I think that was the one where she was unreachable by the government (this was still the covid times, 2021) which is a no-no and was seen as dancing with/maybe kissing another man (a celebrity) while her husband was at home with their daughter. (They separated some time after) That soured a lot of people's view on her. Of course her being a young woman was further incrimination to many of her opponents.
Another similar scandal was the house party video where she was allegedly doing coke. I don't think anything was proven there. Someone on the video was yelling "powder gang" which is weird but not exactly solid evidence, but it became a huge meme and just solidified her reputation as a "party girl", something beneath the position of a PM.
I think those were the bigger non-politics scandals.
I don't know what you mean by invented. A lot of people thought partying drunk on video wasn't really appropriate behaviour for the PM. People don't mind (at least as much) if it happens behind closed doors, but Marin unfortunately had shitty enough friends that they posted that stuff online. That sort of stuff eroded a lot of respect for her and it was already an uphill battle since she was a young woman, she had to fight double as hard as a middle aged man in her position would've had to.
I didn't really mind her partying and stuff, but it was just a bad look. Her fooling the voters later on was much worse imo than just being drunk on camera. That later thing really soured me on her.
she was judged extra hard for being a young woman in that position
none of the topics, breakfast, dancing, etc were issues in any other case. Yeah younger generations live with phones and might have stupid friends. It's not a national crisis without being forced to be one
I would like to add that it's very likely they were not yelling this, "jauhojengi", at all but "jallujengi" which would be about drinking Jaloviina, Finnish cut brandy. Link to a wikipedia page. I fucking love Jallu and will always spread the Gospel of Jaloviina.
I don't know about likely, most heard "jauhojengi" and at the time I listened to it a bunch too and couldn't hear "jallujengi" myself. And I was her supporter so I had a reason to hear it that way hah
This is what we should be fighting for. That and 25 dollars minimum wage. Even fucking Bernie Sanders misses the boat on this. He fights for the minimum wage but 40 hour work week and the "return of overtime " fucking hate it when mentions that. No one should have to or want to work longer hours. Bullshit!
6 hour 4 day work week is the way and the fight that unfortunately America will never adopt.
No minimum wage (at least in Oklahoma) can be $25 an hour. But you work 6 hours 4 days a week. But get paid as if you worked 8 hours 5 days a week. Roughly 1000 dollars a week gross pay.
If you want to work over 6 hours then you should be paid time and half for any work over the 24 hours you work.
That should be how it handled. And minimum wage should not only be tied to inflation, but should be higher depending on where you live. Example New York state should have much higher minimum wage the 25.
Pretty much every software that calculates and processes payroll would have to be rewritten. Just Intuit alone would instantly have that proposal taken out back and shot.
$25 is more politically palatable than $42 though.
Sounds like a plan, but no matter how we are paid we should be working less not more. Maybe a basic income to make up for short fall paid by Wallstreet and billionaires.
I mean I can believe in sky daddy as well, but doesn't mean it's reality. Know how we went from 80 hour weeks to 40 hour weeks? A lot of people died, and a whole lot of immigrants were needed to make up the hours, oh and women were now needed in the workforce as well, because pay certainly wasn't going to raise high enough to keep up with costs. I'm not sure forcing more people to work ultimately for less is a great idea. Seems easier to push minimum wages up, or better yet, to unionize so minimum wages aren't needed as companies wouldn't be able to hire for less than the labor is worth (or simply wouldn't exist as a business).
Now that 100% is an arbitrary number because GDP is an annual number and debt is not, but overall the ratio is still an useful number because it essentially measures how big a % of the entire GDP needs to be paid as interest on bonds and whatnot (multiply debt to GDP ratio by average bond interest)
In some scenarios. Some types of office work in particular, and not for everyone. Some people work best in short spurts, some do not. Those of us who qualify are incredibly privileged, as are the industries we work for.
Now try this with manufacturing, healthcare, etc. 24 hour weeks means that to get the same output, you have to hire nearly twice as many employees, at the same monthly cost per employee. There probably aren't enough qualified unemployed people around to do that, so it's easier to just let productivity drop (and do hospitals REALLY need so many people around 24/7? At nearly 2x the cost, perhaps not - can't just increase pricing to make up for the cost increase in a single-payer system).
Even if people are more productive in less time, that doesn't mean you can earn the same money. Many businesses operate on "hours spend" per task. As an example, let's take hairdressers. If your hairdresser is now working only 6 hours instead of 8, that's a potential 25% loss in revenue. And they won't be magically faster now just because they work less. So if salary reduction is not an option, the only option is increasing prices.
What you're saying is fine for office jobs, but just not an option for most service jobs. Waiters aren't magically going to serve tables faster, cashiers won't make customers move faster, etc.
You don't see the long-term effects on Health, Education, and so on. Less mistakes are made. Yes, I understand that it's harder for a small business to make up for the lost hours, but for a big business, the cost of an extra employee is nothing compared to the gains of extra productivity.
I'm not worried about big business. They will survive. I'm worried about the small bakery around the corner, about the hair salons down the street, the flower shop in the mall and basically every small, independent shop that exists which is a crucial part of every community it's part of. And those small businesses make up a significant portion of the job market.
A 6 hour day at the same pay would absolutely annihilate any retail consumer B2C business that exists anywhere in the western world.
I think it's worth us paying some tax to support a small business, at the cost of having less things, but more time for ourselves.
The market corrects to match the available income of the consumer, usually. They want you paying, not hoarding.
Less goods and less work is ultimately better, leaves us with more time for people, for self-improvement, for the things that really matter, not the cheap plastics.
This is however, an opinion, and a matter of consensus, the economics are what they are.
As for why I'm suddenly writting entire paragraphs and am more literate, it's because I got some good news, and the kind of misery knocks your IQ down.
Most of that can be fixed with scheduling. Are all of those bakers and barbers fully booked for 8-12 hours every day? They don't have gaps where they sit around waiting for business? When you offer shorter hours, people will have to schedule within those hours or go without the service. This should translate to less wasted time babysitting an empty store. And it's totally possible to still accommodate all the customers. I know a chiropractor who is open 6-12 three days a week and 12-6 the other two days. He doesn't have to work 12 hours a day, and it's still easy for customers to schedule when they want.
Lmao, have you even remotely thought this through?
As an example: Bakeries. They already compete with large corporations, namely supermarkets. Every supermarket offers a bread section. If you now force consumers to adapt to your worse hours, they will rather go to the supermarket, despite the worse product. Consumers will not change their behaviors for things they can obtain in another way.
And that's for almost any consumer-facing service that has a "big business competition". Your local bakery will die, your local butcher will die, your local apothecary will die, your local bookshop will die, and so on.
Your example is pretty bad because it's a doctor. There's no large medical corporations that could fill that need. So people will have to adjust their days for doctor visits.
Healthcare has its own problems, but the 12 hour shift model was adopted because it improved patient outcomes. Only having 1 shift change per day provided less opportunity for patient context to get lost in the shuffle. In short, overworked doctors/nurses were better (for patients) than uninformed doctors/nurses.
Moving to 6 hour shifts/4 changes per day would quadruple that risk.
Now, there are plenty of ways to imagine changing procedures, policies, and tooling to reduce this risk, but it would require planning.
Depends on the situation. Suddenly going to 60% of the work load isn't suddenly going to make the country or it's people more productive. You'd need to hire more people to get the work done and Finland's unemployment rate is already at 13%. So this would be a pretty poor solution when it comes to economics for everyone, unless you pay people less because they are working less hours.
I have thought of this. Paying people less could work out alright if you bring down their living costs. Housing is most of that and a lot of that cost goes to profit for banks.
Bring the cost of housing down and a lot of people will probably be happy to reduce hours worked. If you have a high unemployment rate there should be plenty of people to cover those extra hours too.
Bring down the costs of housing, food, oh, and entertainment as well. Guess you could bring down restaurant costs if you pay people less, but then you have the same exact problem being asked here.
My entire working life (multiple decades) it's been a pretty common thing to hear co-workers say some variation of
"I feel like my life is on fast forward"
Because they aren't absorbing their own lives because they spend most of it away from the things that matter, solving problems for other people, in order to benefit a small percentage of people more than they benefit from their own labor.
Everyone has different beliefs. I don't believe we're going anywhere after this. This is it. One shot. One blip in a vast universe, then nothing.
That makes me very tired of this bullshit.
I understand the value of work. I understand we wouldn't have roads or homes or grocery stores without it. But I've always advocated for exactly what's being advocated for here. 4 days. 6 hours a piece. 4 days is still the majority of your week and 6 hours is perfect because studies show productivity tanks after that anyways and those extra 2 hours means actually having dinner with your family or helping them with homework, or mowing the lawn, or whatever.
It's a solid balance and we should be demanding it, not asking for it.
She did push for such during her time holding the position from what I have seen thus far. She came into office in 2019 and was voted out in 2023 because the economy suffered around the world after COVID, and that was enough to sink many countries into believing they needed change.
Note Finland had the lowest death percentages in the EU, the GDP didn't collapse hard like some, she pushed for work from home and minimal contact.
Oh and she apparently was focused on getting Ukraine into the EU. Which one could say was hobbled by a couple people, but one of those was recently taken from power. So only time will tell
Because it can't cost them their career after they already retired. They never do it while still in office. That time is for taking that sweet corporate "lobbyism" money.
It would've been useful to stay to lead the social democrats but she bailed on that right after the elections. A lot of people voted for her, leaving them feel like they've been cheated
She was treated so shitty by the media and all, that I do not wonder why. Comparing how she and how our PM right now are talked about, is like misogyny laid bare. Her "scandals" were being filmed partying, and that considered inappropriate, and using breakfast bonus thing, other PM's were using before; he is in the middle of a big corruption scandal right now (involving 35 million €).
Politicians can't just pass laws to give us shorter workweeks. We actually get more free time when businesses & voluntary associations invest in better tools & technology. This increases efficiency, making goods and services cheaper to produce & allowing prices to drop.
However, big government programs drain the resources needed to develop an economy. When the government pays for massive spending by printing money & running up debt, it shrinks the value of your dollars and distorts the economy. Add in high taxes, government promises it can't afford (like public pensions with runaway obligations), & red tape that makes it hard to produce goods, and society ends up poorer.
Instead of making life more affordable, printing money & discouraging investment force you to work longer and harder just to stay where you are.
We actually get more free time when businesses & voluntary associations invest in better tools & technology. This increases efficiency, making goods and services cheaper to produce & allowing prices to drop.
The problem we have in late-stage-capitalism is that instead of passing the time and money savings onto employees and consumers, the owning class passes these savings onto themselves instead and tell us to work twice as hard for half the pay.
I think your boogeyman, "the owning class," is very similar to my boogeyman, "the borrower class." Both are critiques of groups that benefit from particular economic structures. Although we think about economics in totally different ways, there is an interesting parallel between the two ideas.
I'm probably a handmaiden to the fascist class in your eyes, while I think you’re economically illiterate.
My borrower class - Refers to those who gain privileged access to newly created credit or monetary expansion.
Your owning class - Usually refers to capital owners (bourgeoisie) who own productive assets & employ labor.
I do believe that if there aren't artificial barriers to production or the supply of goods, humans will end up producing more. As more goods are produced and compete in the marketplace, prices will fall. Democratic socialists, however, tend to micromanage or take over production, which will slow the creation of goods and cause prices to rise.
An interesting digression/aside would be the Jevons paradox: when technological improvements increase the efficiency of a resource's use, this can lead to a rise, rather than a fall, in total consumption of that resource. This is often used as a critique of capitalism by environmentalists.
P.S. I don't think I've talked to a single right-winger on this website yet. Maybe right-wingers are a dying breed, at least in the Fediverse. I don't know.
I'm so alone.
When, WHEN did we actually see these efficiency gains translate in real life? They usually use it as leverage to force us to work MORE hours, not less.
They just take the difference as profit, then spend it lobbying anti-human laws again!
That just means we are getting less for more, which means the productivity gains are going somewhere...and I don't think it's just that we are making more different kinds of stuff, and that people are buying more.
I think it's a combination of wage stagnation, price gouging, and tax dollar missallocation, leading to someone wasting precuous resources out of tax money, to build a data center.
This is what I did at my company. Just better. Come and go as you please, no matter what. As long as the agreed upon work is somehow done. Come at 3am leave at 4am? Whatever.
That plus profit-sharing made fucking happy employees who actually enjoyed working.
Why should anyone care if you're here 8hrs? Most people just waste probably half of it with procrastination or just strategic incompetence.
That rule was for everyone of course, janitor "upwards".
Also everyone got double market-average, free food and beverages.
Could've made a lot more money, but who needs that? Why me 99% and everyone else shares the 1%? That is an unsustainable model (for people, not for companies though), extremely unfair and unjust. How could I look into a mirror with dignity when ripping off everyone else?
For this topic, native or primary sources are better
Also we could deep dive on the "during PM" slice. she said she supports it in Aug 2019, Cabinet forms in December. Believe me (or not) I tried to stay sharp if the topic gains any official action during the time
Edit: this I can't get a link to because twitter but apparently:
Finnish Government, using the handle @FinGovernment. January 7, 2020:
"In the Finnish Government´s program there is no mention about 4-day week. Issue is not on the Finnish Government's agenda. PM @marinsanna envisioned idea briefly in a panel discussion last August while she was the Minister of Transport, and there hasn't been any recent activity."
They had to officially declare this because the urban legend was spreading.
After leaving office? Sure, she's said she still supports the idea. Hope this helps
Yeah right, and how many trillionaires does Finland have? How can I ever become a trillionaire if we waste money on things like work-life balance? Get that woke dei stuff out of here.
I will never not find it funny that most of us are on Lemmy because we agree that Reddit is a cesspool, yet a very goodly portion of our content it just Reddit reposted to Lemmy.
I brought a meme folder with me when I migrated that I slowly repost from so on a level I get it but stuff like this is just straight from a content farm. I get that maybe it's good for motivating normies to not start down the bro podcast pipeline or something but this has got to be the meme equivalent of pregnant spiderman/elsa videos. Why bring it here?
Yeah, I'm literally unable to focus on code for a full workday anyway. If everyone was honest, work times could just half without any actual productivity loss.
I said this elsewhere in this thread I believe, but this only works for some jobs. If people at factories get a 40% cut in hours, that just means the factories produce roughly 40% less, etc (a lot of things you just can't do faster even if more motivated). Farms will produce 40% less food, etc.
I've billed out 40 or 50 hours on 20 hours or less of actual work time too, and it was glorious, but I don't think for a second that this would work for most non-office jobs.
She is the type of woman I would have liked to have as my cool aunt that snuck me my first beer and then destroy the very foundations of our family via accidental conception.
I used to work a job that alternated between 3x12 and 4x12 work weeks. They also prorated your first paycheck to accommodate that.
That works out to 84 hours every two weeks. I don't recall how that was addressed.
That job turned out to kinda suck and the company no longer exists, but I always appreciated consistently having either three or four days off in a row.
This comment misses the point entirely. The goal of society is to raise the quality and/or lower the cost of living. The goal of these "less than 40 hour work week" proposals is to lower hours and keep the net pay the same (effectively raising the per hour pay) at nearly every job .This would be an advancement as a society as the quality of life would go up for it's citizens.
This is explicitly not suggesting people take different jobs with identical hours for less pay.
I'm not missing anything. Lower working hours won't actually become widespread unless the framework is put into place to ensure wages remain at the level paid for a standard 36-40 hour week.
Many work contracts are salaried based on X hours, or straight calculated for x hours of work per pay period. Paying the same living wage for less hours is going to be the biggest hurdle as companies will immediately take the opportunity to "cut" their employees wages.
You seemed to miss the point entirely as well. The PM's suggestion represents a 40% decrease in the labor market. You wouldn't be able to make up that loss without hiring a whole lot more people, which would put most places out of business. Thinking gains would come from productivity increases, that's simply not going to happen, as inflation has far outpaced labor productivity for the last 60 years. Finland's Unemployment rate is roughly 13% currently, so even hiring all of those people to make up for missed labor will not come close to solving the gap.
As normal, great aspirational idea that has zero basis in reality.
That's not what missing the point means but I understand where you're coming from. You're worried about the feasibility of this proposal, which is entirely separate from my comment and the comment I was responding to. So to be clear, you're not actually talking to me or the original commenter, you're talking at me. Which is fine, we can have this conversation - which is different than what I was discussing - at the same time if you'd like.
Yes, reduction of hours could theoretically means
a larger volume of people are needed to cover those positions. That is likely true in some fields and likely not true in others. As an example, waiters or nurses or teachers would likely need more staff to cover those lost hours as those are services that are often open most days of the week at most hours. We can't have hospitals closed on Fridays, for instance. So in that case your suggestion is correct.
The element you're not considering past the simple math of the problem is whether or not we need 40 hours to stay profitable. The counter example to the nurse would be most white collar jobs who reportedly don't need 40 hours a week to complete their work and be successful. These people are forced to work 40 hours because of cultural expectations but, because of the "productivity" boom of the last century, don't actually need to work 40 hours. This is the situation that the PM's suggestion would be most feasible.
If someone can complete their work in 32 hours but is paid to be at their desk for 40, 1 of 2 things happen. (Reminder, this is the expected amount of work to keep the business profitable.) They either notify their boss that they can do more work, and thus increase their responsibilities until it hits 40 hours, which nearly always results in neither higher pay nor higher recognition long term. Or they don't, and they make what use they can of those 8 hours, which is always less efficient than if they had "free time". This is where the government, unions, or any regulatory body is necessary for the improvement of society. Businesses of a certain size or profession grow inefficient in using their employees time as their productivity goes up, which again can be converted either into more work and higher sales or more free time and better benefits. (This is ignoring what happens too often which is that extra time gets converted to meaningless meetings and micromanagement and time around the water cooler etc).
So I disagree with you in saying, as a blanket statement derived from napkin math, that the PM's proposal (which I imagine both of us have just read the title comments on instead of an actual, ready to implement policy proposal) is not based in reality.
Why you seem excited to defend the forced labor hours of the working class is beyond me. Surely you're not rich, and surely you'd prefer to work less than you do and have the same quality of life. So I have to assume you're either afraid of someone messing up "the economy" by being too progressive or you've taken the conservative propaganda to heart and believe things must only get worse for the working class if the rich are to get richer and therefore through market magic improve everyone else's lives maybe (trickling down or some other illogical and indirect process). Tell me, if you can be so introspective, why you decided to talk at me. Why do you think something that several studies have shown, at least to my knowledge, to not only be feasible but also beneficial? Why are you against the topic at first mention of societal progress?
Boy, you seem to think you know a lot of things, and yet know very little. For someone like me who is working on cures for blindness, no I don't want to work less hours. I actually want to help cure blindness.
Those nurses? No they don't want to work less when there aren't others trained to do their job.
Perhaps you work a job that's has no use to society and if you worked less it wouldn't matter, but that's not a lot of jobs.
Buddy, imagine getting paid more to do your job. That's what we're talking about. Imagine there being more nurses and more demand for all jobs and more effective nurses because they're less tired and overworked and underpaid.
Like this isn't rocket science. You could get the same money for less mandatory hours. You wanna work more, go for it. I want to get you more money for those hours and I want the hospitals to have to hire more people instead of overworking them. Again, idk why you're acting like this wouldn't be a better system for everyone. The service would only improve. The pay would only improve. The profits would be the only thing that takes a hit.
Like buddy, imagine in a world where that works. Where are these extra nurses coming from? It's not even demand for nurses, it's time to teach and educate them. It's like you believe people cable, educated, certified to do jobs can be spun up with a snap of the finger. Doctors are already say in the US highly paid positions. And you can't get enough of them because it takes too long to educate them, outstripping demand.
So you entire premise fails. You want to reduce the working hours of the population by 40% and expect those people to simply exist. The UE rate is what again? Certainly not 40%. So you have to do more with far far less.
And no, profits wouldn't take a hit, you simply raise prices, and now for those hours you are working, you can't afford anything. Since you can't afford anything, those businesses go out of business and now you don't have a job.
That's the problem. Small companies, niche companies can do this pretty easily and move the costs onto customers. Most industries cannot. Know how we went from a 60-80 hour work week to a 40 hour work week? We sent the jobs overseas, where they still fork 80+ hours a week, for far less money.
Great concept, until you look anything deeper than the surface.
That's not how we went from 80 to 40 hours. We got there through productivity increases and strong unions, you're not speaking from a historically accurate position.
The US pays more for healthcare than nearly every other country for equivalent results and far less coverage. In this singular example, hospitals (and health insurance companies) could absolutely be made to be cheaper while maintaining quality. That means a reduction in profit. ANOTHER way to say that is the existing hospitals (and health insurance companies) could maintain prices and productivity AND INSTEAD pay their workers more.
You're correct in saying we can't materialize educated and trained people out of thin air, but in nearly everything else you're just dead wrong. We would not need to materialize "40% more workforce" we could, under the same proposal, just pay the existing staff overtime starting at 32 hours instead of 40. It's really not this hard of a concept.
Most large companies, think publicly traded companies, make more profit year after year. Those companies can and should pay their workers more. They won't unless forced so we have to force them.
That means Walmart has to raise their wages and hire more people. That means hospitals have to pay nurses more (which absolutely will increase the rate at which people study to become nurses). That means fortune 500 companies, which are inefficient as hell, let their well paid employees work 8 hours less and notice nearly no difference in output (according to the studies that have been conducted on this that I'm aware of).
Again, you're not actually engaging with the whole concept and you're arguing against one made up scenario with an incomplete understanding of the argument. The new standard work week should be 32 hours at equal hourly rate as it is today. Businesses do 1 of 3 things: keep their current staff and accept the lower hours (studies show some businesses can do this without issue, just a win-win), increase their staff and keep their pay (lowering their hours, this would eat into profits and likely raise prices in some mixed percentage), keep their staff and raise their pay (keeping their hours, this would eat into profits and likely raise prices in some mixed percentages). Not every industry (or even most) could afford to raise prices and survive, they would have to be okay with less profits. But in a functioning society cost of living should be going down or quality of life should be going up, and the US (and most of the world) are long over due for one of those things. We need a correction, likely starting with addressing wealth inequality and then something like a new standard work week.
I literally want the opposite of this. I don't want to go to work six days a week for six hours, that just ruins and extra day of the week.
As it is, I go to work 5 days a week for 8 hours. I have 5 ruined days and 2 useful ones.
I would like to be able to work four days a week for ten hours. Then I have gained a whole day a week! And I usually work a bit of overtime anyway, what difference does it make if I'm going home at 5 like most people instead of going home at 3?
150 Comments
wander1236@sh.itjust.works · 91 pts · 12d
Is this the person whose big "scandal" was being photographed at a club?
Saapas@piefed.zip · 62 pts · 12d
I think that was the one where she was unreachable by the government (this was still the covid times, 2021) which is a no-no and was seen as dancing with/maybe kissing another man (a celebrity) while her husband was at home with their daughter. (They separated some time after) That soured a lot of people's view on her. Of course her being a young woman was further incrimination to many of her opponents.
Another similar scandal was the house party video where she was allegedly doing coke. I don't think anything was proven there. Someone on the video was yelling "powder gang" which is weird but not exactly solid evidence, but it became a huge meme and just solidified her reputation as a "party girl", something beneath the position of a PM.
I think those were the bigger non-politics scandals.
BassTurd@lemmy.world · 62 pts · 12d
I wish my leader were only an adulterer and cocaine user.
jaybone@lemmy.zip · 48 pts · 12d
At least her extramarital affairs are with adults.
Saapas@piefed.zip · 11 pts · 12d
We have a different sort of bar here I suppose hah. Then again, she was judged extra hard for being a young woman in that position.
But it also genuinely wasn't appropriate behaviour (to be videotaped doing) for a PM.
greenbit@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 12d
Nah the appropriateness or lack of it was invented. Worst she's done is join the Tony Blair Institute, just another capitalist
Saapas@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 12d
I don't know what you mean by invented. A lot of people thought partying drunk on video wasn't really appropriate behaviour for the PM. People don't mind (at least as much) if it happens behind closed doors, but Marin unfortunately had shitty enough friends that they posted that stuff online. That sort of stuff eroded a lot of respect for her and it was already an uphill battle since she was a young woman, she had to fight double as hard as a middle aged man in her position would've had to.
I didn't really mind her partying and stuff, but it was just a bad look. Her fooling the voters later on was much worse imo than just being drunk on camera. That later thing really soured me on her.
greenbit@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 12d
I mean how you said
none of the topics, breakfast, dancing, etc were issues in any other case. Yeah younger generations live with phones and might have stupid friends. It's not a national crisis without being forced to be one
Saapas@piefed.zip · 3 pts · 12d
It would've been a scandal with any pm if you have a drunken party on video, with the accusations of drugs and extramarital affairs.
She just got it harder because she was a young woman pm. But it's wasn't a thing just because of that
xav@programming.dev · 2 pts · 12d
It depends on the culture I guess. It would be less of a problem in France (source : am French).
manuremy@sopuli.xyz · 12 pts · 12d
I would like to add that it's very likely they were not yelling this, "jauhojengi", at all but "jallujengi" which would be about drinking Jaloviina, Finnish cut brandy. Link to a wikipedia page. I fucking love Jallu and will always spread the Gospel of Jaloviina.
Saapas@piefed.zip · 3 pts · 12d
I don't know about likely, most heard "jauhojengi" and at the time I listened to it a bunch too and couldn't hear "jallujengi" myself. And I was her supporter so I had a reason to hear it that way hah
manuremy@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 12d
I couldn't hear the "jauho" at all, did a blind hearing once the videos came out. Blue dress, gold dress I guess. :D
Saapas@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 12d
This is even closer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel
manuremy@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 12d
I was looking for that from my memory lol!
el_twitto@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 12d
Yes!
Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 12d
I bet she probably even had an alcoholic beverage too!
Fredselfish@lemmy.world · 43 pts · 12d
This is what we should be fighting for. That and 25 dollars minimum wage. Even fucking Bernie Sanders misses the boat on this. He fights for the minimum wage but 40 hour work week and the "return of overtime " fucking hate it when mentions that. No one should have to or want to work longer hours. Bullshit!
6 hour 4 day work week is the way and the fight that unfortunately America will never adopt.
troglodytis@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 12d
$25/hr is not a livable wage if you're only gonna get 24 hours a week.
One would still need to work 40-50 hrs a week, it would just be more livable due to getting OT sooner.
Fredselfish@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 12d
Why I believe in the work 6 hours 4 days a week but get paid as working 40 hours.
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 12d
Works out to ~$42/hr
Fredselfish@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 12d
No minimum wage (at least in Oklahoma) can be $25 an hour. But you work 6 hours 4 days a week. But get paid as if you worked 8 hours 5 days a week. Roughly 1000 dollars a week gross pay.
If you want to work over 6 hours then you should be paid time and half for any work over the 24 hours you work.
That should be how it handled. And minimum wage should not only be tied to inflation, but should be higher depending on where you live. Example New York state should have much higher minimum wage the 25.
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 12d
Pretty much every software that calculates and processes payroll would have to be rewritten. Just Intuit alone would instantly have that proposal taken out back and shot.
$25 is more politically palatable than $42 though.
realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 12d
You're suggesting the most convoluted system one can imagine lmao.
troglodytis@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 12d
Let's tie it to c-suite wage-flation
Fredselfish@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 11d
Sounds like a plan, but no matter how we are paid we should be working less not more. Maybe a basic income to make up for short fall paid by Wallstreet and billionaires.
GalacticRobot@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 11d
I mean I can believe in sky daddy as well, but doesn't mean it's reality. Know how we went from 80 hour weeks to 40 hour weeks? A lot of people died, and a whole lot of immigrants were needed to make up the hours, oh and women were now needed in the workforce as well, because pay certainly wasn't going to raise high enough to keep up with costs. I'm not sure forcing more people to work ultimately for less is a great idea. Seems easier to push minimum wages up, or better yet, to unionize so minimum wages aren't needed as companies wouldn't be able to hire for less than the labor is worth (or simply wouldn't exist as a business).
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 32 pts · 12d
FORMER...always nice when they come up with great ideas AFTER they've left office.
Asfalttikyntaja@sopuli.xyz · 36 pts · 12d
Achually she had this idea before she was PM.
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 11d
Had this idea before, has this idea after, it seems the "during" part is the problem somehow.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 11d
You do realize that outside of a literal dictatorship, a prime minister can't enact such a change on her own, right?
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 11d
Sure. So what did she do to make it happen?
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 12d
Finland's debt to GDP ratio is pretty high, they probably couldn't actually afford this anymore without increasing taxes. 10 years ago maybe. At 86% debt to GDP they're the 7th highest in the EU and I read a while ago that it it was projected to surpass 100% soon.
Now that 100% is an arbitrary number because GDP is an annual number and debt is not, but overall the ratio is still an useful number because it essentially measures how big a % of the entire GDP needs to be paid as interest on bonds and whatnot (multiply debt to GDP ratio by average bond interest)
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 12d
The catch is that less work time actually INCREASES productivity.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 12d
In some scenarios. Some types of office work in particular, and not for everyone. Some people work best in short spurts, some do not. Those of us who qualify are incredibly privileged, as are the industries we work for.
Now try this with manufacturing, healthcare, etc. 24 hour weeks means that to get the same output, you have to hire nearly twice as many employees, at the same monthly cost per employee. There probably aren't enough qualified unemployed people around to do that, so it's easier to just let productivity drop (and do hospitals REALLY need so many people around 24/7? At nearly 2x the cost, perhaps not - can't just increase pricing to make up for the cost increase in a single-payer system).
realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 12d
Its not that simple
Even if people are more productive in less time, that doesn't mean you can earn the same money. Many businesses operate on "hours spend" per task. As an example, let's take hairdressers. If your hairdresser is now working only 6 hours instead of 8, that's a potential 25% loss in revenue. And they won't be magically faster now just because they work less. So if salary reduction is not an option, the only option is increasing prices.
What you're saying is fine for office jobs, but just not an option for most service jobs. Waiters aren't magically going to serve tables faster, cashiers won't make customers move faster, etc.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 11d
You don't see the long-term effects on Health, Education, and so on. Less mistakes are made. Yes, I understand that it's harder for a small business to make up for the lost hours, but for a big business, the cost of an extra employee is nothing compared to the gains of extra productivity.
realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 11d
I'm not worried about big business. They will survive. I'm worried about the small bakery around the corner, about the hair salons down the street, the flower shop in the mall and basically every small, independent shop that exists which is a crucial part of every community it's part of. And those small businesses make up a significant portion of the job market.
A 6 hour day at the same pay would absolutely annihilate any retail consumer B2C business that exists anywhere in the western world.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 11d
I think it's worth us paying some tax to support a small business, at the cost of having less things, but more time for ourselves.
The market corrects to match the available income of the consumer, usually. They want you paying, not hoarding.
Less goods and less work is ultimately better, leaves us with more time for people, for self-improvement, for the things that really matter, not the cheap plastics.
This is however, an opinion, and a matter of consensus, the economics are what they are.
As for why I'm suddenly writting entire paragraphs and am more literate, it's because I got some good news, and the kind of misery knocks your IQ down.
rhymeswithduck@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 11d
Most of that can be fixed with scheduling. Are all of those bakers and barbers fully booked for 8-12 hours every day? They don't have gaps where they sit around waiting for business? When you offer shorter hours, people will have to schedule within those hours or go without the service. This should translate to less wasted time babysitting an empty store. And it's totally possible to still accommodate all the customers. I know a chiropractor who is open 6-12 three days a week and 12-6 the other two days. He doesn't have to work 12 hours a day, and it's still easy for customers to schedule when they want.
realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 11d
Lmao, have you even remotely thought this through?
As an example: Bakeries. They already compete with large corporations, namely supermarkets. Every supermarket offers a bread section. If you now force consumers to adapt to your worse hours, they will rather go to the supermarket, despite the worse product. Consumers will not change their behaviors for things they can obtain in another way.
And that's for almost any consumer-facing service that has a "big business competition". Your local bakery will die, your local butcher will die, your local apothecary will die, your local bookshop will die, and so on.
Your example is pretty bad because it's a doctor. There's no large medical corporations that could fill that need. So people will have to adjust their days for doctor visits.
skibidi@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 11d
Healthcare has its own problems, but the 12 hour shift model was adopted because it improved patient outcomes. Only having 1 shift change per day provided less opportunity for patient context to get lost in the shuffle. In short, overworked doctors/nurses were better (for patients) than uninformed doctors/nurses.
Moving to 6 hour shifts/4 changes per day would quadruple that risk.
Now, there are plenty of ways to imagine changing procedures, policies, and tooling to reduce this risk, but it would require planning.
GalacticRobot@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 11d
You don't see health care outcomes improve when you remove 40% of hours. Come on now.
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · 0 pts · 11d
Yeah just continue to overwork doctors and nurses, I am sure its fine.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 11d
Or just hire one extra, and cut their work hours.
GalacticRobot@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 7d
Then perhaps figure out ways to train and teach them quicker, better, and pay them all less, because that's what you are suggesting.
GalacticRobot@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 11d
Depends on the situation. Suddenly going to 60% of the work load isn't suddenly going to make the country or it's people more productive. You'd need to hire more people to get the work done and Finland's unemployment rate is already at 13%. So this would be a pretty poor solution when it comes to economics for everyone, unless you pay people less because they are working less hours.
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 11d
I have thought of this. Paying people less could work out alright if you bring down their living costs. Housing is most of that and a lot of that cost goes to profit for banks.
Bring the cost of housing down and a lot of people will probably be happy to reduce hours worked. If you have a high unemployment rate there should be plenty of people to cover those extra hours too.
GalacticRobot@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 7d
Bring down the costs of housing, food, oh, and entertainment as well. Guess you could bring down restaurant costs if you pay people less, but then you have the same exact problem being asked here.
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · 0 pts · 7d
Food is pocket change compared to housing.
Having a house: £1300/month Food: £40/month if I eat a lot of cheese
GalacticRobot@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 6d
At least in the US, food expenditures are roughly 15-20% of income. Housing is 30%.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 11d
Erm, this will either cut profits for the sellers, or the pay will go down way more than the housing price.
But I also see there being hidden economic benefits to having more free time.
More time to stitch, repair, learn, take care of yourself.
Less medical costs and damages.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 11d
I am quite curious on what the science will say on this.
We need another experiment.
GalacticRobot@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 7d
What exeriment would you propose then?
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 7d
60% work hours for ALL jobs in a small town, to measure how it actually affects productivity.
But this includes things like healthcare, opinions of the people working there, opinions of the business workers, etc.
See where it helps and where it makes things worse.
I have a feeling that many people would choose time ober money though.
matlag@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 11d
Productivity, but not production. They would still produce less than now, how much less is just not a simple ratio calculation.
DarkFuture@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 11d
My entire working life (multiple decades) it's been a pretty common thing to hear co-workers say some variation of
"I feel like my life is on fast forward"
Because they aren't absorbing their own lives because they spend most of it away from the things that matter, solving problems for other people, in order to benefit a small percentage of people more than they benefit from their own labor.
Everyone has different beliefs. I don't believe we're going anywhere after this. This is it. One shot. One blip in a vast universe, then nothing.
That makes me very tired of this bullshit.
I understand the value of work. I understand we wouldn't have roads or homes or grocery stores without it. But I've always advocated for exactly what's being advocated for here. 4 days. 6 hours a piece. 4 days is still the majority of your week and 6 hours is perfect because studies show productivity tanks after that anyways and those extra 2 hours means actually having dinner with your family or helping them with homework, or mowing the lawn, or whatever.
It's a solid balance and we should be demanding it, not asking for it.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 20 pts · 12d
So uh...what is the citizenship application process? Finland is worth dying for rn.
markz@suppo.fi · 26 pts · 12d
Former pm, this wouldn't actually happen.
Railcar8095@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 12d
Why is it that the right ideas only happen before or after holding useful positions?
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 11d
She did push for such during her time holding the position from what I have seen thus far. She came into office in 2019 and was voted out in 2023 because the economy suffered around the world after COVID, and that was enough to sink many countries into believing they needed change.
Note Finland had the lowest death percentages in the EU, the GDP didn't collapse hard like some, she pushed for work from home and minimal contact.
Oh and she apparently was focused on getting Ukraine into the EU. Which one could say was hobbled by a couple people, but one of those was recently taken from power. So only time will tell
Kaligalis@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 11d
Because it can't cost them their career after they already retired. They never do it while still in office. That time is for taking that sweet corporate "lobbyism" money.
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 11d
Former PM and future wifey for lifey
Rcklsabndn@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 10d
Is there, like, Grindr for PMs?
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 12d
Awh!
FrowingFostek@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 12d
That's cool but, what is she doing as a former politician to further this goal?
gdog05@lemmy.world · 39 pts · 12d
Using the power of celebrity which is probably the most useful thing to do in that situation.
Saapas@piefed.zip · 6 pts · 12d
It would've been useful to stay to lead the social democrats but she bailed on that right after the elections. A lot of people voted for her, leaving them feel like they've been cheated
FrowingFostek@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 12d
Im not familiar with the governmental structure there.
Is there legislation or a reform that she's pursuing?
Or is this like a general statement on spending more time with family?
Saapas@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 12d
I doubt there's some legislation, I haven't heard about her in quite some time. It seems she's largely left national politics
kolmaskommentoija@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 11d
She was treated so shitty by the media and all, that I do not wonder why. Comparing how she and how our PM right now are talked about, is like misogyny laid bare. Her "scandals" were being filmed partying, and that considered inappropriate, and using breakfast bonus thing, other PM's were using before; he is in the middle of a big corruption scandal right now (involving 35 million €).
Saapas@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 11d
I understand why she left but I do hate the way she did it. A lot of her and social democrat supporters overall felt pretty betrayed, me included
kolmaskommentoija@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 11d
I totally agree with that. It was in poor taste.
kilgore_trout@feddit.it · -1 pts · 12d
kamee@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 12d
Why would a Finnish politician live in New Zealand?
Test_Tickles@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 12d
I mean... technically they are not wrong....
kilgore_trout@feddit.it · 1 pts · 2d
I confused her for someone else. Sorry
Etterra@discuss.online · 16 pts · 12d
GOP: she's basically Stalin.
MorPolitics@lemmy.world · -31 pts · 12d
Politicians can't just pass laws to give us shorter workweeks. We actually get more free time when businesses & voluntary associations invest in better tools & technology. This increases efficiency, making goods and services cheaper to produce & allowing prices to drop.
However, big government programs drain the resources needed to develop an economy. When the government pays for massive spending by printing money & running up debt, it shrinks the value of your dollars and distorts the economy. Add in high taxes, government promises it can't afford (like public pensions with runaway obligations), & red tape that makes it hard to produce goods, and society ends up poorer.
Instead of making life more affordable, printing money & discouraging investment force you to work longer and harder just to stay where you are.
PineRune@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 12d
The problem we have in late-stage-capitalism is that instead of passing the time and money savings onto employees and consumers, the owning class passes these savings onto themselves instead and tell us to work twice as hard for half the pay.
MorPolitics@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 12d
I think your boogeyman, "the owning class," is very similar to my boogeyman, "the borrower class." Both are critiques of groups that benefit from particular economic structures. Although we think about economics in totally different ways, there is an interesting parallel between the two ideas.
I'm probably a handmaiden to the fascist class in your eyes, while I think you’re economically illiterate.
My borrower class - Refers to those who gain privileged access to newly created credit or monetary expansion.
Your owning class - Usually refers to capital owners (bourgeoisie) who own productive assets & employ labor.
ComfortableRaspberry@feddit.org · 7 pts · 12d
This is the same stupid train of thought every second manager has. Your tool can be amazing, als long as your processes are shit nothing will improve.
MorPolitics@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 12d
I do believe that if there aren't artificial barriers to production or the supply of goods, humans will end up producing more. As more goods are produced and compete in the marketplace, prices will fall. Democratic socialists, however, tend to micromanage or take over production, which will slow the creation of goods and cause prices to rise.
An interesting digression/aside would be the Jevons paradox: when technological improvements increase the efficiency of a resource's use, this can lead to a rise, rather than a fall, in total consumption of that resource. This is often used as a critique of capitalism by environmentalists.
P.S. I don't think I've talked to a single right-winger on this website yet. Maybe right-wingers are a dying breed, at least in the Fediverse. I don't know. I'm so alone.
Jevons paradox
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 12d
When, WHEN did we actually see these efficiency gains translate in real life? They usually use it as leverage to force us to work MORE hours, not less.
They just take the difference as profit, then spend it lobbying anti-human laws again!
MorPolitics@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 12d
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 12d
That just means we are getting less for more, which means the productivity gains are going somewhere...and I don't think it's just that we are making more different kinds of stuff, and that people are buying more.
I think it's a combination of wage stagnation, price gouging, and tax dollar missallocation, leading to someone wasting precuous resources out of tax money, to build a data center.
GalacticRobot@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 11d
I mean if you look at inflation vs productivity gains, those gains are completely erased several fold in the US and have been since the 70's.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 11d
Erm, the US has 4 hour work days? I am not in the loop here.
GalacticRobot@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 7d
Look at inflation vs productivity gain charts.
Dyskolos@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 11d
This is what I did at my company. Just better. Come and go as you please, no matter what. As long as the agreed upon work is somehow done. Come at 3am leave at 4am? Whatever. That plus profit-sharing made fucking happy employees who actually enjoyed working.
Why should anyone care if you're here 8hrs? Most people just waste probably half of it with procrastination or just strategic incompetence.
That rule was for everyone of course, janitor "upwards".
Also everyone got double market-average, free food and beverages.
Could've made a lot more money, but who needs that? Why me 99% and everyone else shares the 1%? That is an unsustainable model (for people, not for companies though), extremely unfair and unjust. How could I look into a mirror with dignity when ripping off everyone else?
Sadly I seems to be the exception, not the rule 😐
mrmisses@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 11d
Hiring?
Dyskolos@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 11d
Sorry, no. That's why i said "I did", I retired a long while ago.
Diurnambule@jlai.lu · 1 pts · 11d
I go with the social contract thing. I am nixe to people until they breach the contract, then it is open bar.
Dyskolos@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 11d
Suprisingly I never had problems or people exploiting my simple system. Maybe because noone felt exploited either? Or maybe it was just luck.
Diurnambule@jlai.lu · 0 pts · 11d
Luck I think, or I look like I am easily attackable.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 12d
The People Have Spoken
Double their hours, halve the pay, murder their parents, and castrate them before they have any kids.
sage@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 12d
Nonononono, the kids yearn for the mines.
solidus@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 11d
Im sorry but how will this increase shareholder value? hmm? Will anybody think of the shareholders?
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 11d
Fmstrat@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 12d
Curious question, did she push for this when she was PM?
greenbit@lemmy.zip · -9 pts · 12d
No
MBech@feddit.dk · 9 pts · 12d
Fuck outta here with your bullshit. She just didn't get the backing needed for it.
https://gpa.net/blogs/emea-1/finland-new-prime-minister-s-four-day-working-week-plan
https://curiousmindmagazine.com/finland-pms-goal-of-a-six-hour-four-day-workweek-attainable-dream-or-a-high-hope/
greenbit@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 11d
She made a supportive claim in a party meeting, didn't do action about it. Nothing bullshit unless the story is deeper behind public eyes
https://demokraatti.fi/sdpn-120-vuotisjuhlassa-visioitiin-tulevaa-sanna-marin-miksei-4-paivan-tyoviikko-ja-6-tunnin-tyopaiva-voisi-olla-seuraava-tavoite
https://www.is.fi/politiikka/art-2000006208835.html
https://yle.fi/a/74-20119756
For this topic, native or primary sources are better
Also we could deep dive on the "during PM" slice. she said she supports it in Aug 2019, Cabinet forms in December. Believe me (or not) I tried to stay sharp if the topic gains any official action during the time
Edit: this I can't get a link to because twitter but apparently: Finnish Government, using the handle @FinGovernment. January 7, 2020:
They had to officially declare this because the urban legend was spreading.
After leaving office? Sure, she's said she still supports the idea. Hope this helps
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 10d
Every controversy with that woman continues to be basically this meme.
AA5B@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 11d
Yeah right, and how many trillionaires does Finland have? How can I ever become a trillionaire if we waste money on things like work-life balance? Get that woke dei stuff out of here.
/s since you can never be sure
Mohamed@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 11d
I indeed was not sure before the "/s"
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 11d
the /s is becoming more and more necessary as we move into a world where more and more onion articles are becoming actual, factual reality.
sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz · 7 pts · 12d
Not the reddit yellow text posts, I beg thee
Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 12d
I will never not find it funny that most of us are on Lemmy because we agree that Reddit is a cesspool, yet a very goodly portion of our content it just Reddit reposted to Lemmy.
krashmo@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 12d
I guess, but the problem with reddit isn't the format or a good chunk of the content.
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 12d
It's not like this stuff originates from reddit either, it just ends up there. It's a bit like blaming the beach for having trash wash up there.
sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 12d
I brought a meme folder with me when I migrated that I slowly repost from so on a level I get it but stuff like this is just straight from a content farm. I get that maybe it's good for motivating normies to not start down the bro podcast pipeline or something but this has got to be the meme equivalent of pregnant spiderman/elsa videos. Why bring it here?
PromKingJosh@tarte.nuage-libre.fr · 3 pts · 12d
Does it even fit the me_irl theme too?
While we're at it, let's also add "What is your resppnse to her?" at the end of the title to boost engangement for the shareholders
Kaligalis@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 11d
Yeah, I'm literally unable to focus on code for a full workday anyway. If everyone was honest, work times could just half without any actual productivity loss.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 11d
I said this elsewhere in this thread I believe, but this only works for some jobs. If people at factories get a 40% cut in hours, that just means the factories produce roughly 40% less, etc (a lot of things you just can't do faster even if more motivated). Farms will produce 40% less food, etc.
I've billed out 40 or 50 hours on 20 hours or less of actual work time too, and it was glorious, but I don't think for a second that this would work for most non-office jobs.
Impractical_Island@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 11d
She is the type of woman I would have liked to have as my cool aunt that snuck me my first beer and then destroy the very foundations of our family via accidental conception.
Sadbutdru@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 11d
Now that you mention it, yeah 100%!
ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 12d
How about three eights
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 12d
I honestly would do one 24
toynbee@piefed.social · 2 pts · 12d
I used to work a job that alternated between 3x12 and 4x12 work weeks. They also prorated your first paycheck to accommodate that.
That works out to 84 hours every two weeks. I don't recall how that was addressed.
That job turned out to kinda suck and the company no longer exists, but I always appreciated consistently having either three or four days off in a row.
troglodytis@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 12d
not_IO@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 11d
Taleya@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 12d
Plenty of jobs let you grab those hours.
Problem is the pay is dogshit
gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 12d
This comment misses the point entirely. The goal of society is to raise the quality and/or lower the cost of living. The goal of these "less than 40 hour work week" proposals is to lower hours and keep the net pay the same (effectively raising the per hour pay) at nearly every job .This would be an advancement as a society as the quality of life would go up for it's citizens.
This is explicitly not suggesting people take different jobs with identical hours for less pay.
Taleya@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 11d
I'm not missing anything. Lower working hours won't actually become widespread unless the framework is put into place to ensure wages remain at the level paid for a standard 36-40 hour week.
Many work contracts are salaried based on X hours, or straight calculated for x hours of work per pay period. Paying the same living wage for less hours is going to be the biggest hurdle as companies will immediately take the opportunity to "cut" their employees wages.
GalacticRobot@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 11d
You seemed to miss the point entirely as well. The PM's suggestion represents a 40% decrease in the labor market. You wouldn't be able to make up that loss without hiring a whole lot more people, which would put most places out of business. Thinking gains would come from productivity increases, that's simply not going to happen, as inflation has far outpaced labor productivity for the last 60 years. Finland's Unemployment rate is roughly 13% currently, so even hiring all of those people to make up for missed labor will not come close to solving the gap.
As normal, great aspirational idea that has zero basis in reality.
gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 11d
That's not what missing the point means but I understand where you're coming from. You're worried about the feasibility of this proposal, which is entirely separate from my comment and the comment I was responding to. So to be clear, you're not actually talking to me or the original commenter, you're talking at me. Which is fine, we can have this conversation - which is different than what I was discussing - at the same time if you'd like.
Yes, reduction of hours could theoretically means a larger volume of people are needed to cover those positions. That is likely true in some fields and likely not true in others. As an example, waiters or nurses or teachers would likely need more staff to cover those lost hours as those are services that are often open most days of the week at most hours. We can't have hospitals closed on Fridays, for instance. So in that case your suggestion is correct.
The element you're not considering past the simple math of the problem is whether or not we need 40 hours to stay profitable. The counter example to the nurse would be most white collar jobs who reportedly don't need 40 hours a week to complete their work and be successful. These people are forced to work 40 hours because of cultural expectations but, because of the "productivity" boom of the last century, don't actually need to work 40 hours. This is the situation that the PM's suggestion would be most feasible.
If someone can complete their work in 32 hours but is paid to be at their desk for 40, 1 of 2 things happen. (Reminder, this is the expected amount of work to keep the business profitable.) They either notify their boss that they can do more work, and thus increase their responsibilities until it hits 40 hours, which nearly always results in neither higher pay nor higher recognition long term. Or they don't, and they make what use they can of those 8 hours, which is always less efficient than if they had "free time". This is where the government, unions, or any regulatory body is necessary for the improvement of society. Businesses of a certain size or profession grow inefficient in using their employees time as their productivity goes up, which again can be converted either into more work and higher sales or more free time and better benefits. (This is ignoring what happens too often which is that extra time gets converted to meaningless meetings and micromanagement and time around the water cooler etc).
So I disagree with you in saying, as a blanket statement derived from napkin math, that the PM's proposal (which I imagine both of us have just read the title comments on instead of an actual, ready to implement policy proposal) is not based in reality.
Why you seem excited to defend the forced labor hours of the working class is beyond me. Surely you're not rich, and surely you'd prefer to work less than you do and have the same quality of life. So I have to assume you're either afraid of someone messing up "the economy" by being too progressive or you've taken the conservative propaganda to heart and believe things must only get worse for the working class if the rich are to get richer and therefore through market magic improve everyone else's lives maybe (trickling down or some other illogical and indirect process). Tell me, if you can be so introspective, why you decided to talk at me. Why do you think something that several studies have shown, at least to my knowledge, to not only be feasible but also beneficial? Why are you against the topic at first mention of societal progress?
GalacticRobot@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 7d
Boy, you seem to think you know a lot of things, and yet know very little. For someone like me who is working on cures for blindness, no I don't want to work less hours. I actually want to help cure blindness.
Those nurses? No they don't want to work less when there aren't others trained to do their job.
Perhaps you work a job that's has no use to society and if you worked less it wouldn't matter, but that's not a lot of jobs.
gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 6d
Buddy, imagine getting paid more to do your job. That's what we're talking about. Imagine there being more nurses and more demand for all jobs and more effective nurses because they're less tired and overworked and underpaid.
Like this isn't rocket science. You could get the same money for less mandatory hours. You wanna work more, go for it. I want to get you more money for those hours and I want the hospitals to have to hire more people instead of overworking them. Again, idk why you're acting like this wouldn't be a better system for everyone. The service would only improve. The pay would only improve. The profits would be the only thing that takes a hit.
GalacticRobot@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 6d
Like buddy, imagine in a world where that works. Where are these extra nurses coming from? It's not even demand for nurses, it's time to teach and educate them. It's like you believe people cable, educated, certified to do jobs can be spun up with a snap of the finger. Doctors are already say in the US highly paid positions. And you can't get enough of them because it takes too long to educate them, outstripping demand.
So you entire premise fails. You want to reduce the working hours of the population by 40% and expect those people to simply exist. The UE rate is what again? Certainly not 40%. So you have to do more with far far less.
And no, profits wouldn't take a hit, you simply raise prices, and now for those hours you are working, you can't afford anything. Since you can't afford anything, those businesses go out of business and now you don't have a job.
That's the problem. Small companies, niche companies can do this pretty easily and move the costs onto customers. Most industries cannot. Know how we went from a 60-80 hour work week to a 40 hour work week? We sent the jobs overseas, where they still fork 80+ hours a week, for far less money.
Great concept, until you look anything deeper than the surface.
gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 6d
That's not how we went from 80 to 40 hours. We got there through productivity increases and strong unions, you're not speaking from a historically accurate position.
The US pays more for healthcare than nearly every other country for equivalent results and far less coverage. In this singular example, hospitals (and health insurance companies) could absolutely be made to be cheaper while maintaining quality. That means a reduction in profit. ANOTHER way to say that is the existing hospitals (and health insurance companies) could maintain prices and productivity AND INSTEAD pay their workers more.
You're correct in saying we can't materialize educated and trained people out of thin air, but in nearly everything else you're just dead wrong. We would not need to materialize "40% more workforce" we could, under the same proposal, just pay the existing staff overtime starting at 32 hours instead of 40. It's really not this hard of a concept.
Most large companies, think publicly traded companies, make more profit year after year. Those companies can and should pay their workers more. They won't unless forced so we have to force them.
That means Walmart has to raise their wages and hire more people. That means hospitals have to pay nurses more (which absolutely will increase the rate at which people study to become nurses). That means fortune 500 companies, which are inefficient as hell, let their well paid employees work 8 hours less and notice nearly no difference in output (according to the studies that have been conducted on this that I'm aware of).
Again, you're not actually engaging with the whole concept and you're arguing against one made up scenario with an incomplete understanding of the argument. The new standard work week should be 32 hours at equal hourly rate as it is today. Businesses do 1 of 3 things: keep their current staff and accept the lower hours (studies show some businesses can do this without issue, just a win-win), increase their staff and keep their pay (lowering their hours, this would eat into profits and likely raise prices in some mixed percentage), keep their staff and raise their pay (keeping their hours, this would eat into profits and likely raise prices in some mixed percentages). Not every industry (or even most) could afford to raise prices and survive, they would have to be okay with less profits. But in a functioning society cost of living should be going down or quality of life should be going up, and the US (and most of the world) are long over due for one of those things. We need a correction, likely starting with addressing wealth inequality and then something like a new standard work week.
LodeMike@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 11d
How dare she!!! (/s)
TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com · -8 pts · 12d
as a punishment or what ?
WhyIHateTheInternet@lemmy.world · -10 pts · 12d
That bitch!
MutantTailThing@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 12d
Calm down Satan.
i_am_hiding@aussie.zone · -13 pts · 12d
I literally want the opposite of this. I don't want to go to work six days a week for six hours, that just ruins and extra day of the week.
As it is, I go to work 5 days a week for 8 hours. I have 5 ruined days and 2 useful ones.
I would like to be able to work four days a week for ten hours. Then I have gained a whole day a week! And I usually work a bit of overtime anyway, what difference does it make if I'm going home at 5 like most people instead of going home at 3?
Sharkticon@lemmy.zip · 16 pts · 12d
Maybe literally read more carefully since she is say 4 days at 6 hours. Not 6 days.
i_am_hiding@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 12d
Oh, so it does. My mistake.
I think my point stands though that its not the number of hours in a day that upsets me, its the numbers of days in a week.
greenbit@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 12d
3 days for 4 hours