Hacker News Reader

Hoo boy are you wrong.

You are so, so wrong.

I was hoping you were being ironic, but apparently you're serious.

Raising minimum wage and cutting working hours will drop productivity like a stone. You're effectively saying that all workers are equal, and interchangeable. You want to forcibly stop the more productive ones from working, so that their tasks and livelihoods can be given to others.

In the case of a software company you're introducing the twin evils of bad hires and oversized teams. For what? An inferior product produced at a higher price.

Dropping productivity means a drop in living standards for everyone, not just the rich people.

The reason people are out of work is because too many people are paying back too much debt, and that equates to negative savings.

Minimum wages increase unemployment because they set a price floor above the clearing price for the going price of a worker. Now, that's not an argument for getting rid of minimum wages, but you can't argue against the reality of what they do.

The solution is to continue paying back debt, and learn the lesson not to borrow so much next time around. Yes, that sucks, but hard lessons seldom have pleasant consequences.

If you want to stop a lot of wealth accumulating at the top end of the pyramid, by all means break up banking cartels and break the ties between legislators and big business, you won't get many arguments from most people. But fairyland schemes to force people to pay more than wages are worth, and force people to work less hours than they want? Hello, central planning. Hello, centralised control. The only way for this to work is to put the needs of the state above the needs of the individual. Which must, by definition, mean less individual freedom and more state control. What are you going to do with someone who works more than 35 hours? Lock them up at the point of a gun?

"Wasteful excessive consumerism" is an entirely relative proposition. One persons waste is another satisfactory standard of living. To impose an arbitary living standard on someone is to completely control their lives.

You're asking everyone to do less work. Less work by definition means less production, and less production means a lower living standard. And guess where the bulk of that lower living standard will fall - that's right, you can bet your peasant clothes it won't be on the 1%.

To conclude : you're effectively asking for centralised control of peoples wages, centralised control of how much a person can work, and centralised and arbitary division of what is small, medium and large business for the purposes of handing out favors, subsidies and handouts. Eventually businesses will start to fail and so will seek more handouts, bailouts, concessions or are nationalised because they are vital to society (eg mining, energy, farming).

You've effectively described a blend of National Socialism and Stalinism. And we know that both eventually lead to mass murder and misery of millions. This experiment has been tried before, it ends badly for all involved.

I hope you're young and still learning, because if you're of any reasonable age, you should know better by now.

You're exactly right - by killing productivity and massively increasing employment without reason, you're going to have massive increases in exogenous consumption.

Fantastic, except where are all of these consumed goods going to come from? You'll see huge inflationary pressure which means tighter monetary policy; higher interest rates and reduced borrowing and lending. Yes, there will be economic growth and increased GDP on paper, but there won't be any benefit to society. Furthermore, inflation actually helps the '1%' through arbitrary redistribution of wealth.

First year macroeconomics - I seriously think it should be a prerequisite to adulthood.

I saw a poster (in San Francisco) today that proposed solving the unemployment problem with "30 hours work for 40 hours pay"...

My lecturer would explode if he saw this.

Unfortunately history tells us that the person who promises something for nothing to the people who want more will always get traction. It is very difficult for people to accept the reality of the world and many people spend hours creating fantasies about how, if they were in control, they could 'fix things' which is just code for controlling everyone else and arranging things the way they like it, and phooey to whatever anyone else wants.

You can't herd invididuals, as anyone who has tried to round up a group of cats knows. You either accept that individuals have the right to be individuals or you have to force people submit to your plans and forego their individual choices. Too many people come out of education nowadays thinking they could organise society, if just given a chance. But the truth is that society is a loose collection of individuals, and by nature can only be convinced, not coerced. You either believe in the fundamental human right to choose your own destiny, or you don't - there are no half measures.

I mostly agree with your point, but I want to ask a question: if you had the power to kill about 50,000 people of your choice, at the times you wanted, without any repercussions on you personally, do you think you could use this power to effect a much better world than we currently live in? Major choices that have huge consequences are increasingly being made by individuals, major choices that affect a lot of people for the better or worse. Remember Petrov Day.

Sounds like the plot of Death Note.

>if you had the power to kill about 50,000 people of your choice, at the times you wanted

What kind of question is that?

No, I wouldn't want to harm anyone. You definitively can't make things better by killing people. You can make things better by letting people get to work and build their lives and families in peace.

Kill anyone? I'm aghast at the way Gaddafi was treated, even though I thought he was an evil despot.

I ask it in the way those annoying moral dichotomy type of questions are asked. The goal is to see what you would actually do or believe, not to get your opinion why the situation would never happen or why the situation is Forbidden. I agree with you completely on the notion that killing people is wrong, I find it sick how he was killed and how his body was treated, however I recognize that, in the following toy scenario, killing is the optimal choice from the set of available choices {kill, do nothing}: an Oracle reveals to you that if you don't kill Mr. Bob within the next five minutes, 5 billion people are going to die; do you kill him?

Even Gandhi recognized the right outcome here, but I agree with him that in most real cases the set of choices usually contains something else, such as maiming or more generally "disabling" to include relatively harmless things like tackling. (Hence I still criticize soldiers who shoot-to-kill brainwashed and/or insane kids coming at them with a machete for not shooting them in the knees or somewhere easier to hit but less likely to kill.)

My original question is dependent on you believing that there exists some real situation where killing one or more people makes the world better, the classic (sorry to Godwin the topic) being to kill Hitler to save who knows how many lives (regardless of if the war still happened). Since you've said you don't believe that, I guess I got what I really wanted to know. I should have just framed it that way to begin with. I agree with you that too many people falsely believe they could fix things, I don't agree with you that a single person couldn't fix things given the right opportunities such as being able to kill the most damaging 50k people.

> Hoo boy are you wrong.

> You are so, so wrong.

...

> You've effectively described a blend of National Socialism and Stalinism.

Hyperbole much? It saddens me to see this kind of nonsense on HN.

Also, let me point out that your disagreement is not on the highest level of the disagreement scale. In particular, your parent brings up the very reasonable point that mankind introduced the two-day-weekend at some point during the industrial revolution. It's likely difficult to find anybody who says that that's a bad thing. So what's wrong with drawing an analogy here between the introduction of the two-day-weekend and reducing the maximum length of the regular work week?

I'm not saying that all your points are without merit, but you have not addressed the parent's point, and your comment is so full of rhetorical bullshit, it's disgusting.

By the way: too many people are paying back too much debt, and that equates to negative savings.

This is factually incorrect (or perhaps you misstated). The savings rate is the ratio of disposable income that people do not spend. Since paying back debt means that you use some of your disposable income to pay back the debt instead of spending it, it actually equates positive savings.

You can see that the savings rate had a huge spike upwards in the US after the mortgage bubble burst, for precisely that reason: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PSAVERT

And - as you say - that's largely responsible for the economic mess we're in right now, because larger savings have translated to lower aggregate demand, which has lead to net layoffs. It's the paradox of thrift at work.

The OP asks for control of wages and working hours. The plan is to use a simultaneous forced raising of wages and restrictions of working hours so that everyone can have a job. Apart from being unworkable and ridiculous, this is the starting point of a completely planned economy.

Hyperbole? Maybe a little, but too many people sleepwalk into agreeing with this type of idea without thinking through the full consequences.

Sure, they wouldn't start out that way, they never do. But as businesses fail, they need support or nationalisation. Which brings in more planning. National Socialism took over 10 years to get to it's full zenith, this doesn't happen overnight, but there is no reason to even begin down the path that leads to that. You can dance around it all you like, but the only way to make this sort of rubbish work is by overarching state power over the individual. You can't try and whitewash the misery of millions caused by planned economies just because it is a cliche to do so.

It saddens me that people still think this way after a century of misery from trying to command and plan economies. And on HN of all places, which is supposed to be about startups and technology. You mightn't like my way of putting things, well, that's the way I talk and write.

Re savings rate : we are in agreement. People are using disposable income to pay down debt, which means it goes into neither consumption or new investment. Which causes the slump. This has to be worked through before things will improve.

> The OP asks for control of wages and working hours.

So you're saying minimum wage and overtime are bad things? I'm not proposing new laws, just new numbers in existing laws.

I think the last half century of European history proves that the sub-Hayekian argument implying increased government intervention necessarily leads to dictatorship is even more intellectually bankrupt than those in favour of a fully planned economy. 35 hour working weeks and high minimum wages are not a radical or untried idea. Arguably excessive regulation of working conditions has contributed to many of Europe's present economic and social problems, and that's a subject worth discussing, but the imagined threat of mass-murdering autocrats isn't one of them. In HN of all places we shouldn't be invoking Godwin's law at this stage of an argument.

I think the last half century of European history proves that the sub-Hayekian argument implying any increased government intervention necessarily leads to dictatorship is even more intellectually bankrupt than those in favour of a fully planned economy. 35 hour working weeks and high minimum wages are not a radical or untried idea. Arguably excessive regulation of working conditions has contributed to many of Europe's present economic and social problems, and that's a subject worth discussing, but the imagined threat of mass-murdering autocrats isn't one of them. In HN of all places we shouldn't be invoking Godwin's law at this stage of an argument.

If you think that's Hayeks argument, I suggest you go and read his works again.

He went to great pains over his career to point out that he never said that imposing increasing controls over people necessarily leads to dictatorship. His point was that, in order for a centrally planned economy to work, you necessarily had to capture increasing amounts of activity under the control of the government. And that increasing control by government was by no means

It's true that Hayeks original ideas have been characterised by many different people and groups to the point where it is impossible to know what they mean unless you go back and figure them out for yourself. It's also important to know that Hayek wrote his original works while socialism was still a bubbling, living idea in the western world, and not the failed anachronism it is (should) now regarded as.

My point here is that you always have a choice in the way you want to run things. Down one path is increasing amounts of control, and there should be no argument about what lies at the end of that path. Of course it's not inevitable that, once you start down that path, that it's impossible to reverse. Down the other path is not increasing amounts of government control over people.

35 hour weeks are not a radical idea, sure, lots of people have agitated for them for a long time. But the way the thread was written was that everyone was going to be forced to work a 35 hour week. Maybe the OP didn't presume to force people, but if it's not forced, it won't be obeyed and thus will be pointless. Besides that, the entire thread showed a complete lack of understanding of what creates real jobs and wealth, with statements like 'we produce too much'.

If the last half century of European history gives us anything, it's that the welfare state is doomed and that you can't magic up productivity and wages growth by government intervention.

Sure, conjuring up mass murder was probably overdone for this forum, probably a case of being a bit hot headed when I originally posted. But whenever I see outbreaks of this type of thinking among what appear to be young people, I get anxious that they get some history and context into the fact these ideas have all been tried and failed in the past.

This is a pretty strong reaction to a pretty mild proposal. You know that the US already has a minimum wage and a standard workweek, right? The parent is advocating increasing the minimum wage 20% and decreasing the standard workweek 12.5%. That's not Stalinism.

Now, it's reasonable to point out that skilled laborers are basically fully employed right now, so the proposal would marginally reduce the supply of skilled labor hours -- and could thereby reduce skilled output.

But FWIW I don't think that's a very good point. Skilled labor is not really hour-limited in the same way that unskilled labor is -- that is, the output of a salaried full-time knowledge-worker employee is unlikely to change much (certainly not by 12.5%) if the standard workweek drops from 40 hours to 35. That's not how knowledge jobs work and that's not how salaried positions work. Whereas productivity in unskilled positions really would drop by somewhere close to 12.5% under the proposal. (Which is good; it opens up more of these "job" things that are so crucial to wealth distribution in the modern world.)

At any rate, if shorter work weeks for skilled workers bothers you that much, there's an easy solution: just say that you can only pay the minimum wage for the first 35 hours of the week, after which you have to pay at least 1.5 * minimum wage. Leave everything else the same. (Well, I like the parent's minimum wage hike too.) Now we're only cutting the output of near-minimum-wage workers.

I'm not at all sure that this idea wouldn't be disastrous, but I can't think of any good reasons that it might be. I feel like it's the most obvious way out of the current economic situation.

It's not the mechanics of the price - it's the basic premise that you can fix things by forcing people to pay more for labour and to work less hours. A standard workweek of 40 hours is different to a maximum workweek of 35 hours. Put yourself in the position of a startup founder. You've got $x million of runway in your account. Now the government says your employees have to work less and you have to pay them more. Where is the value created? It's not.

As I said - what are you going to do, lock them up if they work 40 hours?

How about we just leave things alone with regard to minimum wages and let people work as much as they want?

Yes, there are already minimum wages, and we know that this already causes unemployment. If you increase the minimum wage by 20%, there will be a resulting hike in prices of things by some value. Now you've just made everything more expensive, and you've increased unemployment.

Yes, it's probably a strong reaction, but I just hate the thought of any of this type of 'solution' ever getting traction. It just seems so naive after these ideas have been tried and failed time and time again.

Anyone who is here and is interested in startups needs to understand how jobs are created. Jobs are created by the process of value being created, whereby the work of a person adds more value than it costs, and other people are willing to exchange something of value for it.

If I were president, I could dictate 100% employment tomorrow by enlisting everyone as air raid wardens or terrorist spotters and paying them a salary. But would we be better off? No. It doesn't work at any level. Sure, you can borrow a billion dollars and employ people to dig holes in the ground and fill them back in again, but then you've just made society a billion dollars poorer, and all that potential labor to do something with has been wasted.

Bottom line : people should stop trying to impose price controls on things, including labor. It has never worked, will never work and it frustrates me to see it being discussed.

> Bottom line : people should stop trying to impose price controls on things, including labor. It has never worked, will never work and it frustrates me to see it being discussed.

You're right, this whole weekend thing sucks. Let's go back to the industrial revolution era and work 6-day 80-hour workweeks because that's what the market decides is the most productive. People who don't want to lose their free time can opt to work less and... oh wait, they'd be fired and be out of work. /sarcasm

This is why people organize... the labor movement is a natural product of a laissez-faire economy. Government exists to serve the people; i.e. the laborers. Hence, it makes sense for government to enforce labor policies.

So what do you think of the 40-hour workweek? Should we eliminate the concept of time-and-a-half pay for overtime?

> In the case of a software company you're introducing the twin evils of bad hires and oversized teams. For what? An inferior product produced at a higher price.

Software engineers are not hourly workers last time I checked.

> What are you going to do with someone who works more than 35 hours?

The same thing we do with people who work more than 40 hours now. Pay them overtime.

> I hope you're young and still learning, because if you're of any reasonable age, you should know better by now.

You sir are an asshole.

Empirical evidence suggest a reduction of work hours will NOT increase employment. See when France went from 39 hour workweeks to 35. http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/9/973/papers/estevao_sa.pdf

As a founder, this seems intuitively obvious. I have problems finding the correct people. There simply aren't enough skilled people who can do work (that is where the overhead of managing them + their cost < my time loss). Consequently, it makes economic sense for everyone to just work longer hours. If we had to limit hours, we'd simply produce less. And because our product provides time-savings for our customers, all of society suffers.

I also completely disagree that people can buy so much stuff. Sure, physical items, yes. But 77% of the US economy is services.

From a personal perspective, I don't need more trinkets. But if I had the money, I'd never do my own laundry, shopping, driving, etc. -- that is I would spend a lot of money to gain time. Whether that time goes toward pleasure or working harder, it doesn't matter -- society still wins.

> Empirical evidence suggest a reduction of work hours will NOT increase employment. See when France went from 39 hour workweeks to 35.

There is much to be said about the legal work week in France. It has been badly misrepresented again and again.

In most industries, the reduction of work hours was more than compensated by "annualization". That means that you must do 35 hours a week, not every week but as a mean value along the whole year. What's the result? Where people used to work 39 hours all year long, even when the activity was in a low cycle, an work paid overtime when activity was high, they now work 30 hours a week at times and up to 48 hours a week at other times, always paid the standard wage all year long.

Furthermore, even the definition of "work hour" changed. For instance, in some industries people are now allowed to take a piss only 2 times a day instead of 4. In "sales" (actually, supermarket cashiers mostly), people are now "working" only while they're actually on duty (they used to be "working" while present on the premises); so they may be given "free time" for up to two or three hours during the day (there aren't many customers in shops for hours during the week), though they often have no other choice but wait at the workplace or the immediate vicinity because they haven't got time or resource to do anything else.

So actually for a large part of the economy, going from 39 to 35 hours was quite a big improvement of productivity. What is usually represented abroad as a scandalous, quasi communist change was actually a boon for the "great capital". Further "adjustments" made to the system in the past 12 years by right wing governments have achieved the picture; though they still love to bad mouth "the 35 hours" (lazy leftists! profiteering socialists!), getting rid of the many "progresses" induced by this system is absolutely out of the question.

This is, by the way, perfectly in line with the habit to ditch French (now dead) retirement law: "Lazy French retire at 60! Courageous Germans retire at 67!", while the truth is that French retire at 62.5 years, and German 62.7...

> But 77% of the US economy is services.

Many of these services don't always make sense economically. Is it for the best that so many Americans eat out almost every day? Sure, that creates demand for a lot of low wage jobs, then what?

This sort of short-sighted insistence on GDP growth (more business! more jobs!) is toxic in the long term. Some of the basics tenets seriously need to be revised.

It's not that complicated. The rich get richer because they own. Specifically, they own two things - the means of production of wealth, and the debt of the 99%.

Outsourcing wealth production to low-wage countries increased profit margins and enabled the meteoric rise in CEO and executive compensation relative to labor, whose wages were stagnant at best, or who were being outsourced and laid off at worst (eg, labor wasn't benefitting from the increased profit margins, only executives and shareholders/owners).

Cheap money and debt bubbles enabled labor to continue consuming on credit beyond their means, sustaining the increased profit margins longer than should have been possible, while simultaneously paying interest on their consumption.

Hence, the 99% (or whatever the % is) has been transferring wealth to the 1% from both ends. The solution is, stay out of debt as much as possible, and find ways to incentivize repatriation of production operations to the US (ostensibly by reducing the cost-basis of manufacturing here). Certain legal proposals, like financial transaction taxes and the like, may help as well.

Or you could stop all government subsidies to corporations and set up a business tax structure that is heavily favorable to worker-owned cooperatives at the expense of shareholder-owned corporations. Corporations are just machines for extracting productivity from large numbers of people and concentrating the wealth produced by that productivity in the hands of a few. Worker-owned cooperatives do not share that design flaw. They also have little to no motivation to outsource.

"Worker-owned cooperatives do not share that design flaw. They also have little to no motivation to outsource."

You can start a worker-owned cooperative now. Why don't you? You could even make it a non-profit and save on some taxes.

What you want to do is make it impossible for corporations as we know them to exist, taking away freedoms. Corporations aren't slave-owners and employees aren't slaves. You have the freedom to work for one or start your own company.

I suppose a worker-owned cooperative would be fine, as long as the workers also took on losses (IE: if sales are down this month, you might only get a $500 paycheck as opposed to a $3000 one).

Then you would have to deal with the day-to-day stuff and you would end up having a president, treasurer, managers, etc, etc, etc, essentially creating what thousands of years of human history have already told you. Bitcoin, which was suppose to get around those pesky banks, essentially gave you the reason why banks are necessary: Most people don't want to or don't have the ability to secure their own money.

Most people aren't willing to take a risk. They won't start a company and take no paycheck for months or possible years while barely scraping by hoping their idea actually is successful.

Why should someone that takes absolutely no risk get anything close to the owners of a company?

You seem to not know anything about this, so I'll cut you some slack even though your wording is slightly offensive.

Worker owned cooperatives aren't some kind of pie-in-the sky idea tat has never been tried. they make up a large portion of the employment base in Emiglia-Romagna, the Basque territory, Switzerland, and Wisconsin, along with lots of other places. Cooperatives employ 100 million people around the world according to the ILO, so it's not some kind of pipe dream that you would like to make it out to be.

I never said that I wanted to make corporations illegal, just stop using tax dollars to subsidize them, while taxing them in order to balance out the extreme wealth redistribution that they engage in. It seems eminently sensible for a country that likes to call itself a democracy to promote (or at least set up a favorable regulatory scheme for) economic democracy rather than the techno-feudalism that corporate capitalism resembles when capital becomes too concentrated.

re:bitcoin: what?

>Why should someone that takes absolutely no risk get anything close to the owners of a company?

Good question. Why should a rich investor that spends a tiny fraction of his money own the product of the founders and workers who actually create the value? Why should capital own labor, rather than the other way around?

"You seem to not know anything about this, so I'll cut you some slack even though your wording is slightly offensive."

If these really worked and made sense, we would have more worker owned cooperatives as opposed to corporations. I haven't heard much about them because they are in the slim minority..and there's probably a reason for this.

"I never said that I wanted to make corporations illegal, just stop using tax dollars to subsidize them, while taxing them in order to balance out the extreme wealth redistribution that they engage in."

Which translates to: taxing the hell out of them so it's no longer profitable to start one. I'm cool with worker owned cooperatives as long as they are taxed exactly the same as corporations.

"It seems eminently sensible for a country that likes to call itself a democracy to promote (or at least set up a favorable regulatory scheme for) economic democracy rather than the techno-feudalism that corporate capitalism resembles when capital becomes too concentrated."

It is a democracy: you can start your own company at any time. You want to prevent someone from having too much money, even if they've earned it honestly. I don't want anyone to limit my success. When this happens, I will either leave the country or become a criminal.

"Good question. Why should a rich investor that spends a tiny fraction of his money own the product of the founders and workers who actually create the value? Why should capital own labor, rather than the other way around?"

Because the rich investor is risking their money. The founders can bootstrap. Many companies do. I personally wouldn't give up that much control to anyone. Most workers don't understand what it takes to run a company. It's more than just collecting a larger paycheck..

"re:bitcoin: what?"

Never heard of bitcoin?

>If these really worked and made sense, we would have more worker owned cooperatives as opposed to corporations. I haven't heard much about them because they are in the slim minority..and there's probably a reason for this.

Wow. Circular reasoning much? Try doing some research - you might find that there are thing in the world you didn't already know.

A while ago there was an interesting article in the Orion magazine [1] that talks about this. It claims that people would become happier, even with less pay, when they work less and have more time to spend on family and friends. Apparently Kellog's tried a reduced work week for a while and the workers didn't want to change things back.

[1] http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/2962...

Strangely enough, because of the way the EITC is tied with wages and already distorting the economics at the bottom, raising the minimum wage could result in net transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor and therefore reduce inequality.

I had more relevant comments here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3120123

Not all people are the same. Not all people are as equally productive, equally talented or equally motivated. Not all people want the same things.

You seem to subscribe to the aim of total income equality as a goal. To do this you would force the productive to hand over most of the product of their work to those who are less productive. Obviously, to do this, you need to force them using the apparatus of the state to do so.

In other words, they either spend the majority of their time working for others or they go to jail. They are not asked to share the product of their work, they are threatened to do so or be locked up.

Does that sound fair to you? That is a very perverse sense of justice, where you don't have a choice in how the output of your labour is divided.

Honestly I cannot understand after a century of misery from forced wealth redistribution and forced work and millions of deaths people still come up with these ideas.

This is not a black and white decision.

There is a big gap between wanting "total income quality", and wanting to close the huge, and increasing, income equality gap in the US, and to increase the minimum wage (or undertake other means) to reach a point where people can reasonably buy a house and send their children to university without requiring crippling loans.

You can't force the minimum wage up any more than you can push on a piece of string. While you can certainly change legislation to make the minimum wage a set value, there will be offsetting measures felt elsewhere, usually an increase in unemployment and a general drop in living standards for all. You can't force someone to employ you anymore than you can force someone to be your friend.

Once houses have finished correcting lots of people will be able to afford them. Housing affordability is headed towards the best it's ever been.

I agree that things are bad, but going down the road of trying to force a solution by means of restrictions, price controls and regulations will only make the problem worse.

As I've posted in the past, places like Detroit should be cordoned off and turned into special economic zones like Hong Kong is to China. There should be a very low tax rate, no trade restrictions with other countries, and many other regulations, taxes and boondoggles dropped. There should be no (or very low, say 3%, for Military use) federal taxes and in turn they should receive no handouts or participate in any programs from the Federal government.

Do that I can guarantee that in 10 years the place will be booming, employment will be high and things will be moving in the right direction. With somewhere like Detroit, it's time people started thinking outside the box and experimenting with some rollback of the last 100 years of policy.

So do you believe removing the current minimum wage altogether would be beneficial to those people currently around that level of pay? Given the current high levels of unemployment I would expect to see a fairly substantial drop in wages, where it is already almost impossible to live on minimum wage.

Also, once Detroit is removed from all Federal programs, how does it pay to feed all the currently unemployed people there?

Necessarily will likely be a short-term (5-year or less) exemption from these policies for small business owners (defined as those whose executives take home in salary + bonuses less than some threshold, say $200k).

E.g., small businesses like Apple and Google.

You are so wrong. Less work?

There is no cure for cancer, no clean energy, no cheap housing, no good education. There are so many things to do.

Has nothing to do with the amount of work you do, but what goals or values you have.

Right - try telling that to the boss. I'm taking the day off, but you can still pay me. It's OK, though, I've got the right values.

The only way to simultaneously...

Everytime someones says there's "only one way", that person turned out to be:

* Dogmatic

and

* Wrong

There's certainly not a single reason behind the current situation, and certainly not one single answer to it.

You are right. The other way is for a new, massive industry to open up. (Think terraforming Mars.) This would correspond to increased per-capita wealth consumption.

However the fact that you must choose four of {decrease excess wealth, decrease employment, maintain moderate per-capita consumption, maintain high per-capita work output, maintain high per-hour work output} is a logical truth.

Proof:

Wealth can be created (work), destroyed (consumed), or accumulated and held (income/wealth inequality). Wealth must be created at the same rate it is accumulated or destroyed (i.e. Wc = Wa + Wd). Since OWS wants to decrease wealth accumulated and it is undesirable to increase wealth destroyed (unless in the example given above), we must therefore decrease wealth created. Right now this is happening due to unemployment. Since OWS also wants to minimize that, we must decrease wealth created in another manner. Obviously, decreasing wealth created per hour worked is out of the question (that would mean reverting to a pre-industrial age). The only remaining option is to decrease hours worked. QED.