[Draft] Standard Average Working Week

[Araraukar]

My understanding of mathematics is above average

OOC: Yet you don't get that 75% of time previously worked, also means 75% of pay previously earned?

EDIT: I'm done with this debate.

[Jarish Inyo]

Macwick believes that something will happen to magically increase employees pay so they will take home the same amount of pay while working less hours. He fails to explain how he came to that conclusion.

Macwick refuses to acknowledge any evidence that does not support his idea. Even when what little evidence he provides works against him. His one so called source isn't even what he says it is. The Gapminder Foundation doesn't do research. It has studies from other groups, like the International Labour Organization (Whose standards are an 8 hour work day). And the studies I've looked at on the Gapminder Foundation's website do not support Macwick statements. Macwick believes that his narrow views on science, production and economic matters are correct.

[Wrapper]

EDIT: I'm done with this debate.

Yeah, I gave up too.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

In the USA by 1920 the average working week had been reduced to 49 hours from 60 hours in the late nineteenth century. I have not seen any studies that show this caused economic hardship.

Source

Our most reliable estimates of the workweek come from manufacturing, since most employers required that manufacturing workers remain at work during precisely specified hours. The Census of Manufactures began to collect this information in 1880 but earlier estimates are available. Much of what is known about average work hours in the nineteenth century comes from two surveys of manufacturing hours taken by the federal government. The first survey, known as the Weeks Report, was prepared by Joseph Weeks as part of the Census of 1880. The second was prepared in 1893 by Commissioner of Labor Carroll D. Wright, for the Senate Committee on Finance, chaired by Nelson Aldrich. It is commonly called the Aldrich Report. Both of these sources, however, have been criticized as flawed due to problems such as sample selection bias (firms whose records survived may not have been typical) and unrepresentative regional and industrial coverage.

Because of changing definitions and data sources there does not exist a consistent series of workweek estimates covering the entire twentieth century. Table 2 presents six sets of estimates of weekly hours. Despite differences among the series, there is a fairly consistent pattern, with weekly hours falling considerably during the first third of the century and much more slowly thereafter. In particular, hours fell strongly during the years surrounding World War I, so that by 1919 the eight-hour day (with six workdays per week) had been won. Hours fell sharply at the beginning of the Great Depression, especially in manufacturing, then rebounded somewhat and peaked during World War II. After World War II, the length of the workweek stabilized around forty hours.

Basically you have the following general trend: 1830: 69.1 - 1860: 62.0 - 1890: 60.0 - 1919: 50.0 - 1947: 42.4

If there were any industrial hardship during this time it may have been minor compared to the two major wars, a great depression and of course a major revolution in manufacturing and industrialization. It also helps that this trend took decades to develop, as opposed to something happening overnight.

[Freemopia]

I disagree with the proposal. Students often go to school more than 32hours a week. Are you also proposing students not go to school more than 32hours a week?
8 hours a day, 5 days a week is not that hard, if your unable to do it and there is someone who can who is waiting to replace you, then you should be fired and replaced. Many people work 12hours a day, everyday, and if they enjoy their job they are often happy and healthy. This proposal would allow lazy cry baby whiny employees to ban their competition, resulting in less efficiency, higher prices of products, less customer satisfaction, lower quality of employees, products, and services, less wealthy population, weaker economy.
The proposal contradicts itself. There are so many contractions, listing them all would be coping and pasting almost the whole proposal.

[Science Inquiry]

First off, this proposal is not something that should to be done at the WA level or even the RA level. This sort of proposal is something that each country should decide for itself.

Secondly, injecting my IRL opinion here, this sort of thing is hogwash. Yes, it would be nice to only have to work 30 hours a week, however, that is something that should be decided between employer and employee. Not the State. Using France as an example is misleading, France has mandatory healthcare that everyone must pay into. Because of this, the cost of employing additional people is greatly reduced, the main cost being healthcare benefits.

This whole idea is like minimum wage laws, it only serves to set a floor on how cheap something can be done. The increased cost for business is then tacked onto the price of goods, leading to inflation and diminished buying power. This starts a negative feed back loop of ever increasing cost of employment, which leads to higher priced goods, which leads to diminished buying power, leading to a "need" for a higher minimum wage. The cycle continues until very few people are employed.

[Macwick]

To the representative from Separatist Peoples I say of course I give a damn about what you think. Firstly as why would I try to change your mind if I didn’t care? Secondly to understand why you oppose my proposal. It seems while you have had difficulties with the text you have an objection that it is not the role of the WA to increase people’s health and liberty across the whole WA by regulating how long they must work during the course of a whole year. I believe that the WA has been involved in increasing people’s health and well-being with other resolutions in the past and will do so in the future.

To the representative from Freemopia I say I am surprised that students study in the class room or equivalent for more than 6 hours a day. Perhaps you should refer to my teacher example given earlier in the debate. Hang on, students are not paid employees. Studying is not paid employment. This proposal does not apply to the time students spend studying. Also reducing the average weekly working hours would force companies to become more efficient as they have in the past and good employers already do. I really do not understand why the representative thinks working 40 hours is a good thing and I am shocked he can think that working 84 hours a week without any days off is a good thing. It is only bad inefficient, lazy employers who get their workers to work so many hours. In the past the economy and the standard of living have improved as working hours are reduced and there is no rule that states this can’t continue passed the 40 hour working week.


OOC

My understanding of mathematics is above average

OOC: Yet you don't get that 75% of time previously worked, also means 75% of pay previously earned?

…

If only we were discussing mathematics and not economics a social science where theory can differ widely from what happens in the real world.

Thank you Frustrated Franciscans for your support (I think it was OOC and not IC)

To Science Inquiry I say that the introduction of a Minimum Wage creates a lot of fear, with people prophesying doom and gloom and I am sure there must be at least one example in the world where the Minimum Wage was set at the wrong level and there were huge economic difficulties caused by its introduction, but I haven’t seen it, or the country having been named with when it happened in any debates on minimum wage. Some economists refer to wage level theory. But my answer is the same one I have been giving here. In the real world the resulted predicted by the theory doesn’t happen. That is the joy of economics.

I believe that the positions of the employer and employee are not equal and with companies having the choice to move to different countries the power of the employee is even more reduced. It is only where the international community work together that the power of the employer can be restrained and protecting people is the role of the WA and there are resolutions to prove that protecting people is the role of the WA.

History says that in the past when working hours were reduced the economy benefited, the worker’s health benefits and there were even increases in the standard of living – a Win, Win, Win situation.

I am saddened that much of this debate was focused on what people think happens in economics and not looking at history to see what actually happens like good economists would do. I am saddened that I didn’t convince people that with the growth of international business it is only at the international level that our liberties can be protected.

Also I am unhappy that the Mods did not come back with rulings on the issues I raised or someone didn’t point out that I was doing it wrong.

I would really like to see individual liberty increased by reducing the average working week and the total number of hours a person can work in all countries. Often people in this debate said this proposal would not be passed, but instead of leaving the final decision in the hands of the members of the WA a blocker has been proposed and is very likely to be passed talking about protecting individual liberty. That resolution does not protect individual liberties it protects companies and businesses so they can be lazy and not innovate and so become more efficient. I don’t believe this resolution would get pass that blocker so I need to consider whether I am up to a fight to get it repealed so I can try again.

[Defwa]

If it weren't for your overly passionate rants lacking in economic understanding, we wouldn't have this idiotic blocker. Get to work on the repeal because your proposal is useless.

[Normlpeople]

"To be fair, you were told this wasn't a good idea, and ignored common sense and any opposing viewpoints quoting the same flawed examples without evidence. I would suggest abandoning this and taking it as a learning experience.

I do admire your passion, however, this was a non-starter as it wasn't an international issue. There are better issues to direct that passion toward."

[Chester Pearson]

I beleive the words of the legendary Dr. McCoy "It's dead Jim" adequately sum up this proposal....

Can we move on now?

[Hakio]

I beleive the words of the legendary Dr. McCoy "It's dead Jim" adequately sum up this proposal....

Can we move on now?

"I second this motion, unless anyone else has anything to discuss I would greatly appreciate giving these debate notes to my assistant to archive. It's clutterfucking my workspace."

[Applebania]

With the passage of Individual Working Freedoms, this is kilt.