NationStates

Australian rePublic wrote:Flight attendants, by their nature, must work 8 hours +

yeah i think the big thing is work week rather than work day, more flexible

New haven america wrote:

Trollgaard wrote:

Why should you be compensated the same, or more, than someone who can work a normal shift and be more productive throughout the day? Unless you are super productive and efficient in your 3-4 hours of work it seems ridiculous to expect the same compensation as someone else.

And when people bring up this argument when it comes to management and CEO's, everyone screams "Communism!" and arguing about how people should totally be paid more for doing less work.

Hm...

Eh, that's more of a responsibility/accountability thing.

Having been on a project that missed its deadline, I don't envy my managers. It's a lot a shit they have to take when things go wrong. It's stressful work and I wouldn't want to do it...unless I got paid a lot more.

Esternial wrote:

New haven america wrote:And when people bring up this argument when it comes to management and CEO's, everyone screams "Communism!" and arguing about how people should totally be paid more for doing less work.

Hm...

Eh, that's more of a responsibility/accountability thing.

Having been on a project that missed its deadline, I don't envy my managers. It's a lot a shit they have to take when things go wrong. It's stressful work and I wouldn't want to do it...unless I got paid a lot more.

I'm not talking about management that actually has work to do, I'm talking about management that's filled with people who barely know what they're doing and got their jobs through nepotism and connections (As is the common case in America's corporate world).

New haven america wrote:

Esternial wrote:Eh, that's more of a responsibility/accountability thing.

Having been on a project that missed its deadline, I don't envy my managers. It's a lot a shit they have to take when things go wrong. It's stressful work and I wouldn't want to do it...unless I got paid a lot more.

I'm not talking about management that actually has work to do, I'm talking about management that's filled with people who barely know what their doing and got their jobs through nepotism and connections (As is the common case in America's corporate world).

All management has work to do, and if they don't do it the company suffers because of it.

I feel that, theoretically, what a manager makes he deserves. In practice it can sometimes leave to be desired, but honestly, that's true of all employees in a company. People just complain more about managers because A) they make more money and B) they're more visible.

New haven america wrote:

Esternial wrote:Eh, that's more of a responsibility/accountability thing.

Having been on a project that missed its deadline, I don't envy my managers. It's a lot a shit they have to take when things go wrong. It's stressful work and I wouldn't want to do it...unless I got paid a lot more.

I'm not talking about management that actually has work to do, I'm talking about management that's filled with people who barely know what they're doing and got their jobs through nepotism and connections (As is the common case in America's corporate world).

None of the managers I work with are products of nepotism or connections in my firm. If they were they would be long since fired.

Lanoraie II wrote:

Esternial wrote:I'm not saying it's the pinnacle of efficiency to have longer work days, but I'd prefer spending a bit longer at work so I can work and faff about with my colleagues a little bit rather than work 4 and be forced to focus 100% during those 4 hours.

People consider their free time so valuable but once they have it, so many just waste it watching a whole season of Masterchef.

It's not wasting it if that's how they choose to spend it that way. It's their life.

I'm not saying it should be illegal to work more than 8 hours, but shifts and proper pay for people who don't want to or can't work that long should be widespread. Because it's not just a matter of I don't want to, I also physically cannot. I have autism and get extremely stressed out if I have to focus on something for more than 3 hours (sometimes, even just one hour without a 15-20 minute break, depending what it is). I put a lot of energy into whatever I'm doing, but that energy depletes quickly, and I can't half ass something unless I'm running out of energy. Burnout comes very quickly for me and it makes me depressed, agitated, and sometimes even suicidal if it's really bad.

I am also autistic (Aspergers/high functioning). I have execute dysfunction as one of my symptoms. I also have ADHD and GAD. I have difficulty with work. If I were asked to work 40 hour weeks, I would self-destruct. Here are two articles that I use to try to explain how it feels to neurotypicals. They don't explain everything, but I feel like they are a good introduction.

1. https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/09/sy ... sfunction/
2. https://blogs.psychcentral.com/not-robo ... aspergers/

Trollgaard wrote:

Lanoraie II wrote:
It's not wasting it if that's how they choose to spend it that way. It's their life.

I'm not saying it should be illegal to work more than 8 hours, but shifts and proper pay for people who don't want to or can't work that long should be widespread. Because it's not just a matter of I don't want to, I also physically cannot. I have autism and get extremely stressed out if I have to focus on something for more than 3 hours (sometimes, even just one hour without a 15-20 minute break, depending what it is). I put a lot of energy into whatever I'm doing, but that energy depletes quickly, and I can't half ass something unless I'm running out of energy. Burnout comes very quickly for me and it makes me depressed, agitated, and sometimes even suicidal if it's really bad.

Why should you be compensated the same, or more, than someone who can work a normal shift and be more productive throughout the day? Unless you are super productive and efficient in your 3-4 hours of work it seems ridiculous to expect the same compensation as someone else.

Because we already far more productive workers than any people have even been in history. Despite this we work more hours and for less pay. We work 8 hours a day because our material conditions force us to in a country with disappointingly stagnant wages. Our relatively high productivity means that it is possible for workers to produce the things we all want and need with fewer hours of work.

Honestly to me it all depends on the job. Something like an office job should be shorter. How much time are you spending not really doing anything? If any new tasks come up once the day ends they can be done via email, phone or videocall, no need to come back.

Manufacturing and service require you to be there and work the whole time so for those jobs, 8+ hour shifts are perfectly reasonable.

I can see some Americans getting tired of the "American way" to where they decide to leave the country to become an expatriate. But this comes with some trade offs of course. Not going to be perfect regardless of where in the world you decide to go. Every place is going to have its problems. You might have a far shorter work week in the Netherlands as one example, but you won't own many guns there. You'll ride a bike everywhere instead of driving a car.

For some people, the American dream is becoming the Canadian one where- someone might have an easier time rising from poor to middle class in Canada as opposed to attempting the same in the US.

Ifreann wrote:Ditching work is praxis.

I thought that was a Klingon moon.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Praxis

Unreasonable? Not really, but there's been plenty of research to suggest changing the work hour norms iirc.

Wasa Radamai wrote:

Trollgaard wrote:

Why should you be compensated the same, or more, than someone who can work a normal shift and be more productive throughout the day? Unless you are super productive and efficient in your 3-4 hours of work it seems ridiculous to expect the same compensation as someone else.

Because we already far more productive workers than any people have even been in history. Despite this we work more hours and for less pay. We work 8 hours a day because our material conditions force us to in a country with disappointingly stagnant wages. Our relatively high productivity means that it is possible for workers to produce the things we all want and need with fewer hours of work.

Source on that?

Also, how many people would want to work at maximum productivity for 100% of the time? Folks need breaks, softer periods, etc.

Petrolheadia wrote:

Wasa Radamai wrote:
Because we already far more productive workers than any people have even been in history. Despite this we work more hours and for less pay. We work 8 hours a day because our material conditions force us to in a country with disappointingly stagnant wages. Our relatively high productivity means that it is possible for workers to produce the things we all want and need with fewer hours of work.

Source on that?

Productivity as compared to wages. And, stagnant wages as a whole.

Kowani wrote:

Petrolheadia wrote:Source on that?

Productivity as compared to wages. And, stagnant wages as a whole.

At the same time, people have to compete in a global marketplace (which benefits most in the world) and prices of goods are dropping.

Petrolheadia wrote:

Kowani wrote: Productivity as compared to wages. And, stagnant wages as a whole.

At the same time, people have to compete in a global marketplace (which benefits most in the world) and prices of goods are dropping.

Yes, outsourcing is harmful to wages.

Novus America wrote:

Petrolheadia wrote:At the same time, people have to compete in a global marketplace (which benefits most in the world) and prices of goods are dropping.

Yes, outsourcing is harmful to wages.

Slightly. In a certain sector. In certain countries.

So generally not.

It's really been quite a long time since working hours/days have been significantly improved. The last big initiative was probably the 40 hour week? But it seems that in the last decade that is being eroded to some extent with workers often expected to stay after hours for unpaid overtime. A three day weekend initiative would be nice to see, and a reduction on working hours. Technology is improving faster than ever before and there's no reason why work hours need to be so long.

Petrolheadia wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Yes, outsourcing is harmful to wages.

Slightly. In a certain sector. In certain countries.

So generally not.

In many sectors in many countries. So quite often yes.

Novus America wrote:

Petrolheadia wrote:Slightly. In a certain sector. In certain countries.

So generally not.

In many sectors in many countries. So quite often yes.

Source on how many people are impacted by it?

Petrolheadia wrote:

Novus America wrote:
In many sectors in many countries. So quite often yes.

Source on how many people are impacted by it?

I already provided a source showing it devastated the wages for the majority of Americans.

Novus America wrote:

Petrolheadia wrote:Source on how many people are impacted by it?

I already provided a source showing it devastated the wages for the majority of Americans.

So only a few percent of the global population at absolute worst.

Petrolheadia wrote:

Novus America wrote:
I already provided a source showing it devastated the wages for the majority of Americans.

So only a few percent of the global population at absolute worst.

Logically it would not only be the case for the US.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ons-record

It has happened elsewhere too. When low wages give you an economic advantage anyone above with wages average is harmed.

Novus America wrote:

Petrolheadia wrote:So only a few percent of the global population at absolute worst.

Logically it would not only be the case for the US.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ons-record

It has happened elsewhere too. When low wages give you an economic advantage anyone above with wages average is harmed.

Wages in developed countries will fall, but wages in developing nations will rise.

Chestaan wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Logically it would not only be the case for the US.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ons-record

It has happened elsewhere too. When low wages give you an economic advantage anyone above with wages average is harmed.

Wages in developed countries will fall, but wages in developing nations will rise.

True to some degree, but if the rise to much, countries flee the places with the growing wages. Thus keeping an incentive to keep wages low, at least for a substantial proportion of the population. Otherwise you just start to stagnate around middle income.

You can never raise yourself too far above average using race to the bottom economics of course.

Only productivity growth, which low labor costs discourage (it is cheaper to outsource than increase productivity) actually results in appreciable sustainable gains.

Plus regardless the developed countries should naturally want to avoid being dragged down to average.

Been wanting to ask: If the US economy crashes again soon under Donald Trump because of the trade war, and I fail to secure any job of any sort before then, will this make me unemployable or could it work to my advantage if I make up a story about my employment gap only being because of the more recent recession as opposed to the 2008 one as well?

The Great Recession was the reason I wanted to not enter the work force immediately in the first place after K-12. I wanted to become too qualified to be turned down but didn't have enough money to get more than 2 years. Took twice as long to get, because the courses I needed were never available in any given semester but were spread out throughout the year. Couldn't find the path to make that degree give me any financial return. Shouldn't have gone.

30+ years with no resume. Am I screwed even more with another recession? Should I go primitivist and figure out how to live off the land to purposely avoid civilization? I figure it'd have to be a remote part of either Canada or Russia. If not Alaska.

If I did last in the wild for long enough and did become famous enough if discovered, I could definitely return to civilization via creating a survival training school. Such skills can perhaps definitely be monetized into a good business for hardcore camping afficionados.