As part of his Labor Day message to workers in the United States, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday re-upped his call for the establishment of a 20% cut to the workweek with no loss in pay—an idea he said is “not radical” given the enormous productivity gains over recent decades that have resulted in massive profits for corporations but scraps for employees and the working class.
“It’s time for a 32-hour workweek with no loss in pay,” Sanders wrote in a Guardian op-ed as he cited a 480% increase in worker productivity since the 40-hour workweek was first established in 1940.
“It’s time,” he continued, “that working families were able to take advantage of the increased productivity that new technologies provide so that they can enjoy more leisure time, family time, educational and cultural opportunities—and less stress.”
For the sake of comparison…
1940 median US male salary was $956. Women earned about 62¢ on the dollar to men.
Adjusted for inflation, that’s about $21,800.
Median US income (overall) in 2023 is $42,800.
You mean to tell me productivity has gone up 4.8x, and I don’t even see 2x the increase in salary.
Put otherwise, if my hours are worth nearly 5x to you, why aren’t they even worth 2x to me?
I tell people time and time again that work starts at 9 and end at 3pm, everything after is shuffling paper and killing time.
Well, jobs are different. It’s just that sometimes you get too tired to do anything effectively an hour or two before your work technically ends.
I started working a 6:30am-2:30pm job and it’s life changing. The first hour is just getting settled, I spend lunchtime organizing my calendar and Emails, and I still have time for a full day of activities after work.
I am super jealous. Imagine finishing work and have time to hang out with your friends and family. Living the dream.
Being up that early (for me) means I need to be in bed by 10pm, so home by 9. Most of my friends are not available at 3pm and usually stay out until 10-11. It can lead to feeling very isolated in my experience.
I’m not OP but I worked a 6-3 job for a year or so, gladly swapped it out for a 10-7pm, get to sleep in and stay put late.
But it’s all about preferences and priorities.
I think that the stage of life you’re in would also play a huge part in what hours you’d prefer. When I was single, I’d prefer later hours like you so I could have a more relaxed morning. Now that I’m married with kids, however, an earlier schedule would mean more family time. Especially as school events are often scheduled for the early evening.
I’m single and I enjoy the early work because it means I have more time after work to do things with friends (or go to the gym or whatever)
I guess if your friends are available before normal work hours end, it makes sense.
Most definitely. Most of my life was external to my home, so having others available at the same time was important. I’d probably feel much the same as you if I had a family.
i wish i could do that, but my body is not programmed for such early rising. i tried and it is a wonder i didnt crash my car on the way to work
It’s definitely not for everyone! I’m one of those weirdos who wakes up super early every day naturally. My partner, on the other hand, naturally sleeps til 10 or 11.
Would this include a 25% increase to hourly minimums? Because otherwise it only benefits salaried employees.
And what about workers who are paid by productivity and not time? Salespersons on commission, servers receiving tips, ride-share drivers?
I’m all for a 32-hour work-week; that’s what I have myself. But let’s not pretend this would be enough, or that the main beneficiaries are he working class.
My concern is the small business owners.
Massive corps - absolutely. Small mom and pop stores, 3-5 employee business… less inclined.
Save your tears.
The reason businesses exist is for owners to gain wealth from the labor of their workers.
No one is required to own a business.
Anyone not liking such a position may become a worker like the rest of us.
“No loss in pay” as far as I can interpret it would mean getting paid the same for working 32 hours as you would have for working 40, yes
The autoworkers union the article refers to as an example is seeking a 46% pay rise to coincide with the transition to 32 hours.
This would DOUBLE my effective free time. It would improve my life so much.
While I love this idea and Bernie… There’s no fucking way that’ll happen.
Companies can afford it
There is no way we will get a 40 hour work week
It will not happen if we just sit and wait, nor if we just vote, but if we build communities and unions, if we act each day to move our relationships with one another more deeply toward a real transformation, then we can build a society not for bosses but for everyone.
This goes against what Republicans want. They’re literally removing child labor laws so kids can get into the work force while they’re in middle school. Start a kid working at 12 years old and they can get about 50 years of labor out of them. Chances are that kid will be working 60-70 years and won’t be able to retire.
I got a job at 16 and worked part time through college and have been full time since. 1/3 of my adult life (6 years) was doing 60 hour weeks. I’m by no means the most responsible with my finances but I don’t buy tons of frivolous stuff. Haven’t been on a real vacation since 2014. Haven’t taken off unless I’ve gotten sick (I caught COVID 3 times).
I don’t expect to be able to retire. I expect to starve to death when I can no longer work.
And even like that you are better off than 95% of the planet
What is this comment even supposed to prove??
We’re talking about how there’s a major gap in the finances of corporate execs, meanwhile the people that they make their money off the backs of are going to not have enough money themselves for life in general.
And your only argument is “people elsewhere have it worse.” That’s a non-argument. It may be true but contributes nothing meaningful to the conversation so please find a reason that this comment or having a job and not being able to afford life when/if they have to stop working is a good thing like you seem to be implying
deleted by creator
While I like this idea, this is not the argument union leadership should be making to achieve this goal:
Our union’s membership is clearly fed up with living paycheck-to-paycheck while the corporate elite and billionaire class continue to make out like bandits," said Fain in a statement last week. "The Big Three have been breaking the bank while we have been breaking our backs
A change in hours does nothing to address pay discrepancies and you need to pick one lane and fight for it and get it, then attack the other direction.
This. Too many different issues get conflated and then focus is lost and nothing changes
Unfortunately, thanks to Democrats and Republicans, the four-day work week is an impossibility in the USA.
Of course workers gain nothing by asking elites.
All depends on organization.
The speech excerpts from the article say the same.
Democrats and Republicans
read: Corporations
Only impossible because the voters keep choosing corporatists rather than representatives.
Do you know any representatives?
Sounds great. He should do something about it.
He can’t, but workers can.
Our fate rises or falls by our capacity to join in solidarity.
Do you all have the Congress app installed on your phone?
Can you name your House of Representative member?
Can you name your Senators?
This will go nowhere the same way that smart gun control went nowhere, despite the vast majority of the citizenship wanting it, despite even after a room full of elementary school kids were killed. Lobbying stops what the vast majority of the citizenry want.
The only way to affect change is to lobby Congress, that’s what the corporations do. Corporations lobby Congress, so you have to as well.
You need to get involved, you have to let your Representative and your Senators know that you want a four-day work week. You should even throw some donation money their way for their next election cycle.
Just commenting about it on an Internet forum isn’t enough. Just waiting for somebody else to do the work isn’t enough.
You are the citizen.
Nah, the vast majority don’t want gun control. All you city slicking fools who don’t value personal self defense and think someone else will save you.
You can piss your rights away I’ll keep mine.
You’ve already pissed enough of my rights away thanks.
They don’t need someone to save them, because cities have less gun violence per capita then rural areas. All those guns don’t save you. And I say this as someone from a small town.
Why is the USA so dangerous that you need to be walking around armed to the teeth?
Because basically anyone can get their hands on any gun they can afford with minimal difficulty, and the police have no legal obligation to protect you.
…Though to be honest, guns don’t really help that much.
You’re not the majority.
K friend. Surround yourself with liberal echo chambers and so that groupthink really reitineeates your point. Fucking retard.
100%
Congress app?
I believe they’re talking about 5calls? https://5calls.org/
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sunlightlabs.android.congress
If that link doesn’t work, just search for the word Congress in the Google Play store.
If you’re using an iPhone I’m sure there’s an iPhone app equivalent. Basically any app that lets you monitor the votes that your representative and Senators do.
For me it says that the app was developed for an earlier version of Android and is incompatible with one I own (mine is 10)
For me it says that the app was developed for an earlier version of Android and is incompatible with one I own (mine is 10)
I’m currently on Android 12. I’ve also used the app on Android 10 and Android 11 phones in the past, all from different companies.
It’s a simple app, not using any complex features of a phone, so it should be working fine.
Working within the system will never give us what we need. The system is made for them. All we get are concessions that then get taken away when we’re no longer a threat. No company, no matter how much popular support, is ever going to allow this. You’d have far bigger chances of making far bigger changes if you joined an org. Any org.
Louis Rossman on YouTube hired a lobbying firm to help farmers to be able to repair their own tractors and won, so there’s proof right there it can be done.
If there’s grassroots lobbying of politicians by regular people, change can happen.
That’s what corpos are really afraid of, being out lobbied.
As I said, the things you don’t get by fighting are purely concessions so you shut up. When you do shut up, they get taken away. Every single fundamental working right we have was fought for with blood, not votes.
What corpos are really afraid of is us organizing. They have always been. That’s all we have to do. Advocating for people to send emails (since none of them are going to have the money to hire lobbying firms) will just feed them back into the system, the same way voting does. Makes you feel realized when it never fundamentally changes anything for good.
As I said, the things you don’t get by fighting are purely concessions so you shut up.
Why would you ‘shut up’?
That seems like a nonsensical sentence / opinion.
When you do shut up, they get taken away.
Passed laws just don’t evaporate into thin air after they’re done being passed, they continue to exist.
Every single fundamental working right we have was fought for with blood, not votes.
That’s not true, at all. Not everything was about slavery. I’m sure you can find some that were, and some that were not.
Our society wouldn’t exist if everything was anarchy 24/7.
Why would you ‘shut up’?
Concessions are given, the radicalization stops as the standards of living improve. People are satisfied and don’t pursue the deeper systemic issues. Once the radicalism has died down, efforts are made to remove those concessions. Sometimes it does not work, a lot of the times it does. The rise of neoliberalism was one of these efforts, the most succesful so far.
Passed laws just don’t evaporate into thin air after they’re done being passed, they continue to exist.
They don’t evaporate, they get repealed. Tons of things do. Roe v Wade, police defunding, literal underage labour laws got repealed this year. The Paris Agreement almost worked, but thankfully protesting brought it back.
Not everything was about slavery.
I’m not talking about slavery. Every fundamental working right we have comes from fighting. The 40-hour work week and 8-hour work day, the abolition of child labour, the minimum wage, pensions, sick leave, paid overtime, the right to strike… even weekends are thanks to fighting. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
You may notice some of these things have been dissapearing recently, and that’s exactly what I’m talking about. They were concessions given to us so we stopped being a threat. They don’t perceive us as one anymore, and so they’re trying to gain more power for themselves by stripping us of the things we earned. And part of this threat reduction is precisely the insisting on working within this “democratic” system, which will never meaningfully challenge them, because it is for them, by them, and controlled by them.
Will change is a constant, and there’s always going to be some people who want to gain power for themselves for their own sakes to the detriment of others, and you have to fight back against that.
It sounds like you’re so cynical about things that you’re saying it’s not even trying, not worth fighting for. Sincerely if you’re not just someone trying to reshape the narrative away from activism, I would suggest, as the Internet likes to say, to go outside and ‘touch grass’.
For the record I’m not saying you get to utopia and then you stop, the job is done. You got to fight for what you have to keep it.
But to not fight that’s just defeatist, and not something I’ll never do, and no one else should either.
I’m not being defeatist at all. Quite on the contrary, I’m telling you to fight.
My point is that fighting within the system never works. Everything we achieve that way eventually gets taken away from us. As long as the ruling class is still in power, they simply benefit the most from granting us as little as possible, and so they will always search for ways to do just that, and to take away things they previously granted us if they think we wont be threatening enough to take them back.
That’s why I am saying, do not hire lobbyists or email politicians or something. Or if you do, make sure it’s not the only thing you do. Join an org. Join an union, a party, a syndicate, organize. That is what has brought, brings and will bring real change. Fight against the system.
But for the love of god, don’t not vote. Us not voting is a major part of that system that’s made for them.
deleted by creator
When I’m suggesting is not something that that article tracks.
I’m talking about fight fire with fire, just like how Louis Rossman on YouTube did, to win farmers the right to be able to repair their own tractors, by hiring a lobbyist.
Ignore them. Lazy people will find ways to justify their being lazy. A healthy democracy takes work from everyone. If they refuse to own that on a personal level that falls on them and they have no right to complain when their lives fall in the shitter.
Ontario in Canada is being dismantled right now and it’s because the vast majority didn’t vote. They can make any excuse they want and it’s still an excuse. Any option but the current one was a good option. Fuck each and every lazy person
Ignore them. Lazy people will find ways to justify their being lazy. A healthy democracy takes work from everyone. If they refuse to own that on a personal level that falls on them and they have no right to complain when their lives fall in the shitter.
I appreciate the advice, but you have to push back against laziness and people who are so cynical that they don’t see any way of affecting change.
If there’s more of them than us with that kind of mindset then society falls apart.
You’re equating real life with Lemmy. Nothing waves hands here matters. We are on an online forum. I wish more people understood this.
Well if you can prove that the comment I’m replying to is AI generated then I would agree with you.
It’s a great way for those in power to dilute the conversation by throwing up so much junk into the conversations so that no one can take any meaning out of them, but we’re not there yet.
Otherwise I’m assuming it’s a real live human being who live on the planet with me, and will respond accordingly.
Also those in power who would want others not the gain power would do their best to redirect people away from community town square conversations, where people can get together and discuss issues that’s affecting them all, to try to keep them from advocating for change that would be detrimental to their power.
You shouldn’t be discouraging the use of online public community town square conversations. You should never ever discourage intellectually honest conversations.
Then what the fuck are you doing here. Go away
only way to affect change is to lobby
Don’t want to be pedantic, but not American and don’t really have much else to add here.
This is one of the few times when the correct word is “effect”, not “affect”. “Affect (v.)” means to alter, or have an impact on. “Effect (v.)” means to produce, and to create an effect (n.) of.
deleted by creator
This is one of the few times when the correct word is “effect”, not “affect”. “Affect (v.)” means to alter, or have an impact on. “Effect (v.)” means to produce, and to create an effect (n.) of.
Change is to alter something, not to create/produce something.
I wrote it as wanting to affect how Congress does things, to change what Congress does, to have an impact on Congress, which is what lobbying does.
I stand by my usage of the word affect, over effect.
Change is to alter something, not to create/produce something.
It’s a transitive verb. “Affect change” places “change” as the object. You’re not saying you’re altering the political situation or you’re altering Congress; You’re saying the change is already happening, and you’re merely slightly altering its direction. “Effect change” means “Make a change”, which is what you’re trying to say. “Affect change” means “change the change”, which is probably nonsensical in most cases you’d use it.
Also, “effect change” specifically is a standard idiom. “Effect change” shows up in the English language around 8X more commonly than “affect change” between 1800 and 2000, because “affect change” is a semantically incorrect misspelling of “effect change”. [1] “Effect a change” is also either explicitly defined in or given as an example usage in many major dictionaries, while the same isn’t true of “affect change”, because, again “affect change” is a generally incorrect usage that doesn’t actually make sense or mean anything outside of potentially very specific scenarios that don’t apply here. [2]
2: Defined in Collins. Used in example sentences by: Cambridge, Webster, American Heritage
I stand by my usage of the word affect, over effect.
I mean. Feel free to, I guess?
You’re saying the change is already happening
If I was saying that the change already happened I would have said ‘affectED’ past tense, which I did not.
I’m advocating for something to cause change, I’m not saying that change is already in the middle of happening or has happened.
I stand by my usage of the word affect, over effect.
If I was saying that the change already happened I would have said ‘affectED’ past tense, which I did not.
I’m advocating for something to cause change, I’m not saying that change is already in the middle of happening or has happened.
Oh my god. You’re using “change” as an object noun after a transitive verb which itself has no connotation or denotation of creation or causation. That implicitly means you’re saying that the thing it’s referring to must already exist.
I’m advocating for something to cause change,
Yes! That is what “effect” means.
I’m not saying that change is already in the middle of happening or has happened.
Yes you are! “Affect (v.)” already means “change (v.)”. “Affect (v.) change (n.)” means “change (v.) the change (n.)”. That implies that the “change (n.)” must already exist.
It’s like if I said “This salt will really affect my spaghetti”. That implicitly says/presumes that “my spaghetti” already exists, or else it wouldn’t be able to be affected.
I stand by my usage of the word affect, over effect.
🙄
FFS, I explained the grammatical reasoning, and linked to historical usage data, and linked to four different dictionaries to back that up.
You know what, fuck it. I only mentioned “effect” vs. “affect” because I thought that was somewhat interesting and more obscure rather than annoying to point out, but if you’re going to just be obtuse about it I may as well have some fun and point out the various other grammatical and semantic mistakes too…
“The Congress app” should not have a definite article because the app you linked to is, per the app ID, developer info, and first line of its description, unofficial and unaffiliated with the U.S. Congress. “Representative” should be plural, though that’s probably just a typo. The second “despite” should have a conjunction such as “and” immediately before it. “Want” should be conjugated as “wants” after “citizenry”, because the noun it applies to in this case is the singular “majority”. “Affect” should be “effect”, because “affect change” isn’t a thing and is actually nonsense. The clause right after that, beginning with “that’s what the corporations”, is a run-on sentence and should probably be fixed with a conjunction denoting causality or reasoning. The clause after “involved” is also a run-on sentence, and should probably either be its own declarative statement or be semicolon-delimited. The third “to” on the second sentence of your next reply needs a listing conjunction right before it. And in your latest reply, the clause after “cause change” is also a run-on sentence and should probably be delimited by either a full stop or a semicolon instead of a comma.
Now I suppose I’ll wait for you to explain why you “stand by” these other plainly incorrect (and, frankly, inconsequential) errors as well.
It’s funny how you started out pretending to champion political change, and to be against frivolously “commenting about it on an Internet forum”. … I should know better.
You know what, fuck it. I only mentioned “effect” vs. “affect” because I thought that was somewhat interesting and more obscure rather than annoying to point out, but if you’re going to just be obtuse about it
I’m not being obtuse, I’m just disagreeing with your interpretation of the words. I feel you’re ignoring the temporal aspect of when each word should be used, per how I learned to use those words in school.
Honestly not trying to upset you, you’re just telling me something different that I’ve learned my whole life about. And you spewing out ChatGPT levels of text doesn’t convince me, it just makes me feel like you’re trying to obscure and be intellectually dishonest about the conversation.
I may as well have some fun and point out the various other grammatical and semantic mistakes too…
Honestly, why?
Are you so offended with someone who would disagree with you that you have to go to such extreme measures in a public forum in an attempt to shame them?
Would you act this way with somebody at a party who disagreed with you on something?
Does your life have so little meaning to it that this is the only way you could gain satisfaction out of it?
It’s funny how you started out pretending to champion political change, and to be against frivolously “commenting about it on an Internet forum”. … I should know better.
Honestly not meaning this as a snarky comeback, but, ‘touch grass’, sincerely. It’s just voice-to-text dictation of opinions, not written prose in the style of the great writers.
And yes, I still stand by how I’m using the word affect, versus effect. Oh wait, sorry: I still stand by how I used the word affect, versus effect.
Bruh. I offered a polite correction on an ultimately inconsequential grammatical error you made. You’re the one who doubled down on the error, and then continued doubling down while ignoring everything I said except for specific sentences which you clearly didn’t understand.
“Spewing out ChatGPT levels of text”? WTF is that even supposed to mean? I just quickly explained the grammar at first. Then, when you didn’t get that, I elaborated on the reasoning for it, and linked to like, five different independent sources, instead of just making blanket assertions. You didn’t understand, so I explained— Jeez, but that’s the real issue, isn’t it? You don’t seem to like that very much.
This is so stupid. Does it even matter? Do you do anything other than moralize down at Internet strangers about petty and incorrect semantics while repeating yourself?
As a quick follow-up, I wish Lemmy and other online services had a bot where you can type in a one-line command that takes your zip code and then it replies with the contact information for your Senators and your Representative.
They have this on the official House website, but it only shows your house representative.
Be nice if it was able to look up from within the online forums that people work with directly; one less step.
Wow, didn’t expect down voting on this one. Would that be such a bad thing to have?
I would absolutely love to only work 32 hours a week instead of 40, 45 or 50.
I would also love four weeks vacation a year, full healthcare coverage and a unicorn in my backyard please.
Except for the unicorn, your last paragraph is my reality. Oh and it’s five weeks vacation, actually. My wife even has six. Sick days not included. Those are all part of the universal health care we have.
38h work week btw. Rarely overtime.
EU?
Sounds a whole lot like Norway, presuming their wife is 60+ years
It’s like this in all Scandinavian countries.
-
6-7 weeks paid vacation.
-
Free healthcare (except dental. Also we still pay for prescription drugs, just not insane prices).
-
37 hours per week.
-
Almost equal parental leave (you’re forced to take a month off work, paid of course, mothers a bit more, but then split is as you want).
And then keep in mind that we pay 40-60% taxes depending on income.
When we had our son, I had 2 weeks time off from work. HR sat me down and told me “by law, we can’t fire you until you take one day over the 2 weeks of unpaid time off. You are so lucky! You used to get zero time off. I remember when we had our baby, I worked until midnight while my wife was in labor.”
Then I was fired 3 months later for “subpar performance” and they noted I seemed fatigued and frequently forgot things. Like, no shit I had 3 hours of sleep per day for months.
We pay about 25-30% in taxes IIRC but health insurance bleeds you dry. We just incurred $4500 medical debt because my wife had to go to the hospital. $100,000 student loan debt. $35,000 child birthing costs, of which $8500 was out of pocket.
Yeah, all of those expenses would’ve been covered by the taxes where I live. Even the student debt - we get about $900 per month while studying and education is free.
Y’all need some democratic socialism
-
Man that sounds so great. Currently work weeks are varying between 40,45 and 50. PM. I’m up to about 2 1/2 weeks vacation a year working for a small business. But at least they let me take it, unlike my friend who works at AWS who hasn’t had a vacation in 5 years.
Family also pays $2400/month in health insurance payments, although 2/3 of that is covered by our employer. $6,000 deductible.
I have 35 days on my current job but it’s the first time. Normally it’s been 30. I’m in Sweden.
And we don’t work no 40 hours here. People come in around 9 and leave around 16 with an hour lunch break and a lot of talking and slacking during the day. This is in IT and it’s been like that on every IT job I’ve ever had.
Nobody can or want to focus for 8 hours per day their entire lives, that’s madness. We are humans. I usually focus for maybe 4 hours to get something done but I don’t push myself to work more then necessary. My salary doesn’t go up with more work produced.
Apart from the mystical horse, those aren’t fantastical things. France has a 35 hour work week, many countries have 4 weeks vacation as the norm, and most rich countries have full healthcare coverage. These are policy choices, not impossible dream worlds.
In Europe, 4 weeks is the absolute minimum, many countries have higher mandated minimums and people get often extra on top. There are many things wrong in Europe, but the vacation policy is decent.
Err, what is your main criticisms about Europe?
Regarding employment.
It’s pretty much given that the pension system of many countries will collapse, so young people are paying into a system which they either won’t be able to use or will be heavily disadvantaged. IMHO the pension system should be (at least partially) privatized, but it’s of course too late, damage is done.
Income is taxed too heavily and wealth too little. These days it’s pretty much impossible to buy a house for many families even though the population doesn’t grow and new houses are being built. You can’t amass wealth with work, only woth inheritance.
Some worker protection laws should be weakened, specifically laying off people is often pretty much impossible which makes people allocation inefficient and companies conservative.
It’s sad that over here in America people are conditioned to think they are fantastical things.
I have 5 weeks vacation and universal health care. I’m just pushing for the 32 hrs now.
It’s depressing that you’ve been convinced that full healthcare coverage is as unrealistic as a unicorn in your backyard.
Oh please. Would that ever work, besides the dozens of countries and corporations that have managed without issues?
Besides what would you do with the unicorn poop
Clean fuel for the furnace
Some organic fertilizer for the garden, of course!
I don’t know why you throw the unicorn in there as if the rest of your comment is some crazy idea. Most of Europe functions extremely well under the work conditions you described, why is America somehow incapable of having the quality of life our European cousins have?
Some of those things are possible. Why not try to get them?
How?
I asked our company owner, and such healthcare plans simply do not exist in the US.
I work 35 hours a week, have six weeks of holiday plus bank holidays and universal healthcare. It’s not impossible.
Fun fact: government-based healthcare of any sort is great for employers and employees, and results in more money for both
This assumes a “worst-case implementation” resulting in UK level taxes and just a change to who manages insurance/payment, and is true for both a public option and single-payer system.
The vacation period is a minimum standard in the EU.
Beyond the daily and weekly rest periods, your staff has the right to at least 4 weeks of paid holidays per year. You cannot replace these holidays with a payment unless the employment contract has ended before the staff member has used up all their annual leave.
In the UK minimum holiday entitlement is 28 days. I am always appalled at how badly the US allows it workers to be treated. I really wish the US would start thinking more about working to live and not living to work.
If people who are negatively affected by it would stop voting for people who make it a campaign promise to never offer these things, we can’t get anywhere
I have basically this in the UK
In France I work 32 hours, have 7 weeks holiday and awesome healthcare.
I have cows in place of a unicorn though.
Republicans have told me that there’s no way the country can survive that
They lied.
I mean they have to raise the retirement age and had (are having?) Protests about it the whole year didn’t they
It’s 64, that’s lower than the US has ever been
“Have to”? That’s obviously more than up for debate, especially considering how many people protested.
God forbid they consider increasing taxes for the rich instead.
That’s just because they are whining
The unicorn comment makes me think you’re being a sarcastic ass.
The rest of your comment is 100% doable. At least, lots of other countries are doing it.
I was just kidding about the unicorn, as living in the US it seems just about as likely to get a unicorn as getting universal healthcare or vacation.
😅🦄
Anyway, my son loves unicorns and I grew up watching my little pony so whatever
Fair enough.
I mean, cool, but nothing will happen because one old guy says this.
No.
You have to join a union or form a union.
If your workplace is already organized, then build further strength through solidarity, help other workers around you, and at every turn find ways to erode the power of the bosses.
There have been studies showing no loss in productivity too. But rich people want to fuck us over for no reason 🤷♀️
There is a reason. If our lives get too easy, that gives us time to enact our free will and choose to do things they don’t want.
Instead they keep us focused on paying the next bill.
More time to work on your community means that people have less food bills and health bills and rent. If we help eachother out were not helping them.
You’re underestimating how influential Bernie is. He’ll never be POTUS, but he got into people’s heads in a big way.
Someone has to be an early proponent of it. Its not we could go from no congresspersons says such to suddenly one minute all of them decide to announce they support it simultaneously.
It doesn’t mean much coming from Bernie. He’s all talk. He says these things but he rarely has thought out plans on them.
He proposes bills all the time. It’s not his fault the rest of the corrupt senate won’t give them a fair hearing.
Bills themselves aren’t well thought out plans. He needs to work with his peers to get legislation passed, not just write up his ideals and act like everyone will fall in line. That’s not how anything works.
When his peers are all owned by corporations, how can he?
If the “reform” in work reform is a serious attempt and not just a circle jerk comments like these are not productive.
And yet, it’s true. Name one other senator that hasn’t been bought.
How do you think politics works? It’s all talk. Then they vote on a bill.
Groups of elected representatives are put into committees that workshop ideas / bills and gauge interest. In order to pass committee and receive broad support, riders are typically added to allow other representatives to get something for their constituents. Compromises are made, not everyone gets everything they want, and we move forward.
Senators don’t make proclamations with no plans and immediately get bills passed.
What’s he supposed to do? Blackmail, threaten, or kill most of congress? Until he has plans for those, having bills written won’t do much but waste time that he could be better using talking about the ideas.
He’s never tried being friendly with his coworkers, maybe he should give that a go
You really truly believe that in his entire political career spanning multiple decades that he’s never once been friendly?
That’s not what I said and you know it
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic. A group of 100 having to do what 1 person says is not a democracy. The vibes on this subject are uncomfortably authoritarian. We’re talking about fundamental level stuff here. If you’re in a group of friends deciding where to go to dinner, people can vote and compromise on where they want to go, or you can have one person have total control and decide for everyone. The latter isn’t how the US should be run.
I’m try to figure out what you want from him. The topic is how one person can’t do anything and you’re saying he’s not doing enough by trying to spread the ideas, so I’m trying to figure out what you want him to do as one person if its not promoting the idea.
I want him to come up with a viable plan to get us to where he wants us to be, not just say we should have it. He needs to get enough Senators to support it so it’ll pass, and yes that means compromising on his ideals.
Seriously. People must think the $15 min wage and student debt forgiveness just sprung from nothingness to have support across the party. These things start with progressives making the case and saying “this is possible”.
For some people it’s because an old guy said it. Or because he’s rich. Or whatever excuse they have to not make anything better because they fear change.
First less hours but what’s next? More pay? Healthcare? HOUSING SUBSIDIES?!?! 😱 Then who will be low class enough for certain people to look down on?
By that logic, nothing will happen because one person ever said anything.
deleted by creator
I can only see this happening hand in hand with Medicare For All and the decoupling of healthcare from full time employment.
Service jobs, which are currently 80 percent of US employment, require the same amount of hours with actual people present, e.g. you can’t wait more tables, or answer more customer service calls, in 20% less time.
Removing the cost of healthcare from employers will allow them to allocate some of the savings towards employee salaries instead of healthcare insurance.
Allow them to allocate some of the savings towards employee salaries? Why would they do that when they could pocket the difference like they have been doing to all other cost savings and productivity boosts?
How are the employers going to pay for the additional employees to work those 8 hours, while paying the existing employees the same salary for working 8 less hours?
The money has to come from somewhere.
P.s. Not all employers have CEOs making millions in bonuses. Nearly half of employees in the US work for small businesses , including single person businesses.
Maybe this is stupid question but…single person business just mean it’s one person doing everything right? In those cases, how would changing the standard full time to 32 hours affect them in any way?
They wouldn’t be changing their own salary or have to change anyone else’s salary unless I’m missing something
ETA: small business just means less than 500 employees, I’m sure a good number of them could still afford it. And an easy (and admittedly imperfect) solution could be just adding an exception for small businesses.
I’m not an economist but I bet that the answer is going to be similar to how employers now pay for the additional employees to work ever since work weeks got made to be 40 hours and not 60 or whatever back during the 1800s.
40 hours a week isn’t some magic number.
Nobody is saying you should have to do 40 hours work in 32 hours - rather the company hires more people to cover those hours.
This only works out in 9 to 5 jobs. There are ao many people out there that work very different hours. Many career fields that work a lot longer shifts wouod not be able to simply work less. It just doesn’t work that way.
Firefighters work 48 or 72 hours a week depending on the week. We can’t just say, ok cool. You work 32 hours a week now.
That’s totally understandable, but the “standard” work week is 40 hours. He’s just saying to change the standard. So if you’re job isn’t standard hours, it would probably just mean a little more overtime pay. Still a benefit to those people
The point is, why is 40 hours the standard? What makes that the standard? Who says it’s the standard?
Lobbyists for the 1%…ohhhhh…right…and now the real issue comes about.
This is the opposite of where the 8 hour day/40 hour week came from. In the US, it was fought for and won by various pro labor groups and unions in the early 1900s and became part of US law under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
You don’t understand… After 32 hours it’s overtime pay instead of after 40
Removing the cost of healthcare from employers will allow them to allocate some of the savings towards employee salaries instead of healthcare insurance. Or just, y’know, keep the savings. On the bright side, it would mean you no longer depend on your job for healthcare, so people would have more freedom to quit.
I think he is taking too big of a chunk off. If this were to be phased in with 4-day work weeks at 10 hours a day with 2 breaks could be a starting point. Companies get the same amount of production hours and save 20% on building costs, energy, etc.
Yeah. We all want something for nothing. Fortunately, there are still enough adults in the U.S. who recognize that just doesn’t work in the real world.
Shut the fuck up. We can make the world a better place if we want to. We are just going to have to drag you and the rest of the simps for the rich kicking and screaming. And you will benefit from our efforts. And just because you will freeload off of us improving the world doesn’t stop me from wanting to do it.
We have enough food and goods to go around if we would just start voting for people who actually believe we can do it. We were so close with Bernie…
The real world includes many other economies with a 32 hour work week and people there enjoy a higher standard of living on average than we do in the US, with higher performing metrics in education, life expectancy, healthcare, and mental wellness.
It’s the rich investors who ruin business and prosperity that want something for nothing. Billionaires that got rich selling bullshit over our public use infrastructure (roads, law enforcement, firefighters, etc) but act like they somehow deserve an ROI earned by cutting our legs off.
Real asshole take you got there.
Don’t feed the trolls, just downvote and move on. Trolls love it when they stir shit and get angry reaponses
How do you downvote them?
ah i guess you’re on one of those instances that disabled voting? there’s normally an upvote/downvote arrow below the comment itself. try another instance
Okay, how do I do that?
Lick that boot bud
Suck off your CEO while you’re at it!
