Are 8+ hour workdays unreasonable?

[Diopolis]

Yeah, why should I have to pay for someone else who’s too spoiled to work less than 8 hours a day out of wages I work a bit more than 8 hours for?

Today in capitalism, a Catholic asks an atheist why he should help other people.

If the problem is poverty, and the cause is not being willing to do a full day’s work, then I’m not sure why taking th gains from my actually working hard is preferable to just learning to do a full days work, absent extenuating circumstances.

[Chestaan]

So? Why should that affect a person's entitlements?

Because their work presents lower value to the general society.

No, it presents lower profits to employers. Not all jobs that are valuable are profitable.

[The Black Forrest]

Because their work presents lower value to the general society.

No, it presents lower profits to employers. Not all jobs that are valuable are profitable.

Indeed and how many company managers, directors, vice-presidents and even a president don’t think their work is valuable and profitable? Easy. None.

[Ifreann]

Today in capitalism, a Catholic asks an atheist why he should help other people.

Atheism does not make you smarter.

I'm well aware. What I was getting at is that Christianity generally holds charity to be a virtue. Jesus told people to give up all their possessions and to love everyone, even if they're bad, and shit like that. So it's weird that a Catholic, who one would expect to to put a lot of stock in those teachings, is asking an atheist why he should be helping people who aren't valuable enough to society.

---

Today in capitalism, a Catholic asks an atheist why he should help other people.

If the problem is poverty, and the cause is not being willing to do a full day’s work, then I’m not sure why taking th gains from my actually working hard is preferable to just learning to do a full days work, absent extenuating circumstances.

When Jesus fed the sick and healed the hungry(or whatever), did he ask first if the person did a full day's work? Loaves and fishes available only to those who have done 40 hours this week?

[Jirmeria]

All rights are entitlements. Entitlements are not a bad thing. We are suppose to expand our rights over time, which means we are expanding our entitlements. One important right that should be guaranteed is the right to life, meaning you have a right to food, water, shelter, medicine, etc. People should be guaranteed this right, regardless if they work or not, if they are lazy or not, if they skilled or not, if they are able-bodied or not, if they are born into wealth or not, if they got wealth through luck or not, or any other criteria.

However, the real "entitlement" mentality, is not expanding the social safety net, it is believing that someone is not responsible for the rest of society they are a part of. It is not wanting to take care of other members of our shared society. The society that provides everyone with food, water, electricity, roads, education, etc... The state that protects the capitalists claim to their farmlands, factories, mines, intellectual properties, etc. under threat of violence.

That said, just because we should not have to work to survive, does not mean we don't have a right to work. If someone wants to work, they should have a right to work, we should have both a Federal Jobs Guarantee and a Universal Basic Income.

Going back to if 8 hour workdays are reasonable, they are not. To ensure we have enough jobs for everyone, we need to share the work by reducing how much each person if required to do. We already are doing non-productive "BS" work, and should reduce the workweek. We also have automation that can be doing some of the work for people, not to mention our hunter-gatherer ancestors only needed to work 4 hours a day to meet their needs.

[Page]

Today in capitalism, a Catholic asks an atheist why he should help other people.

If the problem is poverty, and the cause is not being willing to do a full day’s work, then I’m not sure why taking th gains from my actually working hard is preferable to just learning to do a full days work, absent extenuating circumstances.

A worker employed by capitalist owner has nearly all of their gains taken by that capitalist owner - the profit would not exist if not for the worker. The owner breaks off a little piece of the value the worker created and that's called a wage or a salary. Then the worker has to break off a little piece of their little piece, and that's called a tax, and then a little piece of that piece is broken off to provide a social safety net for those who are unemployed or working but not earning enough to survive.

Why then should the worker be more upset about the piece of the piece of their piece of the value they created supporting those who can't or don't work rather than about the biggest piece of all taken by the capitalist owner?

[Rainbowsix]

its reasonable if it compensates

[Diopolis]

Atheism does not make you smarter.

I'm well aware. What I was getting at is that Christianity generally holds charity to be a virtue. Jesus told people to give up all their possessions and to love everyone, even if they're bad, and shit like that. So it's weird that a Catholic, who one would expect to to put a lot of stock in those teachings, is asking an atheist why he should be helping people who aren't valuable enough to society.

---

If the problem is poverty, and the cause is not being willing to do a full day’s work, then I’m not sure why taking th gains from my actually working hard is preferable to just learning to do a full days work, absent extenuating circumstances.

When Jesus fed the sick and healed the hungry(or whatever), did he ask first if the person did a full day's work? Loaves and fishes available only to those who have done 40 hours this week?

I don’t recall Jesus taking away the workers wages to give to people who refuse to work. I recall a parable about the generosity of a landlord who makes up out of his pocket the wages of workers who wished to work 12 hours a day but got onsite late, and several instances of telling people to be content with their wages. It seems that our Lord expected people to conform to the prevailing social conditions where able bodied males worked six 12 hour days per week.

[Jirmeria]

I'm well aware. What I was getting at is that Christianity generally holds charity to be a virtue. Jesus told people to give up all their possessions and to love everyone, even if they're bad, and shit like that. So it's weird that a Catholic, who one would expect to to put a lot of stock in those teachings, is asking an atheist why he should be helping people who aren't valuable enough to society.

---

When Jesus fed the sick and healed the hungry(or whatever), did he ask first if the person did a full day's work? Loaves and fishes available only to those who have done 40 hours this week?

I don’t recall Jesus taking away the workers wages to give to people who refuse to work. I recall a parable about the generosity of a landlord who makes up out of his pocket the wages of workers who wished to work 12 hours a day but got onsite late, and several instances of telling people to be content with their wages. It seems that our Lord expected people to conform to the prevailing social conditions where able bodied males worked six 12 hour days per week.

Jesus instructed his disciples to share all they have. Jesus was against the money-changers whom were basically ancient bankers with religious dressing. If you were to translate the religious and spiritual messages of Jesus into a political-economic context, Jesus would fit in with socialists and communists. There is even a branch of non-Marxist communists thought, called Christian communism, not to mention there are other religious socialists and communists too.

Can you tell me which parable you are talking about, because I get the idea that you got the wrong message from the parable, which would of course have elements of the social conditions of the day so that his audience could better understand it.

[Ifreann]

I'm well aware. What I was getting at is that Christianity generally holds charity to be a virtue. Jesus told people to give up all their possessions and to love everyone, even if they're bad, and shit like that. So it's weird that a Catholic, who one would expect to to put a lot of stock in those teachings, is asking an atheist why he should be helping people who aren't valuable enough to society.

---

When Jesus fed the sick and healed the hungry(or whatever), did he ask first if the person did a full day's work? Loaves and fishes available only to those who have done 40 hours this week?

I don’t recall Jesus taking away the workers wages to give to people who refuse to work.

Yeah, he told people to do it themselves. I guess he thought that would be enough.

I recall a parable about the generosity of a landlord who makes up out of his pocket the wages of workers who wished to work 12 hours a day but got onsite late, and several instances of telling people to be content with their wages. It seems that our Lord expected people to conform to the prevailing social conditions where able bodied males worked six 12 hour days per week.

As he did himself. Mad that he managed to wander Israel preaching and still get in 72 hours of carpentry.

[Lanoraie II]

6 hours is already my personal limit, as I on average require 10 hours of sleep,

I'd love to see medical certification for that.

I don't need a medical certification for that. That's what I need to get to feel my best, and that's that.

[Diopolis]

If the problem is poverty, and the cause is not being willing to do a full day’s work, then I’m not sure why taking th gains from my actually working hard is preferable to just learning to do a full days work, absent extenuating circumstances.

A worker employed by capitalist owner has nearly all of their gains taken by that capitalist owner - the profit would not exist if not for the worker. The owner breaks off a little piece of the value the worker created and that's called a wage or a salary. Then the worker has to break off a little piece of their little piece, and that's called a tax, and then a little piece of that piece is broken off to provide a social safety net for those who are unemployed or working but not earning enough to survive.

Why then should the worker be more upset about the piece of the piece of their piece of the value they created supporting those who can't or don't work rather than about the biggest piece of all taken by the capitalist owner?

In most cases the biggest piece goes to overhead.
And why shouldn’t I be upset about a chunk of my hard earned wages being taken away to support those who are refusing to work even two thirds as hard as I am? Especially when the owner man works, or has worked, much more than me and put his butt on the line starting a company that can give me a job. Yeah, I’m not gonna get pissed about the extra two bucks an hour I might deserve from him, especially cause I know that to get it eventually all I have to do is not fuck up.

[Lanoraie II]

A worker employed by capitalist owner has nearly all of their gains taken by that capitalist owner - the profit would not exist if not for the worker. The owner breaks off a little piece of the value the worker created and that's called a wage or a salary. Then the worker has to break off a little piece of their little piece, and that's called a tax, and then a little piece of that piece is broken off to provide a social safety net for those who are unemployed or working but not earning enough to survive.

Why then should the worker be more upset about the piece of the piece of their piece of the value they created supporting those who can't or don't work rather than about the biggest piece of all taken by the capitalist owner?

In most cases the biggest piece goes to overhead.
And why shouldn’t I be upset about a chunk of my hard earned wages being taken away to support those who are refusing to work even two thirds as hard as I am? Especially when the owner man works, or has worked, much more than me and put his butt on the line starting a company that can give me a job. Yeah, I’m not gonna get pissed about the extra two bucks an hour I might deserve from him, especially cause I know that to get it eventually all I have to do is not fuck up.

I wonder if you'd feel the same if someone told you how much the CEO of Walmart makes per minute than you do an entire work day's. (Hint: More a minute than you do an entire work day's.)

It is inhumane to be sitting on piles and piles of cash while 80% of your employees live below or at the poverty line. There is no excuse. Nobody needs a billion dollars.

[Diopolis]

In most cases the biggest piece goes to overhead.
And why shouldn’t I be upset about a chunk of my hard earned wages being taken away to support those who are refusing to work even two thirds as hard as I am? Especially when the owner man works, or has worked, much more than me and put his butt on the line starting a company that can give me a job. Yeah, I’m not gonna get pissed about the extra two bucks an hour I might deserve from him, especially cause I know that to get it eventually all I have to do is not fuck up.

I wonder if you'd feel the same if someone told you how much the CEO of Walmart makes per minute than you do an entire work day's. (Hint: More a minute than you do an entire work day's.)

It is inhumane to be sitting on piles and piles of cash while 80% of your employees live below or at the poverty line. There is no excuse. Nobody needs a billion dollars.

Then take that shit from the ceo of Walmart.

[Ifreann]

A worker employed by capitalist owner has nearly all of their gains taken by that capitalist owner - the profit would not exist if not for the worker. The owner breaks off a little piece of the value the worker created and that's called a wage or a salary. Then the worker has to break off a little piece of their little piece, and that's called a tax, and then a little piece of that piece is broken off to provide a social safety net for those who are unemployed or working but not earning enough to survive.

Why then should the worker be more upset about the piece of the piece of their piece of the value they created supporting those who can't or don't work rather than about the biggest piece of all taken by the capitalist owner?

In most cases the biggest piece goes to overhead.
And why shouldn’t I be upset about a chunk of my hard earned wages being taken away to support those who are refusing to work even two thirds as hard as I am? Especially when the owner man works, or has worked, much more than me and put his butt on the line starting a company that can give me a job. Yeah, I’m not gonna get pissed about the extra two bucks an hour I might deserve from him, especially cause I know that to get it eventually all I have to do is not fuck up.

Some of my taxes going to someone who works 50 hours a week: Fucking lazy shits should just work more
The profits of my labour going to someone who does nothing except own a business: *crickets*

[Petrolheadia]

In most cases the biggest piece goes to overhead.
And why shouldn’t I be upset about a chunk of my hard earned wages being taken away to support those who are refusing to work even two thirds as hard as I am? Especially when the owner man works, or has worked, much more than me and put his butt on the line starting a company that can give me a job. Yeah, I’m not gonna get pissed about the extra two bucks an hour I might deserve from him, especially cause I know that to get it eventually all I have to do is not fuck up.

Some of my taxes going to someone who works 50 hours a week: Fucking lazy shits should just work more
The profits of my labour going to someone who does nothing except own a business: *crickets*

I don't like both of those.

[Petrolheadia]

If the problem is poverty, and the cause is not being willing to do a full day’s work, then I’m not sure why taking th gains from my actually working hard is preferable to just learning to do a full days work, absent extenuating circumstances.

A worker employed by capitalist owner has nearly all of their gains taken by that capitalist owner - the profit would not exist if not for the worker.

Source on that?

Because in real life, it's actually good if a company pulls a double-digit profitability percentage.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

8+ hr workdays are reasonable if you don’t have to work more than 4 days a week, and get paid overtime for the extra hours.

[Novus America]

If the problem is poverty, and the cause is not being willing to do a full day’s work, then I’m not sure why taking th gains from my actually working hard is preferable to just learning to do a full days work, absent extenuating circumstances.

A worker employed by capitalist owner has nearly all of their gains taken by that capitalist owner - the profit would not exist if not for the worker. The owner breaks off a little piece of the value the worker created and that's called a wage or a salary. Then the worker has to break off a little piece of their little piece, and that's called a tax, and then a little piece of that piece is broken off to provide a social safety net for those who are unemployed or working but not earning enough to survive.

Why then should the worker be more upset about the piece of the piece of their piece of the value they created supporting those who can't or don't work rather than about the biggest piece of all taken by the capitalist owner?

This is not true. Source where the the amount they keep as profit is greater than 50% of gross income?
Usually it is less than 10%.

You can still criticize the system but it absolutely false to say nearly all their gains are taken.

[Trollgaard]

All rights are entitlements. Entitlements are not a bad thing. We are suppose to expand our rights over time, which means we are expanding our entitlements. One important right that should be guaranteed is the right to life, meaning you have a right to food, water, shelter, medicine, etc. People should be guaranteed this right, regardless if they work or not, if they are lazy or not, if they skilled or not, if they are able-bodied or not, if they are born into wealth or not, if they got wealth through luck or not, or any other criteria.

However, the real "entitlement" mentality, is not expanding the social safety net, it is believing that someone is not responsible for the rest of society they are a part of. It is not wanting to take care of other members of our shared society. The society that provides everyone with food, water, electricity, roads, education, etc... The state that protects the capitalists claim to their farmlands, factories, mines, intellectual properties, etc. under threat of violence.

That said, just because we should not have to work to survive, does not mean we don't have a right to work. If someone wants to work, they should have a right to work, we should have both a Federal Jobs Guarantee and a Universal Basic Income.

Going back to if 8 hour workdays are reasonable, they are not. To ensure we have enough jobs for everyone, we need to share the work by reducing how much each person if required to do. We already are doing non-productive "BS" work, and should reduce the workweek. We also have automation that can be doing some of the work for people, not to mention our hunter-gatherer ancestors only needed to work 4 hours a day to meet their needs.

I'm not sacrificing my work hours to someone else. Sorry pal. I don't want or need to share the load.

[Trollgaard]

8+ hr workdays are reasonable if you don’t have to work more than 4 days a week, and get paid overtime for the extra hours.

???

32 hours a week is part time work.

[Cappuccina]

All rights are entitlements. Entitlements are not a bad thing. We are suppose to expand our rights over time, which means we are expanding our entitlements. One important right that should be guaranteed is the right to life, meaning you have a right to food, water, shelter, medicine, etc. People should be guaranteed this right, regardless if they work or not, if they are lazy or not, if they skilled or not, if they are able-bodied or not, if they are born into wealth or not, if they got wealth through luck or not, or any other criteria.

However, the real "entitlement" mentality, is not expanding the social safety net, it is believing that someone is not responsible for the rest of society they are a part of. It is not wanting to take care of other members of our shared society. The society that provides everyone with food, water, electricity, roads, education, etc... The state that protects the capitalists claim to their farmlands, factories, mines, intellectual properties, etc. under threat of violence.

That said, just because we should not have to work to survive, does not mean we don't have a right to work. If someone wants to work, they should have a right to work, we should have both a Federal Jobs Guarantee and a Universal Basic Income.

Going back to if 8 hour workdays are reasonable, they are not. To ensure we have enough jobs for everyone, we need to share the work by reducing how much each person if required to do. We already are doing non-productive "BS" work, and should reduce the workweek. We also have automation that can be doing some of the work for people, not to mention our hunter-gatherer ancestors only needed to work 4 hours a day to meet their needs.

I'm not sacrificing my work hours to someone else. Sorry pal. I don't want or need to share the load.

Same here. While I definitely think there should be more support for the unemployed, it should be more discriminatory. We can't have lazy people sucking up all the aid hard-working people generated. I do also agree that something should be done about the excessive amount of profit the upper echelons of the corporate world horde for themselves.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

8+ hr workdays are reasonable if you don’t have to work more than 4 days a week, and get paid overtime for the extra hours.

???

32 hours a week is part time work.

Part-time work is like 20 hours a week. In some parts of the US, service industry jobs are considered full-time (as in, you get full-time benefits) if you’re working over 30 hours/week.

My current job doesn’t allow me to work more than 4 days a week, which comes out to just over 40 hours/week on average. The shifts are over 8 hours long.

[Esternial]

It's not unreasonable, but I'm more leaning towards just defining 40 hour work weeks.

I suppose it depends on the type of work, but timing your employees and measuring the time they spend at work seems like a good way to break their spirit and would just result in them arriving on time and leaving on time, regardless of whether or not they have an unfinished chunk of work. I prefer to finish what I'm working on. If that means I leave a little early or later, that's fine. Nobody minds, and because of that I don't mind going the extra mile and working when I don't have to, or even cancel days off when some urgent support is needed from me.

Of course, I realize I'm privileged already. I work at a BI consultancy firm, and I'm currently consulting at a big fintech company. The hours are very flexible, and nobody really pays attention as long as you perform well. Usually I arrive between 9 and 9:30 AM and I leave between 5 and 6 PM. Sometimes I log in from home in the evening when I want to get some more work done. Sometimes I do some work in the weekends if I really want to crack some bugs that have been bothering me. When I'm at the office I tend to work a bit longer, and the two days I work from home I tend to take more breaks and go on errands. Those two days really make a difference, and companies that can afford to give those to their employees should do so.

My timesheet always has 8 hours on it per day, and I bill for those 8 hours even though my actual hours vary extremely.

[Uinted Communist of Africa]

Id personally love it if they cut the working days in half. Adults need a life too. I don't want to waste every single day of my whole life behind a desk.....Half a day of work sound reasonable. That's not even coming from the super communist revolutionary deep within me, it just doesn't seem like half a day is asking too much. Plus that would also open a new shift, instead of just day shift and night shift. For instance businesses could also implement mid day shift from like 12 pm to 5pm.