more sleep, so people might expect average compensation to rise with any increase in productivity but more important is just the idea of greater delegation of work. As well, for anyone to actually choose to work less it would need to not affect promotion chances so leaders would need to set an example. This article describes the challenges faced in doing so: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Recover....

As it says near the end, "...leaders need to become more ruthless than ever about stepping back from all but the areas that they alone must address. There’s some effort involved in choosing which areas to delegate; it takes skill in coaching others to handle tasks effectively and clarity of expectations on both sides. But with those things in place, a more mindful division of labor creates more time for leaders’ focused reflections on the most critical issues and also develops a stronger bench of talent."

So it does require a significant shift in culture, away from the "time macho" mentioned in the work-life balance debate started by the The Atlantic. The organization would probably benefit only slightly, or maybe a bit more if it leads to attracting talent; employees benefit if they value being able to work less and still succeed in the organizational ladder; outside of the organization, other workers benefit (due to higher employment that results from spending patterns) while the profits of other corporations, and therefore the income of the rich, suffer.

Sort of like a prisoner's dilemma between corporations. If no one defects, corporate profits remain high; but the companies that defect gain talented workers while the profits of other companies selling luxury goods (like iPhones with a 50% gross profit margin) decrease.

Misaki wrote..

Just like with family-friendly policies (family leave formerly known as maternity leave, etc.)

Boy you do love to speak in code. What else is maternity leave but some entity pointing a gun at your head so as to force you to pay for someone else's life style choice of having children.

You sure are a riot. You continually advocate/like things that involves some one pointing a gun at someone else in order to extort a benefit that you personally like.

Why don't you and your other like minded thinkers start your own company with the policies you are promoting with your own money. You can lead by doing it. Then when the obvious benefits are shown well everyone will follow

Any plans for that?

Such policies attract talented people, and in turn lead to organizational success.

You have a problem with that?

I would probably be too lazy to do what you said. I only thought of the idea last year (decreased marginal wage rate with the inflection point being lower than the current standard for full-time work) and, when it seemed like people might be interested in the lower inequality and unemployment that would result, felt like there was no point waiting years before getting society to adopt it.

If no one was interested in unemployment, then what you suggest would probably be the most efficient route. But OWS, and polls, show that people do in fact think that unemployment is an important issue and should presumably be willing to support a solution once they understand it.

The very reason that the unemployment rate is bad and getting worse, is that the government has crippled the free market. The solution, of course, is... have the government cripple the free market even more! Wait, what?

I'm going to close my eyes for a Saturday afternoon nap and dream about a world where the best from agrarian and the best from technological sing together in perfect harmony...

Your plan won't work. For every part time employee there are the required taxes in the form of SS, Medicare, and more importantly O'Care. You also have benefits that are paid to multiple people instead of one for a position. The piece of the pie that actually goes to each individual is much smaller for each additional person added to share the one job. That and the increasing cost of living and you strangle the companies involved as well as the workers.

Anything to get .gov a bigger piece of the pie huh?

You know, I would be interested to know how many people out there like Misoki and Jb really believe the crap they are spouting? It sounds really good if you are not one to do your own homework. I can't articulate an argument like Resistance, Low, Obs and others but I understand the concepts. That's why I come here. So I can learn. But I instinctively knew that collectivism is counter-productive before I became a part of TF. Maybe because when I was in elementary school and Jr high they still taught the difference between capitalism and communism without editorializing. I read Atlas Shrugged, as a choice, off of a list of books for Social Studies in high school. It made an impression on me, even though the teachers were by that time leaning towards socialism.

Schools now are not presenting concepts and teaching kids to think for themselves but we've already discussed that in other forums. But when you have a whole generation of kids who have been indoctrinated, it's very hard to fight against something they have been taught since kindergarten.

That said, I think Ponzi has a good idea, however I have housework to do, since I don't have any servants to do it for me. Plus, it's a very nice day out, so I am getting out asap. Still no rain though.

Big problem with this is the most productive are worth well over 1.2x the average professional. If you have someone that is 3x as productive and cut his hours/wages by 20% and hire someone that is 1x as normal productive, the cost to the business is the same but the overall efficiency has gone down significantly. And if you actually think the most productive aren't 3-5x (or even more) over the average, you are smoking something awesome. On the average, the unemployed are below average so the effect is even worse.

Study why the Soviet Union had disastrously-bad productivity.

When you pay everyone the same (or close to it) what happens is that the work product of those who are more productive is intentionally degraded (by those productive people) to that of the least-abled that receive the same renumeration.

Any why not? You get nothing for a superior effort, so why make it? You're better off daydreaming of sex with your significant other, drinking (provided you can still perform to that lowest-expected level while drunk) or simply ****ing off and using your mental and physical prowess for something else while "doing your job."

The result is an output collapse and then the government tax revenues won't support what you want to "get", so we ratchet it all down one more notch.

Repeat until collapse.

History is replete with these examples. The only means to try to get around it is literal slavery (with whips, chains and similar) which doesn't really work either, as people still are creative and so long as they can collude they will under the argument that if nobody can produce better than nobody will get beaten and all prosper (in relative terms.) This, incidentally, is why Southern Slavery was failing long before it was made illegal; slavery can only succeed when the most-menial of output is required of the slaves.

At my work I am the guy. No way can lesser guys do what I do. Mt boss wants me busting **** out all the time. We have lesser guys and they cant do so many things I do with ease. The stuff with the biggest profits is the hardest stuff to pull off. Thats why they call us in the first place.
This plan is not going to keep your doors open long. The guy before me died and my boss was looking at closing the place down. Because he cant do the hardest stuff any more. I showed up and now he is looking at doing it into his 80s.

Hire the most talented you can find. This is America it costs more to hire than any other country. You need to make that money spent return as much as you can.

In the average week I will remove a dozen broken bolts or more. Dont try that with a no talent guy. Because you will be paying me to remove broken easy outs.
I will Tig weld a bolt onto the broken easy out. Tap it one time with a hammer just so, put one drop of brake fluid, heat just the right amount and gently remove it. Yes I am the big tool. And you will pay me well.

Wearedoomed wrote..

The very reason that the unemployment rate is bad and getting worse, is that the government has crippled the free market.

Is that why corporate profits are as high as they are?

Or are corporate profits so high despite that the government is "crippling" the free market? I suppose you're saying that profits would be higher without government intervention... which means that unemployment would be higher as well since less of revenues would be going toward labor. You really want the United States to embrace communism by creating the social and economic conditions which lead to it?

Capeman wrote..

For every part time employee there are the required taxes in the form of SS, Medicare, and more importantly O'Care.

Obama care doesn't apply to part-time employees. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/....

But that's not very important... employees would still want sponsored health care for the simple reason that it uses pre-tax earnings so there is a tax advantage. People would just get employer contributions to their health insurance in proportion to their wages or time worked—if you work less, you get a lower contribution and if you want the same level of coverage it's deducted from your normal pre-tax earnings.

Capeman wrote..

That and the increasing cost of living and you strangle the companies involved as well as the workers.

You have this completely backwards. Lower income means a LOWER cost of living. Just look at the increase in rents in the Silicon Valley area due to high incomes: http://pandodaily.com/2012/07/24/record-....

Loves2learn wrote..

But I instinctively knew that collectivism is counter-productive before I became a part of TF.

The US doesn't actually have that much socialist programs compared to other countries, but it does have them. Food stamps, unemployment benefits, maybe even things like disability social security benefits which have seen greater use since the financial crisis. This isn't even counting things like political resistance to reducing military spending since it would destroy jobs.

So society IS paying for high unemployment. Ultimately this money ends up the pockets of the rich and companies like Apple with its $100 billion in cash in overseas tax havens, so the government needs to keep printing—sorry, "borrowing"—more money.

This is less efficient, and more costly, than simply letting people WORK to support themselves instead of getting government handouts.

Magus wrote..

Big problem with this is the most productive are worth well over 1.2x the average professional.

I think this was addressed earlier in the thread—the 1.2x would be for the individual's current income. Someone who makes $100k would still make $100k, while someone who makes $40k would still make $40k. It's just that the $100k person would retain a greater share of their income if they decided to work less.

But you're sort of right that some employees currently give a huge benefit to the business way above what they are actually paid. This is basically exploitation but anyway. For example Apple's retail employees are paid about $12/hour but some of them can sell $250k of product per month. I guess businesses that do this wouldn't want to let their employees know how badly they are being exploited.

(Genesis seems to make the same mistake... maybe the description of the concept is worded badly.)

Andysvw: it sounds like you're being exploited, since you are a great worker but probably aren't being paid in proportion to what you contribute. If you're fine with that, keep supporting the current system.

I set my price. Fair is fair. Maybe you never dealt with my kind much. Who could teach my skills to the other guys? No I dont worry about them taking my job either they are loyal and honest. Sure if I hoisted the pirate flag and went to work at a dealership I could make lots more $$$. But for me I am happy doing honest work.

I am trying to bring back the old honest system that works. By example.

Thanks for your concern.

Why does "you can't fix stupid" keep running through my mind?

Ignorant you can fix, but not stupid.

Quote:

You have this completely backwards. Lower income means a LOWER cost of living. Just look at the increase in rents in the Silicon Valley area due to high incomes: http://pandodaily.com/2012/08/06/quote-f....]

Hmmmm... doesn't this inflation thing come from the unbacked emission of credit that has continued to happen for over a couple of decades now? You're doing a little chicken and egg thing. Credit has caused the cost of living to increase to ridiculous levels and has nothing to do with your little employment plan.

There are also many unique jobs out there where getting the right productivity is nearly impossible. I am in a similar position as Andy. What I do in two weeks would take an average person in the field at least 4 months. The model doesn't work in that case and the quality could easily go to **** as well.

With your model we would become the USSR and with the incredible amount of entitlement present in this country we would get to the point of implosion incredibly faster than they did.