New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

What your work-week could look like.

Arkady

President
The world's second-wealthiest man is talking about a three-day work-week:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/21/news/economy/three-day-work-week/index.html?iid=HP_LN

His idea is coupled with longer working days and later retirements, so it's mostly just a shift of when the hours will be put in. Few people, today, are talking about making it so people can actually work fewer hours. But, such talk used to be common among economists and sociologists, back in the 1950s and 60s. When it became clear how much productivity was growing, it also became clear that we could maintain our then-current amount of consumption with dramatically fewer hours devoted to labor, and many thought that's how things would go.

Instead, we went the other way: longer hours for workers, and a much higher percentage of the population working. Remember, for all the griping about a falling labor force participation rate, the rate today is much higher than in the 50s and 60s -- the rate in the 1950s was as low as 58.1%, whereas today it's 62.8%. To get the participation rate back down to where it was in the mid-50s, we'd need about 7.3 million people to exit the labor force. In the same period, retirements have been pushed back, too, so that people are working more at the tail end of their lives.

Some of the impact of this combination of growing productivity, growing hours, and growing labor force participation has shown up as a rising family income. The median family earns twice what it did in 1954, in inflation-adjusted dollars. But much has shown up simply as a vast enrichment of the economic elite. To give you a sense of that, look at what has happened to real GDP per capita. In the same time that median real family income doubled, real GDP per capita rose by 3.2 times. To put it another way, if the growth of family income had kept pace with the per capita growth of the economy, then a median family, which earned $49,146.26 in 2012, would instead have earned $78,388.28.

Of course, such an equitable portion of economic growth wouldn't necessarily need to take the form of higher consumerism. It could, instead, take the form of a higher quality of other aspects of life, such as free time. In theory, we could be working 31.3% as much as in the mid-1950s, while still having a real median Family income the same as back then. So, a standard 40-hour week would instead be about 12.5 hours. If we put our high productivity to work for everyone equally, bringing down the workweek, you could be working one and a half days per week, and still living a median 1950s lifestyle (modest by modern standards, but not exactly suffering).
 
Last edited:

connieb

Senator
The world's second-wealthiest man is talking about a three-day work-week:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/21/news/economy/three-day-work-week/index.html?iid=HP_LN

His idea is coupled with longer working days and later retirements, so it's mostly just a shift of when the hours will be put in. Few people, today, are talking about making it so people can actually work fewer hours. But, such talk used to be common among economists and sociologists, back in the 1950s and 60s. When it became clear how much productivity was growing, it also became clear that we could maintain our then-current amount of consumption with dramatically fewer hours devoted to labor, and many thought that's how things would go.

Instead, we went the other way: longer hours for workers, and a much higher percentage of the population working. Remember, for all the griping about a falling labor force participation rate, the rate today is much higher than in the 50s and 60s -- the rate in the 1950s was as low as 58.1%, whereas today it's 62.8%. To get the participation rate back down to where it was in the mid-50s, we'd need about 7.3 million people to exit the labor force. In the same period, retirements have been pushed back, too, so that people are working more at the tail end of their lives.

Some of the impact of this combination of growing productivity, growing hours, and growing labor force participation has shown up as a rising family income. The median family earns twice what it did in 1954, in inflation-adjusted dollars. But much has shown up simply as a vast enrichment of the economic elite. To give you a sense of that, look at what has happened to real GDP per capita. In the same time that median real family income doubled, real GDP per capita rose by 3.2 times. To put it another way, if the growth of family income had kept pace with the per capita growth of the economy, then a median family, which earned $49,146.26 in 2012, would instead have earned $78,388.28.

Of course, such an equitable portion of economic growth wouldn't necessarily need to take the form of higher consumerism. It could, instead, take the form of a higher quality of other aspects of life, such as free time. In theory, we could be working 31.3% as much as in the mid-1950s, while still having a real GDP per capita the same as back then. So, a standard 40-hour week would instead be about 12.5 hours. If we put our high productivity to work for everyone equally, bringing down the workweek, you could be working one and a half days per week, and still living a median 1950s lifestyle (modest by modern standards, but not exactly suffering).

I would rather work my 60 plus hour weeks and get to keep more of my own money. I realize that such a system has appeal to someone who admitted they were fairly lazy. But, I am happy to work to advance my econcomic opportunities and make as much money as i can and provide for my children the best possible life. What I am not willing to do - is to do any of that - to provide a lifestyle commensurate with my own for anyone else. The reality is - industrious people - don't find working hard, or working many hours a burden. If I wasn't working as much then we would be doing more of our home upkeep ourselves or doing more of our lawnwork ourselves, etc - which in many ways would take money out of the economy. I abhor idleness in any form and I certainly won't accept such for myself when I can do better, and I certainly won't support others in their quest for it.

connie
 
The world's second-wealthiest man is talking about a three-day work-week:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/21/news/economy/three-day-work-week/index.html?iid=HP_LN

His idea is coupled with longer working days and later retirements, so it's mostly just a shift of when the hours will be put in. Few people, today, are talking about making it so people can actually work fewer hours. But, such talk used to be common among economists and sociologists, back in the 1950s and 60s. When it became clear how much productivity was growing, it also became clear that we could maintain our then-current amount of consumption with dramatically fewer hours devoted to labor, and many thought that's how things would go.

Instead, we went the other way: longer hours for workers, and a much higher percentage of the population working. Remember, for all the griping about a falling labor force participation rate, the rate today is much higher than in the 50s and 60s -- the rate in the 1950s was as low as 58.1%, whereas today it's 62.8%. To get the participation rate back down to where it was in the mid-50s, we'd need about 7.3 million people to exit the labor force. In the same period, retirements have been pushed back, too, so that people are working more at the tail end of their lives.

Some of the impact of this combination of growing productivity, growing hours, and growing labor force participation has shown up as a rising family income. The median family earns twice what it did in 1954, in inflation-adjusted dollars. But much has shown up simply as a vast enrichment of the economic elite. To give you a sense of that, look at what has happened to real GDP per capita. In the same time that median real family income doubled, real GDP per capita rose by 3.2 times. To put it another way, if the growth of family income had kept pace with the per capita growth of the economy, then a median family, which earned $49,146.26 in 2012, would instead have earned $78,388.28.

Of course, such an equitable portion of economic growth wouldn't necessarily need to take the form of higher consumerism. It could, instead, take the form of a higher quality of other aspects of life, such as free time. In theory, we could be working 31.3% as much as in the mid-1950s, while still having a real GDP per capita the same as back then. So, a standard 40-hour week would instead be about 12.5 hours. If we put our high productivity to work for everyone equally, bringing down the workweek, you could be working one and a half days per week, and still living a median 1950s lifestyle (modest by modern standards, but not exactly suffering).
Under Obama, what your week will look like:

Monday
11:30am Drive to unemployment office to pick up check
4:30pm Leave unemployment office with check
5:00pm Hit your favorite watering hole to spend 3/4 of your unemployment check
9:00pm Drive home
9:15pm Get pulled over for Drunk Driving
 

Caroljo

Senator
Under Obama, what your week will look like:

Monday
11:30am Drive to unemployment office to pick up check
4:30pm Leave unemployment office with check
5:00pm Hit your favorite watering hole to spend 3/4 of your unemployment check
9:00pm Drive home
9:15pm Get pulled over for Drunk Driving
Lol!
 

Fast Eddy

Mayor
It bothers me to see the American work ethic destroyed by the ever expanding welfare state. It has gotten so you can live about as good on welfare as low paying jobs, so more and more Americans are taking the easy path and stopping working to live off government. I read that 47% of Americans get some form of aid from the government, that is close to the tipping point. We will soon reach the point where the hardworking people will get tire of carrying everyone else and just quit themselves. The system will just crash and that day may not be that far away.
 

Caroljo

Senator
It bothers me to see the American work ethic destroyed by the ever expanding welfare state. It has gotten so you can live about as good on welfare as low paying jobs, so more and more Americans are taking the easy path and stopping working to live off government. I read that 47% of Americans get some form of aid from the government, that is close to the tipping point. We will soon reach the point where the hardworking people will get tire of carrying everyone else and just quit themselves. The system will just crash and that day may not be that far away.
I hate to admit you're right. I don't know if I'll live to see it, but my kids may, and their kids for sure.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
The world's second-wealthiest man is talking about a three-day work-week:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/21/news/economy/three-day-work-week/index.html?iid=HP_LN

His idea is coupled with longer working days and later retirements, so it's mostly just a shift of when the hours will be put in. Few people, today, are talking about making it so people can actually work fewer hours. But, such talk used to be common among economists and sociologists, back in the 1950s and 60s. When it became clear how much productivity was growing, it also became clear that we could maintain our then-current amount of consumption with dramatically fewer hours devoted to labor, and many thought that's how things would go.

Instead, we went the other way: longer hours for workers, and a much higher percentage of the population working. Remember, for all the griping about a falling labor force participation rate, the rate today is much higher than in the 50s and 60s -- the rate in the 1950s was as low as 58.1%, whereas today it's 62.8%. To get the participation rate back down to where it was in the mid-50s, we'd need about 7.3 million people to exit the labor force. In the same period, retirements have been pushed back, too, so that people are working more at the tail end of their lives.

Some of the impact of this combination of growing productivity, growing hours, and growing labor force participation has shown up as a rising family income. The median family earns twice what it did in 1954, in inflation-adjusted dollars. But much has shown up simply as a vast enrichment of the economic elite. To give you a sense of that, look at what has happened to real GDP per capita. In the same time that median real family income doubled, real GDP per capita rose by 3.2 times. To put it another way, if the growth of family income had kept pace with the per capita growth of the economy, then a median family, which earned $49,146.26 in 2012, would instead have earned $78,388.28.

Of course, such an equitable portion of economic growth wouldn't necessarily need to take the form of higher consumerism. It could, instead, take the form of a higher quality of other aspects of life, such as free time. In theory, we could be working 31.3% as much as in the mid-1950s, while still having a real GDP per capita the same as back then. So, a standard 40-hour week would instead be about 12.5 hours. If we put our high productivity to work for everyone equally, bringing down the workweek, you could be working one and a half days per week, and still living a median 1950s lifestyle (modest by modern standards, but not exactly suffering).
majority of Americans are already working as that and it's called PART-TIME
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
It bothers me to see the American work ethic destroyed by the ever expanding welfare state. It has gotten so you can live about as good on welfare as low paying jobs, so more and more Americans are taking the easy path and stopping working to live off government. I read that 47% of Americans get some form of aid from the government, that is close to the tipping point. We will soon reach the point where the hardworking people will get tire of carrying everyone else and just quit themselves. The system will just crash and that day may not be that far away.
I see people living better on welfare than those working w/good paying jobs............
 

Arkady

President
Back when one spouse stayed home and raised children to be good sound human beings. Now not so much.
These days, kids are raised better, morally speaking. The murder rate is now considerably lower than when the Baby Boomers were in their peak crime years. Today's kids are also less likely to be racists and homophobes than kids from earlier generations.
 

Arkady

President
I would rather work my 60 plus hour weeks and get to keep more of my own money. I realize that such a system has appeal to someone who admitted they were fairly lazy. But, I am happy to work to advance my econcomic opportunities and make as much money as i can and provide for my children the best possible life. What I am not willing to do - is to do any of that - to provide a lifestyle commensurate with my own for anyone else. The reality is - industrious people - don't find working hard, or working many hours a burden. If I wasn't working as much then we would be doing more of our home upkeep ourselves or doing more of our lawnwork ourselves, etc - which in many ways would take money out of the economy. I abhor idleness in any form and I certainly won't accept such for myself when I can do better, and I certainly won't support others in their quest for it.

connie
I find excessive work in the professional context to be soul-deadening. It's the same mindless routine day after day, with no real mental challenge, and it turns most people into slow-witted and intensely boring people by the time they're 40. I'd prefer people had more leisure time with which to develop aspects of their souls and intellects neglected by their day jobs.
 

Fast Eddy

Mayor
These days, kids are raised better, morally speaking. The murder rate is now considerably lower than when the Baby Boomers were in their peak crime years. Today's kids are also less likely to be racists and homophobes than kids from earlier generations.
Your reasoning is way off. Today's kids never leave the basement, they text and play games. The population is getting older, so less crime. Just a lot of things and not the liberal goo you state.
 

Arkady

President
Under Obama, what your week will look like:

Monday
11:30am Drive to unemployment office to pick up check
4:30pm Leave unemployment office with check
5:00pm Hit your favorite watering hole to spend 3/4 of your unemployment check
9:00pm Drive home
9:15pm Get pulled over for Drunk Driving
As you'll recall, unemployment has dropped considerably under Obama, just as it did the last time we had a Democratic president. By comparison, it rose drastically under his predecessor, as it did under the prior Republican.
 

Arkady

President
It bothers me to see the American work ethic destroyed by the ever expanding welfare state. It has gotten so you can live about as good on welfare as low paying jobs, so more and more Americans are taking the easy path and stopping working to live off government. I read that 47% of Americans get some form of aid from the government, that is close to the tipping point. We will soon reach the point where the hardworking people will get tire of carrying everyone else and just quit themselves. The system will just crash and that day may not be that far away.
Most of those who live off the government spent years working to earn that privilege -- people collecting Social Security or unemployment insurance or a military retirement.
 

Arkady

President
Your reasoning is way off. Today's kids never leave the basement, they text and play games. The population is getting older, so less crime. Just a lot of things and not the liberal goo you state.
The murder rate for young people today is lower than it was for Baby Boomers at the same age. It's not just an aging population. It's a morally improved population. They're just living in their parents' basements because there's no work to be had for them, despite their being much better educated than prior generations. Our policy of deregulation crippled the economy, and then our policy of government austerity slowed the recovery to a crawl.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
These days, kids are raised better, morally speaking. The murder rate is now considerably lower than when the Baby Boomers were in their peak crime years. Today's kids are also less likely to be racists and homophobes than kids from earlier generations.
you gotta be on some strong drugs to post this shitte...........when I was in my "peak" we didn't even lock our car or homes doors.....................go tell the inner city kids what drugs you are using..............wait.....they already using those.
 

Fast Eddy

Mayor
Most of those who live off the government spent years working to earn that privilege -- people collecting Social Security or unemployment insurance or a military retirement.
Not talking about SS or military pensions and you know it.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
I find excessive work in the professional context to be soul-deadening. It's the same mindless routine day after day, with no real mental challenge, and it turns most people into slow-witted and intensely boring people by the time they're 40. I'd prefer people had more leisure time with which to develop aspects of their souls and intellects neglected by their day jobs.
YEAH...so they could set on their ass and post on the internet................hell......with smart phones kids don't even look up or into others eyes...............you're a fool.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Your reasoning is way off. Today's kids never leave the basement, they text and play games. The population is getting older, so less crime. Just a lot of things and not the liberal goo you state.
ark claims to be a Lawyer.............evidently with no clients...........
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
As you'll recall, unemployment has dropped considerably under Obama, just as it did the last time we had a Democratic president. By comparison, it rose drastically under his predecessor, as it did under the prior Republican.
so why do we now have a RECORD of people on food stamps____________
 
Top