At my job (standard 9–5 office) we’re on a “hybrid” WFH schedule where we each get a single WFH day throughout the week. If this passed, it would be so easy to implement for us, we’d just “lose” our WFH day and get it transferred into a weekday off-day. The inside-joke among alot of people here is that nobody is working on their WFH day anyways (which I hate the joke, people are shooting themselves in the foot with it), but it would be an easy transition.
Sometimes being available and on call is the work. If you went in to the office that day you’re not going to be more productive than if you stayed home. But people should not make that joke at work.
So let’s say I run a business and I employ workers at $1000/wk and they work 5 8 hour days. Maybe I have a 10% profit margin on them and I make $1100 for each employee.
If this law passes and I need to pay my employees $1000/wk for 4 days… that means suddenly I’m losing money. Where would that extra money come from? I’d probably end up raising my prices. I’m not necessarily against this plan, I just want to understand what the proposals are to fill this gap. If I work 4 days a week but prices all go up by 20%, I’m not sure that’s a good outcome.
You’d have to get rid of the least productive workload. We have work in abundance, but well paying jobs are kept tight by a minority of the population. By reducing the workweek, the medium term natural reaction of the market is getting rid of the least productive jobs, and create job opportunities that pay better all across the board to fulfill the more productive workloads that have just been left vacant, ultimately making each hour of work more productive.
This isn’t a painless process: there are businesses that are going to have to rethink their finances and a few will have to shut down. But businesses aren’t an end by themselves - they’re useful as long as they serve to allow people to earn a living: if we’re going to oppose a restructuration of the economy that benefits the vast majority of the people because businesses will suffer, we’ve got our priorities backwards.
I’m not necessarily opposed to this… I just expected the plan to address how the productivity gap will be filled. Looks like the plan is: “People will just work harder in the 32 hours to make up for it”.
My pessimism says that if this passes, businesses will just increase their prices to cover the extra cost per hour of employee time.
At some point, you lose productivity and reduced work weeks have shown increases in productivity can happen.
So, basically the employees would have to cram their same workload into 20% less time for this to work. (without changing prices)
Effectively yes, however numerous studies have shown that not all work hours are actually productive. The idea is that you remove some of those unproductive hours, which makes employees happier, and productivity, employee satisfaction and retention increases naturally as a result.
The large scale trial of a shortened work week in the UK resulted in great success and 92% of companies decided to keep the new hours after the trial ended, with 30% already having committed to making it permanent.
The benefits to the employees is fairly obvious, but the employer gains by having less retraining, employees are more focused and less mentally exhausted, employees require less time off. The end result is that companies did in fact see increased productivity during the trial, and most companies reported increased YoY revenue growth.
Seems counter intuitive, but 61 companies tried it, and most liked it!
Anecdotal but i know i am way more productive when there has been or will be a holiday, for two weeks. I also noticed i feel a lot less drained working 38 hour jobs than 40 hour job, and generally do less at the 40 hour job. So i find it easy to believe this adds up. For an employer it’s hard to see this of course, they just see the raw output of the one thing they’ve been doing.
I can see how this appears burdensome to some jobs/areas of employment where productivity is directly related to output such as mechanics, plumbers, veteinarians, or maybe even like food service. It’s probably not an issue with many fields where productivity is achieved more through creativity/ideas/or generating more efficient workflows to save time. I suppose some fields are already at their “maximum efficiency” and will probably just need to raise prices to accommodate.
I’m actually cool with the prices of those sorts of things increasing if I get three day weekends. For one, I’ll have more time to do them myself if I desire, offsetting the cost entirely. Large corporations will hopefully be forced to just eat the loss; sure, companies have no problem kicking up the prices of their services… but I think they’ll find that we won’t be quite as dependant on eating out and buying garbage once we have more time to live our lives. Maybe people can learn to maintain their own cars as a swift “FU” to car manufacturers proce gouging and refusing to produce affordable automobiles for the masses.
Just throwing out some thoughts!
Large corporations will hopefully be forced to just eat the loss;
They will just increase prices and pass the expense on to the consumer.
Literally addressed this in my original comment. The key is not purchasing their products, which will be enabled by us having more time to do our own stuff. But obviously, it won’t apply to things we can’t replace or reduce the consumption of (gains, electricity, water)
But yeah, if Americans (for example) want to keep eating terrible, unhealthy food at exuberant expense from McDonald’s because they can’t be bothered to figure French fries out themselves, why wouldn’t McDonald’s raise their prices? Haha
which will be enabled by us having more time to do our own stuff
You may be underestimating the laziness of the average consumer. I don’t think people are going to use 1 extra day a week to start refining their own gas, making their own clothes or raising their own cattle.
This is a bad faith response. Of course nobody is going to refine their own gas, since it takes a multi-billion dollar refinery to refine gas. People can definitely do the two things I specifically mentioned, as well as a myriad of other things that I did not mention, which will take load off of the economy, and price gouging power away from the specific industries I mentioned.
And if not, then they can keep paying for overpriced, unhealthy food that they will continue to be price gouged on (which I also already said).
I didn’t explain that very well, but my thinking was that industries such as gas where there is no ‘DIY’ alternative will be immune to these positive effects.
Makes sense. But traveling to the office one day less per week, one day less per week of daycare, and having one more full day per week to do things like food prep will also help cool demand for adjacent markets. Not an expert though, obviously!
This will never be allowed to happen.
Fuck the DNC.
Yes, please.
Written in our universes language: “Bernie Sanders released a plan that will absolutely never happen and caused literally every single person that isn’t a worker to laugh until they couldn’t breathe anymore.”
I wonder how fox news spins this? Maybe commies want more free stuff from money we dont have i suppose. or maybe they just ignore it
Written in our universes language: “Bernie Sanders released a plan that will absolutely never happen and caused literally every single person that isn’t a worker to laugh until they couldn’t breathe anymore.”
I’m failing to see the problem here - most people are “workers” and this will benefit them. Anyone not workers will… presumably die from laughing? Win/Win - what’s the issue?
The issue is the government is run by
parasitesnon-workers and anyone who wants to even stand a chance needs funding fromparasitesnon-workers.If only they really would stop breathing, that would be nice lol
The issue is the government is run by parasites non-workers and anyone who wants to even stand a chance needs funding from parasites non-workers.
If only they really would stop breathing, that would be nice lol
Ending a statement with “lol” always reads like nervous laughter to me. You’re fine. Well, you seem to have a head full of some interesting non-information backed conclusions, but that’s not the end of the world. The posibility you might change your mind exists so I’m not going to freak out over that.
Relax. Everything is going to be ok.
It’s a bit of nervous laughter sometimes, but it’s more to show that it’s just meant as light hearted and a bit of a joke. I don’t really wish death on anyone.
As for the rest, it’s exasperation. Venting about the state of things and how they appear. My own ignorance and all that jazz.
Honestly I would be happy to work 4 10s I don’t need the reduced hours but I do need the 3 days off
This idea is about 4 8’s, not 4 10’s
Yes, that is clear from the head line. I was saying the 3-days off is the important part not the less hours worked.
Don’t you think you deserve some time to do your own thing?
Yeppers on the three day weekend. One day to rest one day to have for myself and now one to do errands. Look if I get 4 8s for the same money I won’t say no, but it is not the less hours a week that makes the difference. As someone who has worked both 5 6s and 4 10s I can tell you the extra day off is much more impactful on happiness.
Oh I agree that three days of rest makes life grand. I’m just saying that we can have both things!
Honestly because it is probably unrealistic. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
It seems much more likely to get business on board with 4 10s than 4 8s for the same amount of money. That is just too far for most business minded people and makes the people asking for it look lazy. Which will just discredit the people asking for a better work schedule.
Awesome
I don’t see a path forward that doesn’t start with the US government making the change first. They are one of the only employers that don’t have market competition.
Some departments in the US government give you a paid time off day every week to use however you want. A lot of people would take every Friday off, or some would stash them for a longer vacation.
It’s wild to me how internally the government offers the kind of benefits politicians should’ve pushed into law a long time ago. It really is “for Me, not for Thee”.
Source: worked in one of those departments
Which jobs give you four day weeks as of now?
deleted by creator
Not trying to call you out or anything, just my googlefu couldn’t find anything about any government jobs that did this. All I found was companies and other countries that were trying it out.
I feel like it would be big news if that was an option for people seeking employment anywhere.
They don’t. A few offices have a 40 hour 4 day week. They are missing shit up.
The only ones I know of that do this have you work four 10s. You still work the 40 hours.
Some departments in the US government give you a paid time off day every week to use however you want. A lot of people would take every Friday off, or some would stash them for a longer vacation.
Nope.
Source: worked in one of those departments
If you did, you had no idea what was going on.
An agency can’t just “give” someone twice the leave accrual as the max. People were probably doing 4 days a week, 10 hours a day.
And you just didn’t understand
Giving a benefit to government workers only requires a president to write an executive order.
Making a benefit into a law that affects all workers requires the House, Senate, President, and SCOTUS to all get on board.
Definitely true, but you never hear conservatives complaining about all the paid leave they get or the healthcare benefits they enjoy.
If some conservative president really wanted to walk the talk, they’d axe all those benefits for everyone.
They are walking the talk; they do not believe all people deserve equal treatment. Their worldview is inherently hierarchical.
wow, that’s like two and a half months of vacation
Literally everything US politicians and billionaires do is “rules for thee, but not for me”. Even running for president.
Bullshit. Fake news. Made up.
I work in the Federal Government, and this isn’t true. You have alternative work schedules (4/10s, 5/4/9, maxiflex, etc.) but you’re still going to work 80 hours unless you take leave. You gain annual leave every pay period and the amount is dependent on how long your federal service has been. But when you start (1-3 years) you only get 4 hours per pay period.
Maybe you’re seeing people who have long federal service (15 years) that gain 8 hours/pay period use their leave. That’s their choice but they’re still working 40 hours on paper regardless.
i don’t even like looking at or thinking about this stuff, it’s too depressing getting my hopes up
Completely understand feeling this way but remember: this is how they win. If they can’t steal or nullify your vote, they want to discourage you from going to the ballot box bcause you feel it’s all rigged or pointless. It’s not. Here in the US, we still have free and fair elections and the power still resides with us if we claim it…
deleted by creator
It’s not going to go anywhere, but it’s good that it’s being introduced regardless.
Bernie: Here’s a bill that will help literally everyone. People waste less of their lives at work, and productivity goes up massively for the corporate overlords. There is no downside here for anyone.
Everyone: Shut up, hippy.
Everyone: Shut up, hippy.
Don’t listen to them, when they tell you that. As far as you know, might even be an astroturfer, trying to kill this in the crib.
Call your House of Representative member and let them know that you want this bill to become law.
If we citizens don’t apply the pressure, nothing will happen.
And if your cynical about doing that, try it anyway, just as an experiment, to see what happens. Hell, even make a YouTube video about your experience doing so, for content.
Just say "Please let my representative know that I am in favor of the Bernie Sanders bill (Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act) for a 32 hour work week."
It’s just a phone call. A 32 hour work week is worth a single phone call, right?
Everyone: Shut up, hippy.
They’ve been telling him that since he was being arrested for protesting for civil rights and Joe Biden was fighting against school busing…
Their stupid bullshit hasn’t stopped him yet
Bernie is still the only politician I have donated to but to be fair to Biden, bussing was met with violent protests and even black activists criticized it for weakening black communities. There were good reasons to be against that method without being against desegregation.
There were good reasons to be against that method without being against desegregation.
That’s not a fact, it’s an opinion.
One that Biden hasn’t been able to rationalize to Dem voters for decades.
If you want to try, give it a shot. I legitimately believe you might do a better job at it than Biden.
But you’re gonna have to do more than say there was “good reasons” besides people of Bidens age being completely ignorant of psychology.
School busing sped up integration by decades, and when kids grow up in multiracial environments it changes their ingroup determination to not just be “people who look like me”.
We can only change that at a very young age, but it sticks with you for life. Even with busing, the effects were decades away.
If we didn’t have busing, generations of people would have suffered.
So if you and Biden want to argue with that, you’re going to have to put in a lot of effort to throw the last 30 years of psychology
It’s not my opinion. It is the opinion of many black civil rights activists at the time. They argued that spreading out the kids would weaken the ties to the black community. They wanted to make black schools better rather than move kids. They argued that strengthening the black community would be the most effective way to pursue civil rights. Given that black children still get inferior education to whites and black communities are impoverished, they might have been right.
Lol.
You can’t try to defend Biden…
So you make up hypothetical Black people and say they didn’t want their kids to go to school with white kids?
Like, you just honestly tried to say it was the Black people being racist, and what’s the implication?
That Biden knew that, lied about why he was against busing as a cover job?
Why not just stop replying instead of that shit you typed?
Black leaders were mixed on the practice. Activist Jesse Jackson, NAACP officials and U.S. Rep. Shirley Chisholm were among those who supported busing efforts and policies. But many Black nationalists argued that focus should instead be placed on strengthening schools in Black communities.
A February 1981 Gallup Poll found 60 percent of Black Americans were in favor of busing, while 30 percent were opposed to it. Among white people surveyed, 17 percent favored busing, and 78 percent were against it.
“It ain’t the bus, it’s us,’’ Jackson told The New York Times in 1981. ‘’Busing is absolutely a code word for desegregation. The forces that have historically been in charge of segregation are now being asked to be in charge of desegregation.’”
Has it been so long that you forgot which side eyounwere arguing?
Or do you legitimately think that backs up your opinion from almost a day ago?
Unfortunately that’s a fairly naive take that fails to consider how most people work in the US- hourly employees would be fucked by this.
Retail, service, anyone whose not already working 9-5 office jobs; the reality is that they won’t loose pay, but they will loose hours. And you can bet your ass that companies won’t pay more to make up for it.
they lose hours but the hourly pay goes up, just like everybody else, no? I haven’t read the bill but I would be surprised if that’s not in there.
Companies already offer part time retail positions, and they are shitty about it. 39.5 hours a week to avoid the full time line.
So in this 32h future they’d just offer 31 hour positions at a lower rate and still yank people around
Edit: I was off on values. Commenter below pointed out 30 is the mark
The Full time Mark is already 30 hours per week measured monthly so not this would not change anything
https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/employers/identifying-full-time-employees
Sorry off on values, but they would offer part time. This is common.
So 28-29 hours.
First off, it needs to be noted that the only mechanism to do that on so large a scale is to increase the minimum wage.
Which is how they did it in ‘38 when the work week went to 44, and in ‘40 when it when to what it is today.
The problem is that company are absolutely going to pass that off to customers (aka, the workers… ultimately.) and so really all you’ve done, effectively, is put far more people onto minimum wage.
Anyone who was above that mimimim? Gets the shaft.
And people who now are on minimum? Working two jobs to pay for everything (like most people in the bottom quarter are already doing anyhow,) so they don’t really see reduced hours anyway.
It’s well meaning and it’d be nice, but it needs to be done differently. Unions are strong now. Stronger than they have been since I’ve been working. Join a union. Make the change yourself; eventually it’ll get normalized without the above problems. (Also, better wages, healthcare, workplace safety and everything else Unions get you.)(don’t tell my boss’s boss that. He’s still buthurt from negotiating a new contract.)
The problem is that company are absolutely going to pass that off to customers (aka, the workers… ultimately.)
News flash, they’re going to be raising prices regardless.
And they won’t tack that on, too, anyhow?
Chances are they’ll pass on the costs, increase the price, anyhow, shrink products, and raise prices even more, and then blame the last three on the first.
Exactly like they’ve been doing.
Point is, they’re going to anyway. So why even take that into consideration?
You’re the one bringing it into consideration…
So… why are you bringing it up?
I have no idea why you’re being downvoted. How would the government mandate a pay raise across the board? The government only has the federal minimum wage lever to play with. Somehow the law would have to say: all hourly workers must be paid 25% more. Would companies just increase prices by 25%?
Now, I’m all for reducing the work week to 32 hours. I’m tired of spending most of the week working and only having to 2 free days (of which one is usually spent doing home chores). But I’m genuinely curious about how this would be implemented without causing massive inflation.
Raising the minimum wage to account for inflation would give a vast number of people a major raise.
Which has little to do with a 32 hour workweek, and can’t be done on its own even though it really should be done.
Personally the minimum wage should be tied to the cost of living or increased along side CPI or some other useful inflation metric
Simply a one-time jump isn’t going to accomplish all that much in the long run.
Bring it up even to where it was along side inflation, (big jump,) and have an annual little jump baked in each year.
I agree, it has little to do with it. I was just addressing the idea that the federal minimum wage being the only lever to play would not have a massive positive effect on a huge percentage of workers.
The AFL-CIO, which is only demanding a $15/hour minimum wage says that if it kept up with inflation, it would be $24/hour.
https://aflcio.org/what-unions-do/social-economic-justice/minimum-wage
Based on that, the bare minimum someone working full-time should be making is a little less than $50,000 a year. And if the government used that ‘only lever to play,’ and it would still be less than the $68k that is needed to ‘live comfortably.’
https://thehill.com/business/4059025-an-average-american-income-may-no-longer-cut-it/
ive been reading a few things by the AFL-CIO, older stuff, I’d pay attention, though. (And 24 sounds about right.)
I was chatting with the union’s negotiator (technically the enemy, but, whatever. We have a good relationship for that.) now that the new contract is ratified; he’s disappointed because he thought they could get more.
I’m glad the bigwig negotiated they sent out fucked it up every which way. Got my people a much deserved pay raise and stuff.
Seriously, corporations are freaking scared of unions just now. I hope this momentum lasts.
From the article…
The Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act would also protect workers’ pay and benefits to ensure there’s no loss in pay, according to a press release.
Says nothing about loss in hours.
Remember, when you’re paid hourly, you can lose hours and not lose pay.
Unless the employment contract already has guaranteed hours.
Says nothing about loss in hours.
I’m assuming that’s covered as a part of this…
ensure there’s no loss in pay
And you’d be wrong. Companies would still be paying them at whatever rate they were paid at. Most jobs don’t come with specifically guaranteed hours, however.
It’s a technicality, yes, but it’s also a very important distinction. They’re not losing pay. They’re losing hours. The consequence is the same; but short of minimum wage increases; there’s no mechanism for the US Government to dictate wages to individual companies. Particularly when they were never party to that contract in the first place.
If you are correct, then the bill won’t work, because it won’t have the support of all the hourly workers.
I’m assuming that Bernie and Co are smart enough to realize that, so they would make sure any bill that they wrote would cover that scenario that you’re describing, and not just waste all of our time.
That’s why I believe the part of the article I quoted earlier is factual, and covers what you’re speaking about.
If it’s mandated by law they will. As they do in other countries.
Yup. These “free market” folks conveniently forget that competition is bolstered when there’s a floor. An impartial referee to call balls, strikes, and fouls. A set of rules everyone has to play by, or they don’t get to play at all.
Also known as regulation.
removed by mod
Slow it down there Thanos, just because you can’t personally see a solution to our current predicament doesn’t mean that genocide is the solution. Do you honestly believe that would fix things? Are you a comic book villain?
You decrie brainwashing by the media and assume that you are unaffected, but you are clearly and dangerously mislead into losing all hope for a better world. The latest shift in climate disinformation is away from denialism and towards doomerism, and you seem to have fallen for it hard.
It is not too late. There are attainable solutions. Political change is possible, perhaps even inevitable. There will be consequences for what has already been done, but we can survive them and we will. What might not survive are the institutions that got us to this point, but we can build a better world in their absence. Don’t lose hope, that’s what the oligarchs want.
I know it’s hard to sympathize with those who refused to see reason and allowed the powers that be to bring us to the point of crisis, but it’s important to remember that they too are victims.
removed by mod
Love the idea. But like free college and free healthcare I’m thinking it’s just wishful thinking.
Hopelessness is about the worst thing for an individual psychologically.
Amazing how so many people have been tricked into thinking these ideas are impossible. It’s really not crazy at all.
Oh I think it’s possible, but considering our useless government and the obstructionists we all know, utterly impossible.
I think it’s less useless government and more brainwashed citizens voting against their best interests. The useless government didn’t elect itself after all.
…I think it’s possible, but…utterly impossible.
So you don’t think it’s possible? Have you tried to do something, and have come to that conclusion because no matter what you do, nothing seems to be changing?
I’m not focusing on you specifically, but why people say things are “impossible “ and then you ask what, if anything, they’ve done, people will say nothing (or won’t even vote!).
You don’t need to devote your life to something you want to change…an hour or two a week. Join an advocacy group. Go to a town hall meeting. Call your congressman. If time is something you really have ZERO of, then donate so that other people can spend more time working the change you want to see happen.
“It’s impossible to change anything, so I’m not even gonna try”. Again, not saying this is you. I hear this “argument” so friggin often. It’s like people try and subconsciously excuse their own inaction and apathy.
When I said “I think it’s possible” it was within the context of being able to maintain production, and economic output. Productivity per worker has increased between 30-50% within the last 40 or so years.
When I said “utterly impossible” It was in regards to corporation control and influence in the government, as well as corporation sympathy with republicans. Considering they are obstructionists that will even deadlock mutually beneficial laws and acts, they would 100% kill something they actually oppose.
Even with most Americans in support of Roe vs Wade, that was shut down.
Needs support. Not just from congress but from voters contacting their elected representatives. Zoomers and Millenials can complain all they want about Congress being out of touch, but if you’re over 18 Then fucking vote, not just in presidential elections but midterms and local/state elections. The country isn’t going to change to fit what young dreamers want it to be if the only people who vote enmass are the older generations that want it to stay the same.
deleted by creator
I agree
Coming from Germany where both of this is normal it’s pretty crazy to me that this is seen as some kind of socialist utopia.
Admittedly there are a lot of problems in that country as well but the root of them is imo not in free education & healthcare.
Scotland: “Are we just wishful thinking?”
America: “We told you and the rest of your kingdom to fuck off and now we’re doing it the stupid way!”
No shit. I learned that Scotland has it. Okay we have a working. Cool
deleted by creator
I had a US colleague that was ranting to me (a European) that people would still take calls just before having surgery and the moment the anastatics would have worn off work again. So I asked why not root for Bernie as he wants to do a more Scandinavian model (did not use the world socialism because reasons). Answer was no, would not be able to vote for him. Well…
A good third of Americans are subhuman. They are proud to be stupid, abused, and evil.
Man, you’re talking about a “radical”, “extremist” politician who self-identifies as a (democratic) socialist.
Here in the US, most people from the poorest, least-educated states will simply never vote for a Democrat. That’s not an exaggeration. The only reason Nikki Haley got so much attention despite never being viable is because with our 2-Party system she was considered the only non-Trump option for many people in these flyover states. Add in the outsized influence they have in the Senate and the undemocratic Electrical College… We’re fucked.
I hear you my internet friend. Add to the fact that republicans want to keep their supporters dumb by further undermining education and it starts to look quite grim. Reforming the current 2 party system and electoral collage would be a common sense thing to do, but I fear this is only wishful thinking. Large corps with infinite money will keep driving the direction of a country and the politicians are just the workforce for them to execute on it. Same goes for the foreign influence (read Putin’s clerk boy Trump).
Now more paries does not mean better either. I mean I look at how things go in my country where we have over a dozen parties, ans now 4 of them trying to form a coalition, takes months. And unfortunately also here we are going further to the right and slowly embrace fascism.
Time for a new french style revolution I guess…
deleted by creator
It’s been repeatedly shown to decrease company profits. As people work longer hours they amount of stuff they get done declines rapidly as they get tired. Their error rate also dramatically increases. This causes a rapid decline in overall productivity.
The issue is people believe that working longer hours is more productive in those cultures. Sadly people usually make decisions based upon unfounded beliefs not provable facts.
People also stress out and burn out more easily, which takes a toll on their health, which not only further reduces productivity, but also increases otherwise unnecessary medical costs
I’m self employed.
There’s an infinite amount of work for me to do, but like most professions its intellectually, emotionally and mentally taxing.
Honestly, I can’t do much more than 4 hours of real actual work per day.
Same here. I did a complete carreer change from STEM (robotics engineering) into visual arts, and I’m happier than ever, but the intense mental work required means I do ~4 hours of actual developed work a day, then spend the next 4-6 hours doing the art equivalent of menial work (fixing the quality of small lines, slightly tweaking colours etc)
Hey that’s interesting! I have a degree in computer science and work as a software developer but also a masters in visual arts (photography). I never managed to break free from my developer gig, because of the financial stability it provides, but I already burned out, recovered and feel it’s an endless cycle. Like you, doing art made me so happy and it bothers me every day I can’t seem to get my life turned around in that direction.
Do you have any tips in that regard? How did you get started? Did you transition softly or just quit your job there and then? And what then? Did you have network? Can you live off your art?
I have so many questions, please point this fellow STEM in the right direction to break free :)
I’m sorry to say that I don’t have a lot of advice to give. I just got so fed up one day, that I decided the risk of starving to death wasn’t enough to stop me from changing fields.
How did you get started?
I built a small portfolio, anything I could get together and had some level of quality really. As artists we’re often harsh on ourselves, but the average person interested in commissions and freelance projects will be surprisingly undiscerning of your flaws, so don’t be too picky. Just make sure they’re finished art pieces, that’s what clients care most about. Then I made a profile in every social network/ freelance site I could think of.
Did you have network?
Nope, as we say in Brazil, I just “exposed my face to be slapped”.
Can you live off your art?
Barely, but yes - and the payout increases over time, as you get more comfortable, skilled and learn which corners you can cut without affecting the artwork. Keep in mind my cost of living is probably significantly lower than yours if you live in America or Europe.
I honestly don’t recommend following my footsteps - being more patient and building your artistic profile over a period, say one year, is almost certainly a better bet. Also, please don’t just quit without having the cash to sustain yourself for a while, in case things don’t pan out well.
Thanks man for the elaborate (and honest) answer! You often hear stories about how people just quit their jobs and magically everything will work out for them. It’s good to hear a more realistic view!
Real actual work you say?
Im working 40, and in recent memory went thru long stretches of 60+, and also 0, when i was privileged enough to take a bit of extra time between jobs.
In my “free” time, i work on the art my heart wont let me not make. When working 40, i can manage an extra 10 hrs (maybe) on a good week doing the shit i actually feel im supposed to do. When i worked 65, i hardly did shit some weeks, other weeks id feel proud of 3 hrs. Youd think i could then manage 60, or 50, or at least 40 when unemployed then, right?
Lol, try 25 as a stretch goal. When u actually believe in ur work and want to give problems the time they deserve and the details the attention they need, you find that you get burned out pretty damn fast. Any more and the effort slips.
Granted, im not counting breaks in that number. If i work 4 hrs one day, i might do it in some 45 minute chunks, 1 ninety minute chunk, with numerous 15 minute breaks and 1 lasting between 90-120.
I get that ymmv, but im typically extolled (read: exploited) as a very hard worker in all my jobs, and we’re talking about the difference between working on the things that my soul demands versus what is typically rote, menial BS.
That’s an interesting summation and more or less my experience.
Like I can rack up 60 hours doing “stuff”, but the complex stuff where I’m really producing the most value is capped at 20 or 25 hours a week.
That’s more than most employees do in a day, and often they have less say in the impact of it.
A coworker “above me” (we don’t have titles at this job so we can’t determine our value) just said the other day: “I don’t get this generation. Imagine calling out because you don’t feel well in my time? You went to work because you needed it, you cough and people know to stay the fuck away from you. If you called out you would just get fired and the job would keep chugging.”
That’s viewed as a GOOD place to work at by some fucking insane people… America is the land of the blind slave.
“That’s how you get pandemics.”
Many people work 12h shifts but that’s not super common in office jobs.
What the fuck. I refuse to believe this improves company profits in 90% of the companies.
It doesn’t. Hundreds of industry studies have been done, and they all point to the same conclusion. 40 hours of work is the absolute maximum you can squeeze out of a worker before you start to see productivity and quality take a sharp nosedive. Doesn’t matter if you’re a factory worker or an office drone, fatigue will set in and give increasingly diminished returns for every hour over that. 40 hour work weeks only became the standard across the United States because of Henry Ford actually listening to the people doing these studies.
I think part of the reason we haven’t shifted more towards a more balanced 30 hour work week despite the absolutely massive increase in productivity thanks to computerization and automation is because management positions attract individuals who strongly believe that more effort = more results, and that probably rings true for managerial positions where the most alpha-minded ones who work extra hard above and beyond the job’s expectations are the ones to typically get the promotions and thus become industry leaders themselves in time.
Consider how much time people spend on Facebook or TikTok or whatever while on the job. Consider how much time is spent “looking busy” when in reality you might just be dragging out the task you are on so that you are not assigned more busywork. This is all a product of people having jobs that demand they be present and paid for 40 hours worth of labor, but a great deal of it is “performative labor” where they are not actually producing, but can’t afford to clock out early because wages are based on how long you are at work, and rarely commission based, so there’s no incentive to produce more for the same pay so long as you are meeting expectations/quotas.
I don’t understand why it’s done.
Useful idiots proud to work for their overlords.
deleted by creator
We’re discussing why they choose to structure society that way.
These arguments have been going on for generations, and Americans tend to be useful idiots proud to work for their overlords.
You are clearly not trying to “discuss anything”. Making glib generalizations and dismissing major reasons why people work excessive hours shows you would rather victim blame than actually have a discussion. And if you believe most Americans are “proud to work for overlords”, then you are buying into the overlords propaganda.
deleted by creator
…what? Are you being sarcastic?
I think you spend too much time on these forums and you’re playing leapfrog with yourself.
Try to be more direct and clear about what you want to say.
Own your argument!
Ask questions if you’re confused. Follow your own advice before giving it out.
The first thing I asked was a question…
deleted by creator
