Hacker News Reader

Comment by xwowsersx | Hacker News Reader

I think these sorts of pushes can only gain traction in a country with a very extensive welfare system. Hard to imagine this working in the US, for example. People would simply figure out a way to work more in order to get ahead and compete with others. Seems to me that a more socialist form of government is a required backdrop for this to mean anything.

View on HN

Definitely for some but people today work every weekend and overtime as much as they can but -most- people clock out and live their lives. Your argument is basically “why give people Saturday off, they’ll just work more!” Which is not the one I think you are consciously proposing but it’s effectively the same. Most people don’t want to work more at their jobs and would gladly take extra time to do their own stuff for the same pay.

That is a fair counterpoint.

Something that puzzles me is that any time progressive policies are being pushed through in not-USA, & someone references it in a USA policy discussion, there's a blanket "That wouldn't work here, we have 300 million people.." even in conversations where the policy should benefit from economies of scale (pharma). The main defense should be that there's a lot of unpopulated land which requires maintenance (highways). Of course, this issue applies to Canada as well, which is able to support more progressive policies

I don't think it's just the size of the population, but the characterization of it. In the USA there's a rather vast underclass compared to other prosperous countries. I'm not sure about the size in general, but in many Rust Belt cities I wouldn't be surprised if a quarter or even half of the population are disenfranchised by decades and centuries of discrimination, requiring an approach of "take what you can get when you can get it" rather than "be a valued and valuable part of a larger community".

I hope one day down the line Universal Basic Income can level the playing field somewhat - that's one progressive policy that can't be "abused" because it's universal. No one is going to claim it fraudulently, nor will they suspect others of doing so, because that's impossible.

You don't need socialism for this.

A company in the US can offer a 4 day work week and 6 hour workdays as a perk to attract top talent.

Perhaps not socialism, but you need a much more domineering state IF the goal is for people to work less. I'm suggesting that in the US the work culture is very intense and competitive and people will use the time freed up to do more work. My bet is that total numbers worked will not go down as a result of something like this if it were instituted in the US. I could be wrong...

Many federal, state, and county employees already alternate Fridays off.

I don't understand your logic?

How does

"People would simply figure out a way to work more in order to get ahead and compete with others."

matter at all?

Why would a person who is willing to work extra being paid extra matter, regardless if they normally would work 8 hours or 6?

See my other comment. It matters if the goal is to institute, at a national level, people working less in absolute terms, I could be wrong that that's the goal, but if it is my point is that for that to work, you need have a more dominating state than what exists, in say, the US.

Still not getting your logic.

Let's say your a random person Betty, and you need to work 64 hours to support your requirements (40 hours a week + a part time 24 hour job). If the govern decided that 40 hours should be 32 instead and you get paid the exact same. That doesn't mean you then can now get another job at 8 hours, no that means you get everything you need in 56 hours.

More time to do other stuff besides work.

Sure there will be people that want to excel rather then stay stationary and maybe they'll pick up another job or another shift and work another 8 hours. That doesn't mean that's wrong.

All that it means is 90% of the people work less. You can't govern a nation is absolutes, you govern a nation with majorities. Nobody gets 100% of the votes, no bill passes with 100% of the populous support. So nothing is absolute.

Honestly, I want a 30 hour work week so I can work 10 hours a week on my own stuff, volunteer work, or both. Some weeks (months) I'd do nothing. Others I'd work 20 hours. I think I'd be happier making 80% (75% + lower taxes) of what I make now as long as I have health insurance.

That said, I could totally see such a thing being labelled as another phase in the war on the middle class, where a lot of so-called middle class people are working two 3/4 jobs to maintain their standard of living.

I think getting rid of employer based healthcare would be a huge step forward towards this type of flexibility. I think most employers would be more open to this, but know they have fixed costs per employee and it is too difficult to to determine what a pro rated salary would be.

better yet, separate 401K and all other benefits while you are at it

Why is it bad if someone wants to work more? It just lowers the baseline amount of work required from everyone, it doesn't cap it for someone who is diligenter than average.

I didn't say it's bad at all. Different cultures have different attitudes towards work. In the US, we work very intensely and I'm simply suggesting that instituting a 4-day week and 6 hour day will not result in people working only 4 days, not in the US at least. People will, voluntarily, fill up the other time with other money-making endeavors. And I'm not saying that's a problem. My point is simply that (maybe my assumption is wrong here), presumably, the goal of such proposals is to reduce the amount of time people spend working on an absolute basis and that this will not be the end-result in every country.

I don't know if you're right about that. How did we ever go from 12-hour days and 6 day work weeks to the current 40 hour week?

Is the current 40hw/8h socialist? Do you prefer employment law to not set age limits so 10 year olds can mine again?

Socialism is something else not to be confused with labor standards or water safety or building code rules or parking fines or mail delivery.

You're letting your true colors show here by getting all bothered by the term socialism. It's a form of government, nothing more nothing less. I didn't say anything about how I felt about socialism, nor did I say anything to suggest there not be age limits for labor. What an absurd straw man.

I stand by my original point that if the goal of such proposals is to reduce total time spent working in absolute terms that the success of such proposals depends greatly on the form of government that exists in the country it's being proposed.

Socialism isn't a form of government. Democracy is a form of government.

Socialism is a set of principles a party might adopt to run on.

You're right, that is more precise. Thanks.

> Is the current 40hw/8h socialist?

Well, if you look at what organizations were demanding it back in the day, it certainly is. It's kind of funny how deeply the "socialism bad" runs in Americans

It would be interesting to find out how many US workers actually do 40/8

Based on this [1] paper, 85% of white collar workers are exempt from the 40 hour week limit.

p38560, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-06/pdf/2015-1...

> for example. People would simply figure out a way to work more in order to get ahead and compete with others. Seems to me that a more socialist form of government is a required backdrop for this to mean anything.

how many people work 2 or 3 jobs because they want to buy luxury items vs the people that are forced to work to keep their home and pay electricity,water,heat and other must have services. I personally tried once to work more then 8 hours and it was a terrible experience. as a programmer my energy depletes fast and most of the time the best ideas I have when away from the computer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com