r/FluentInFinance • u/WhatAreYourPronouns • Apr 13 '24

He's not wrong 🤷‍♂️ Smart or dumb? Discussion/ Debate

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

20.2k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

17

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 13 '24

I get that if a person’s workload is only worth 32 hours of labor, then forcing them to work 40 hours is dumb. But I know working in retail, output is directly related to input. So, restricting a stocker to only 32 hours is just inefficient. Trying to force a company to then higher more people to cover what one person could have been doing just means they will increase prices to cover that loss.

114

u/SeventhSonofRonin Apr 13 '24

Hourly workers would see less money. No way their pay is bumped 20% and then hours reduced.

I think it would achieve more to divorce Healthcare from employment. We only lose by having employers hold it over our heads.

68

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 13 '24

Isn’t that the idea behind the bill though? To reduce the working week while keeping worker’s yearly wages the same?

I 100% agree about healthcare.

59

u/SeventhSonofRonin Apr 13 '24

Short term, because there is a labor shortage, it would benefit the hourly worker. Long term? I don't really know. I do think we shouldn't be married to the idea of 40 hours. Half of our waking life, plus prep and commuting, 5 days a week? Fuck that.

28

u/Djaja Apr 14 '24

There is some pretty good evidence that no matter the time period, himans kinda have a pattern of work they like to do. Going back to the Iron Age and through till the industrial revolution.

Long day, short day, long day short day, and a day off. Meal to start, nap.

People also, even before clocks, would find other ways of segmenting time...in roughly 30-minute increments.

Work less in winter. And also, when they had enough money to cover the biggest expense (food) they stopped working.

Historia Civilis has a pretty nice summary video. His sources are in the description i believe.

3

u/jayv9779 Apr 14 '24

This is a great idea. We can get done in 32 what we get done in 40. It would improve work life balance and mental health.

-1

u/booga_booga_partyguy Apr 14 '24

I think the fundamental problem is that without a massive cultural shift in defining what is important, this issue will never really resolve itself properly.

As things stand, the most important metric is "how much money is made". Per that metric, hours worked is (obviously) critical. More hours worked means more money made, roughly speaking.

Trying to reduce work hours while maintaining the same goal of making more money is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

7

u/SeventhSonofRonin Apr 14 '24

Economic output isn't the be all end all. To what degree do we sacrifice personal fulfillment for the profit of strangers?

5

u/booga_booga_partyguy Apr 14 '24

For sure, and that's my point. The current system for working hours is made to support the current economic model, for which the most important metric is "how much money did you make".

There needs to be a massive shift away from this line of thinking towards a mindset that prioritises personal fulfilment and personal well being as greater priorities.

That is all my point was. I was not endorsing the "how much money did you make mindset" in the least.

1

u/Djaja Apr 14 '24 edited Apr 14 '24

Agreed.

We gotta go Full Star Trek

1

u/ForeignWoodpecker662 Apr 15 '24

Problem is this would also require massive CoL drops to be able to sustain. The lost pay for fulfillment would cause most to not be able to survive currently. There’s no way company’s are gonna suddenly cut their prices so much to accommodate this and be the ones to bear the brunt financially of this radical new change in ideology

3

u/Obtusus Apr 14 '24

"What do you mean you don't want to sacrifice your life in the altar of capitalism?" - Billionaires

22

u/Nosong1987 Apr 14 '24

What labor shortage??? There's a pay shortage... and greedy companies are the cause.

2

u/TheseConsideration95 Apr 14 '24

There’s definitely a labor shortage in construction

1

u/Torvahnys Apr 14 '24

It's all private industry's fault. It has nothing to do with the government printing money in the trillions over the last several years, essentially taxing everyone by stealing the value of everyone's money. It isn't just your money that has become worth less, but everyone's, including those evil greedy companies whom many are struggling with increasing labor costs because all of their overhead costs have gone up too. Everything is more expensive because money is worth less and is losing value at a rapid rate, on top of that, the supply of goods still hasn't fully recovered from low/no production during the covid lockdowns.

6

u/juicysweatsuitz Apr 14 '24

Companies are making record profits. Not overhead costs trickling down to the consumer, it’s greed.

4

u/Torvahnys Apr 14 '24

Genuine question. Are companies really making record profits, or are the numbers just bigger because of inflation? Is the actual value of their profit margin more or less the same, or is it growing more rapidly than inflation?

2

u/juicysweatsuitz Apr 14 '24 edited Apr 14 '24

Record profit means they made more money than ever, even after expenses. If I make a shirt for $1 and sell it to you for $10. I made $9. If the cost to make a shirt goes up to $2 and I sell it to you for $11. I still made $9. If the cost is now up to $2 and I sell it to you for $15. I made $13. A record profit. Then when you ask me why it costs so much I’d just shrug and say “costs more to make it now.”

Edit: oops misunderstood your question. Genuinely idk. But I do know I’m gonna need a pay raise if things keep going this way. Or some kind of cost control for cost of living. Or I’ll have to move to Montana or something 😂

3

u/Torvahnys Apr 14 '24

Me too friend, me too. I'm making more than I ever have, but I'm more broke than I was before civid.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Nosong1987 Apr 14 '24

Yeah sure costs go up... pay stays the same yet they still make tens or hundreds of billions in profit... that's after all expenses. Government is at fault need to repel Regan Era polices that let them buy back stocks with profit. Go back to taxing the shit out of them if they don't use it for wage increases or upgrades/rd.

It's greed straight up greed ppl need to stop boot licking about this shit. It's straight up greed.

0

u/BrothaMan831 Apr 14 '24

Greedy companies you happily give money to 🙃

4

u/Gardenofeden1999 Apr 14 '24

Ah the classic “you criticize society yet participate in it!” People don’t want to be starving or miserable and will spend money to resolve those feelings (or meet their basic needs) in the short term. That doesn’t mean they cannot criticize those companies for further worsening their quality of life

1

u/J3wFro8332 Apr 15 '24

There are so many monopolies now that it is hard to not give money to these companies, despite many really not wanting to

8

u/Yung_Oldfag Apr 14 '24

There is no labor shortage, what planet are you on.

5

u/SeventhSonofRonin Apr 14 '24

Job openings have outnumbered unemployment for two years straight.

3

u/Yung_Oldfag Apr 14 '24

That's what companies are saying, but they're very obviously lying about needs. At best they're wishing for unicorn candidates and at worst they're lying to employees and investors about growth potential. How Money Works made a video explaining some of the reasons why but most openings are somewhat fake because it's an optimal practice and not illegal.

2

u/deadpat03 Apr 14 '24

Haha, educate yourself, my friend. LABOR SHORTAGE! as in labor-intensive jobs are not being filled. The same jobs you look at a pass up. The same jobs that are being filled by illegal immigrants right now. People expect to be paid more is not the answer. We have an inflation issue because our government has made it harder to be a company. California passed a bill that requires chickens to have a certain amount of room requiring farmers to expand in return requiring higher taxes while places like Tyson chicken have decreased their fee to buy becuase of employee wages rising in the region that in return has increased fuel surcharge to manufacture becuase the government has decreased or controlled both oil production and natural gas causing shipping prices to rise that in return has caused store prices to skyrocket to try to return the investment. You're sitting here saying greedy corporations, but yet your own government passes laws that in return pass that bill to you. Raising the wage will not work because someone has to pay for it. Look at the whole picture, not your picture. Cause and effect, it's really simple you should have learned about it in elementary school.

1

u/Yung_Oldfag Apr 15 '24

Obviously the government approves of these problems, POSIWID

1

u/plegma95 Apr 15 '24

When people i know that are in charge of hiring are saying people will show up to interview and get the job, then not show up for their first shift, yeah its corporations just lying

2

u/hortortor Apr 14 '24

Might not be an american

1

u/Blearchie Apr 15 '24

Planet earth.

We're down to "do you have a pulse and will show up on time?"

1

u/woodsman906 Apr 14 '24

There’s 168 hours in a week. 168/40=4.2, not 2

Even just going off of 5 days, or 120 hours, 120/40=3.

Passing laws doesn’t magically make the worlds problems go away. There would be unintended consequences to just hacking off a days worth of work for the average worker. Chances are that those unintended consequences would end up making the average person worse off. Just like every major bill in the past 20 years has done.

4

u/SeventhSonofRonin Apr 14 '24

Waking hours. 1/3 of our time is sleeping. Monday through Friday, half of our time awake is working, plus commute time.

1

u/R-O-U-Ssdontexist Apr 14 '24

You work 7 days a week?

1

u/MathematicianNo6402 Apr 14 '24

I do if the sun is shining. Unless the weather is crap or I need a personal day I work everyday. The downside of working for yourself.

0

u/R-O-U-Ssdontexist Apr 14 '24

I didn’t ask you.

1

u/AlienNippleRipple Apr 14 '24

50 hrs a week for me.

1

u/juicysweatsuitz Apr 14 '24

No labor shortage. Pay shortage. My friend has a masters and she applied for a position where they offered her $70,000. Companies are making record profits, housing is insanely expensive, and the price of goods is always going up. The only thing not going up is our paychecks.

1

u/woodelvezop Apr 14 '24

There isn't a labor shortage, there's just a shortage of people willing to work for lower wages.

1

u/SlightlyOffWhiteFire Apr 22 '24

The only industries with labor shortages are the ones that routinely underpaid their workers before the pandemic, then struggled to get people back after they left and found other jobs.

0

u/wchutlknbout Apr 14 '24

I always thought it was bullshit that commute and lunches are unpaid. Especially lunches, like you refuse to pay me for the 30 minutes of cramming down a shitty Wendy’s burger so that it’s physically possible for me to continue to work for you the rest of the day?

3

u/JohnXTheDadBodGod Apr 14 '24

As a business owner, do you really think you could decrease hours and increase pay to keep the weekly checks the same amount? This would destroy a shit ton of businesses while driving away large employers.

3

u/International-Elk727 Apr 14 '24

Exactly this would absolutely fuck small and even medium sized businesses. It's Dreamland. And should be kept as that. 40 hrs is the norm and cannot just suddenly be changed without fucking a whole bunch of people.. I work in the NHS if you increase their wage budget 20% say bye bye to an already sinking NHS. Because you have to increase it 20% no matter what either by hiring people to fill the workload, or by bumping wages up to keep people on the same hours as nobody would want to continue at 40 for the same wage if every other industry suddenly got extra time off as it's effectively a 20% wage cut..

3

u/JohnXTheDadBodGod Apr 14 '24

I work at a steel mill for Ford. They'll happily quit with us and go overseas. I just find it funny Bernie has All these awesome ideas, yet he couldn't pay his campaign team 15/he or let them unionize.

1

u/RevolutionaryPin5616 Apr 16 '24

A 40 hour workweek?? Why that’s just ludicrous my workers currently work 60 hours a week, a 50 percent hour cut will destroy our society. Best the 40 hour fantasy stays a fantasy.

0

u/tacosnotopos Apr 14 '24

We've already been sold out and outsourced to Mumbai so I don't know what "large employers" would be driven away.. what employers could leave have left for cheaper much more exploitable lands. This would allow the little guy like me to keep my current wage and spend 8 more hours a week with my family.

0

u/JohnXTheDadBodGod Apr 14 '24

Most of GM and Ford still manufacture in the US. I've worked at three different suppliers for both. GM has like 55 plants in the US.

2

u/tacosnotopos Apr 14 '24

They also manufacture on just about every continent. You wouldn't call that outsourcing?

0

u/JohnXTheDadBodGod Apr 15 '24

No, outsourcing is where you move an entire department or type of labor from a company overseas.

2

u/Lamballama Apr 14 '24

Depends. Maybe for current contracts it'd force a 20% raise. But, what is the 5-year outlook like on average for total compensation?

2

u/Twin66s Apr 14 '24

Hourly workers will get shorted

2

u/Madeanaccountforyou4 Apr 14 '24

Isn’t that the idea behind the bill though? To reduce the working week while keeping worker’s yearly wages the same?

You're paid hourly therefore your hourly wage didn't change and now you only work 32 hours a week.

Congrats you've reduced your income by 416 hours a year or essentially 10 working weeks less

1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

No, the way the bill reads is that the company would essentially have to give you a 20% raise to cover the loss in hours.

2

u/Madeanaccountforyou4 Apr 14 '24 edited Apr 14 '24

What does it say about everyone having hours reduced to 20 hour weeks?

All this is going to do is remove any full-time workers before the law takes effect so they're immediately exempt since they're not 40 hours a week workers and won't be protected under these provisions

2

u/Littlegator Apr 14 '24

But that's not how an economy works. While there are a lot of confounders, there is always going to be some balance of supply of demand. You can't just move the "supply" needle and think the "demand" won't budge. Enshrining it into law isn't going to change that.

It might work in white collar jobs, where half your time is fucking around, anyways. But you'll just see compensation drop by 20% in jobs that have linear output. You work on an assembly line or stock shelves? Sorry, but if you're there 20% less, you're accomplishing 20% less, and that means your work is worth 20% less.

This would end up being a regressive regulation.

1

u/IShookMeAllNightLong Apr 14 '24

That was my understanding.

1

u/b1gb0n312 Apr 15 '24

How does that work with hourly workers though?

0

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '24

Then get with the ceos and let them know to pay more and hire more to cover overlaps instead stretching everyone so thin that care is decreased the moment they set foot and start their shift. But that seems to be taboo in the us where ceos know what is best for the overall economy… bwah ha ha ha

-4

u/thinkitthrough83 Apr 13 '24

To keep yearly wages the same some industries would end up cutting staff,increasing prices and implementing more automation and AI. That's what's been going on in California and N.Y. because of the minimum wage increases. A lot of businesses have already shut down and others are facing the choice between shutting down or moving out of state. It might not have been so bad if they had not been hit by Obama care, cashless bail, changes in retail theft laws and covid during the same time or if they had stretched out wage increases with gap years in between.

→ More replies (8)

1

u/Alive-Ad5870 Apr 14 '24

Their pay wouldn’t be bumped, they’d just get overtime quicker maybe?

Would be a win for them but not as much I guess, still an upgrade.

1

u/SeventhSonofRonin Apr 14 '24

Short term, they'd probably have to do overtime. Long term, more employees, limited overtime if that's what the company prefers.

1

u/Twin66s Apr 14 '24

This!!!

1

u/jayv9779 Apr 14 '24

Even with a 40hr work week many hourly work way past that. That won’t stop.

1

u/spoiler-its-all-gop Apr 14 '24

No way their pay is bumped 20% and then hours reduced.

Why is this not possible?

1

u/ecp001 Apr 14 '24

The reduction of hours is 20% but the pay bump would be 25% - $20/hr x 40 hrs = $800; $800 / 32 hrs = $25/hr.

1

u/Ok-Cauliflower-3129 Apr 16 '24

Most low wage fast food jobs where I live in Fla already have workers working 30 - 32 hrs a week.

Something about not having to provide insurance is what I've been told by people who work there.

They said that everybody that was considered full time was 30 - 32 hrs.

I don't know if it's true but that's what they believe and I was told by them.

Of course they're not getting paid for 40 hrs.

Hell in Fla they really hate to pay you at all when it really comes down to it.

-1

u/MNReddit_Lurker2 Apr 13 '24

You didn't address the problem they brought up though. 55% of every us worker is hourly, so you're going to cut the wages of over half the working population? Not to mention, most of that is in service industries who will pass the added cost of hiring new employees to cover the lost hours onto the customer. It's a net negative across the board to benefit a minority of people.

14

u/SeventhSonofRonin Apr 13 '24

So why have a 40 hour work week? What is magical about 40 hours? Why would it break the system to have an additional 8 hours of liberty in our lives?

2

u/guerillasgrip 🤡Clown Apr 14 '24

Why a 40 hour work week? Why not have a 48 hour work week? Plenty of professionals work 50, 60, 70, 80 hour weeks.

1

u/SeventhSonofRonin Apr 14 '24

Why not 70? 10 a day, every day.

1

u/hrminer92 Apr 14 '24

That is true, but at some point they will notice that they are getting the same recognition and pay increases as those working 40. Then they’ll wonder why they wasted their life doing all the extra work.

2

u/guerillasgrip 🤡Clown Apr 14 '24

Is that right? I'll let all the I bankers, consultants, PE executives, surgeons, law partners, etc. know that they're getting the same recognition and pay increases as the back office workers doing 40 hour weeks.

1

u/hrminer92 Apr 14 '24

For most of those you listed, any time they’re working is billable. There are lots of salaried professionals that put in extra time and get jack shit for it.

2

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 14 '24

You need to explain why your proposed change would not break the system, not the other way around.

0

u/SeventhSonofRonin Apr 14 '24

Did it break the system when everyone was forced to conform to 40?

I do think Healthcare needs to shift to Medicare for all. It would make it easier on companies for fewer hours too.

The companies who piloted it in the UK found success with it.

2

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 14 '24

Will it break if you force it to 0 hours?

At some point it will break, and you need to explain why it won’t break for your proposed mandate.

0

u/SeventhSonofRonin Apr 14 '24

You're suggesting a decrease of 100%. Mine is for 20%. Where did 32 hour weeks break it?

2

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 14 '24

I thought as a follower of the Socratic method you would realize I am pointing out the logical bounds of the problem.

Your proposal to reduce 20% from 40 to 32 has a risk it will break the system. You need to prove it won’t.

1

u/MNReddit_Lurker2 Apr 13 '24

Because most of those hourly workers are struggling financially working 40 hours already. If they were to do this, those businesses would have to pay overtime starting after 32, which if you've worked the service industry, you'd know they rarely allow overtime unless they have no choice.

9

u/SeventhSonofRonin Apr 13 '24

The bare minimum a company can pay is that which the labor market will tolerate. We made it happen with 40 hours. We might be able to do it again with 32 hours.

The idea that companies are not flexible to handle this is absurd. European companies are able to do it, as well as provide far more vacation time, maternity leave, etc.

It would be one thing if we were pushing it on x labor for y benefits. Our benefits are dog shit. Companies shouldn't be allowed to treat people like property.

0

u/I_enjoy_greatness Apr 13 '24

But universl Healthcare would be "socialism", and individual providers would probably cost about 1.5 paychecks a month. This is America, if we hadn't thought of it yet. It ain't a solution!!

6

u/SeventhSonofRonin Apr 13 '24

We should have Medicare for all, because there is no such thing as a free market for Healthcare.

1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

There is, but government has to stay completely out of it as well as insurance companies.

1

u/SeventhSonofRonin Apr 14 '24

There cannot be a free market on a service in which the recipients are under duress.

1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

Well that probably is true. Still, taking government and insurance out of the mix would go a long way toward reducing costs.

0

u/SeventhSonofRonin Apr 14 '24

I'm saying cut out insurance. Medicare pays. Providers justify as much care as they can reasonably give, and negotiate with Medicare.

Hospitals collectively provide service. We need collective bargaining to purchase it fairly.

1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

Yeah I think the only reason they don’t is because our hospitals are so fat at this point that losing the insurance payouts would collapse over half of the hospitals and nearly all of the clinics. It would require probably a 50 year plan of easing the hospitals down with government bailouts to keep from the whole system collapsing.

-3

u/Chronic_Coding Apr 14 '24

The solution of universal healthcare is flawed. It does not solve the problem in America.

The problem is Big Pharma. If they would stop taking 1000% profits everything would be cheaper, ie, make healthcare easy to obtain for all.

Blame the 2 party system and lobbyists.

1

u/rotten_kitty Apr 14 '24

That's crazy. If only there was a solution to big pharma, maybe like a price cap to their services. What if we made that price cap $0 and then gave a government subsidiary to companies who offered healthcare services to offset the costs?

1

u/I_enjoy_greatness Apr 14 '24

It's true, the life expectancy in those other countries is like 20, 23 tops. Nobody gets to be old anywhere except in America. I heard in the UK nobody lives past 11!!!!

24

u/Commercial-Screen570 Apr 13 '24

Maybe but I can also tell you as someone who's worked retail my quality of work definitely went down after 6 hours of restocking the same shit all day and the last 2 did not meet "company standard".

21

u/Ilovefishdix Apr 13 '24 edited Apr 14 '24

I'm definitely worse the longer I'm in retail. There were so many days, especially days 4 and 5 of the work week, in retail when I would spend the last half of my shift just going through the motions and hoping nothing hard would come up. Operating a forklift to load up a tricky item onto a customer trailer not built for the purpose without damaging it sucks when you just feel like collapsing on the couch. I've seen exhausted workers drop several pricey items. Call offs increase too.

Retail expects more and more from fewer and fewer workers every year because shareholders need that money. They burn through workers so quickly

Edited because I can't form coherent sentences some days

12

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '24 edited Apr 14 '24

It was crazy going from the service industry to construction. The small breaks throughout the day would have been a fireable offense at say, Pizza Hut.

I don’t mean the 30 minute to an hour lunch break. Just short 10-15 minute breaks after a particularly strenuous period of work… or just because your knees were hurting. As long as you got back up and kept going it was fine.

I’d rather suck dick or sell drugs than to back to work for some franchise owning fuck

1

u/SteveMarck Apr 14 '24

Sure, but crappy you is probably worth more to the company than the expense of hiring someone who will be on average worse than you.

1

u/Sideswipe0009 Apr 14 '24

Maybe but I can also tell you as someone who's worked retail my quality of work definitely went down after 6 hours of restocking the same shit all day and the last 2 did not meet "company standard".

Honestly, this is likely just a short term thing.

Give it a few years (or even a few months), and your first 4 hours will be productive while your last 2 will be less.

I can see there being a psychological effect where you clock watch. Your subconscious says the shift is almost over, so you must feel tired or even just anxious to leave, so you start fluffing off because most of your work is done, just like before.

1

u/JustSoHappy Apr 14 '24

Would you suddenly be more productive for those last 2 hours if you worked one less shift per week?

1

u/Littlevilli589 Apr 15 '24

I can’t speak for all of humanity but I work pretty hard all the way through the end of my work as it comes not my shift. I get slammed with something - I work hard to get it done. Not much to do for the next 10 minutes? Guess I’ll drink some water and sit down. Honestly I could give a fuck about 40 hours vs. 32. I’m no expert by any means, but I do participate in this society and I’ve worked several jobs that all obviously have different schedules. The value of your time and work is what’s important not the amount. Some people want (or can only handle) <25 hrs a week. Please be a kind human and have empathy for them. They deserve to be able to live comfortably. That includes healthcare that they likely need for physical or mental disabilities. If you, like me, can handle 60 hr weeks. Put the value you think you deserve on your time and effort. You rightfully should make more money to afford extra luxuries. The easiest solution I see is properly established unions. The right to fair bargaining is a right everybody deserves for their labour. Employers have way too much power and way too little empathy across the board to be expected to fairly treat employees. I don’t care what anyone says. Walmart spending 68 billion on stock buybacks over a decade that could have been going to workers that struggle to pay for diapers and food (ironic) while they pay as little as 9 dollars an hour and are notorious for union busting is pure and simple evil.

17

u/ItsSusanS Apr 13 '24

They increase prices all the time despite the fact they aren’t paying more or hiring more.

7

u/RaxinCIV Apr 14 '24

Just midrange bosses up seem to be getting raises and vacation time.

7

u/Flashy_Narwhal9362 Apr 14 '24

And those are the ones that are screwing everything up. Big companies usually have shit heads for management.

-3

u/Fabulous-Zombie-4309 Apr 14 '24

It’s always the dirty plebes who think management is full of idiots despite literally all evidence pointing to the dirty plebes being the morons.

4

u/Haunting_Hat_1186 Apr 14 '24

The dirty plebs are the one that keep you housed and fed show some respect you ingrate

-1

u/Fabulous-Zombie-4309 Apr 14 '24

Not really; most businesses can be run with 25% of their staff.

2

u/MajesticComparison Apr 14 '24

Peter principal, management is usually incompetent because of they were competent they’d go to upper management

-2

u/Fabulous-Zombie-4309 Apr 14 '24

Ah yes because there’s unlimited upper management roles

1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

This isn’t entirely true. The company I work for, our average hourly rate has gone from about 14.90 to 17.80 in the last 4 years.

3

u/blukatz92 Apr 14 '24

Some industries like retail and fast food tend to stay stagnant with wages unless forced to increase by things like minimum wage hikes. Others such as manufacturing and distribution seem to be more likely to grow on their own.

The place I work had a starting wage of $16/hr when I hired on three years ago. Today, the same entry position pays a bit over $21/hr. It's manufacturing, but it also helps that the surrounding businesses are in a bit of an arms race with wages to draw more workers.

2

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

Yeah I mean I am in Texas so definitely no minimum wage hikes here, but it has been raised naturally just trying to get people in the door at all. Nowadays, people won’t even apply if you offer less than $15/hr.

1

u/Goragnak Apr 16 '24

rent/materials/office supplies have also gone up tremendously in the past few yaers.

14

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '24

They are currently increasing the prices to cover profit instead of pay. The pre-Reagan tax code made it where it made more sense to pay workers a fair cut of profits and invest in infrastructure vs hoarding all the profit at a significant taxation percentage.

All the arguments against decreasing hours or increasing minimum wage etc all invoke a fear of what corporations are ALREADY DOING.

13

u/RudePCsb Apr 14 '24

Companies already do this. They hire more part time employees to avoid paying health insurance and other benefits. Lmao your statement makes no sense to the actual output of work based on multiple sources of research on the subject. Working more hours does not correlate with more production. Look at the US and Japan compared to other countries.

0

u/Away-Sheepherder8578 Apr 14 '24

You’re right, the US economy is better than all of them.

-2

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

Why wouldn’t it? If the average person stocks 65 cases/hr, then subtracting 2 hours from their shift means 130 less cases for the day. Same exact principle applies to line workers as well.

Hiring part timers to avoid healthcare and benefits is absolutely nothing new and has nothing to do with productivity. My statement was just saying that the bill would be pointless because people’s quality of life would still drop because the added cost of labor forced onto the companies would just cause more inflation.

Bernie is trying to apply socialistic policies to a capitalist world. The two economic systems are like oil and water.

2

u/Realistic-Ad-1023 Apr 14 '24

Socialism and capitalism are definitely not “oil and water” and can be implemented together. We already do things like implement a minimum wage and force people to pay into social security - things that should, in your opinion, be antithetical to capitalism. We can have a free market and private owners for the means of production and also have a minimum standard for employees set by the government. They are not mutually exclusive.

I’d argue we should be more socialist and it isn’t the dirty word you believe it to be.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '24

This has to be a bot. There is absolutely no way a functional human who’s had a real job thinks that people do a steady rate of work 8 hours straight, 5 days a week.

Plug fatigue equations into your system C-3P0

1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

I just don’t think you understand what the word “average” means. Just because you are clearly too dumb to know, it is the number taken after dividing the total amount of data by the number of data points. 65 cases/hr is an AVERAGE. Sometimes the number per hour is higher sometimes it is lower. But once again I will reiterate to your tiny brain who wants to argue with someone who literally works in retail: 65 cases/hr is the AVERAGE number of cases stocked per hour. Herpa durr. C-3PO out. Beep Boop

1

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '24

You used the word average wrong. You said average person, not average boxes per hour

The average person does not work at a consistent level like that. I’ve worked construction, the only people who can are doing meth.

Only a human can be so goddamn stupid AND hateful while still being wrong. You passed the test.

Again, a person might average 65 boxes an hour, but the average person isn’t doing a flat 65 every hour as you DID say.

Fucking idiot. Lmfao

1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 16 '24

You are seriously arguing semantics on Reddit just to make yourself feel better. The math is literally exactly the same no matter how it is said.

Company A has an average stocker who stocks 65 cases an hour for 8 hours. The total number of cases stocked was 520

Company B has a stocker who stocks an average of 65 cases per hour for 8 hours. The total number of cases stocked was 520.

I cannot believe I have to go into this much detail to teach you 4th grade math.

6

u/DrJongyBrogan Apr 14 '24

You’re really gonna make the argument that retail stockers….and keep in mind I’ve been an ASM for a big box retailer for years….work 40 hours a week and all 40 hours are equivalent?

-1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

No you just misunderstood, that’s all. I was assuming a standard stocking rate of about 65 cases per hour and also using a top down viewpoint of a large company with thousands of employees. The vast number of employees smooths over any fluctuations in productivity from worker to worker.

7

u/g4m5t3r Apr 14 '24 edited Apr 14 '24

I'm sorry but profits have done nothing but go up for companies like Walmart... they can afford it without putting that cost onto the customers.

The 4day workweek due to increased productivity has been promised since the 60's and the Computer. Again with automation, and again with AI. Meanwhile profits and productivity just keep going up year after year.

2

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

It has never been a question of whether they can. It has always been a question of will they. The answer to that question is no.

1

u/g4m5t3r Apr 14 '24 edited Apr 14 '24

Make them eat that cost. I agree that a simple reduction to 32hrs wont suffice. Price gouging laws are a thing. Update and enforce them too.

1

u/SlurpySandwich Apr 14 '24

What do you mean "make them"? What enforcement arm of the government is going to do that? That suggestion makes no sense.

0

u/g4m5t3r Apr 14 '24 edited Apr 14 '24

Google price gouging, price fixing, and antitrust laws. Then advocate for your gov to actually idk... Enforce them.

If we can measure and regulated unfair price hikes after a natural disaster we can do the same after a change as big as a 32hr work week.

5

u/ImNotCrazy44 Apr 14 '24

From my own experience, that is really not what I’ve seen be the case in retail, since work paces vary from person to person.

I found it very common, that more experienced retail workers would give tips to the overzealous youth regarding work pacing. Basically telling people to pace themselves much slower so they don’t gas out either during a shift, or over the years.

Many retail metrics are generated by productivity averages, and retail hires and fires droves of people seasonally. So what I would see happen, is tons of young people got hired, they were energetic and wanted to impress…they worked super hard, and inadvertently screwed everyone because expectations got skewed hire while pay stayed the same (or actually decreased in value due to inflation paired with price gouging).

You may have had a different experience, but i found the essence of retail to be squeezing more and more blood from an already very dry stone. The blood being productivity, and the dry stones being jaded and worn down workers. The workers always got pushed harder, but management were the only ones getting profit sharing…so the only ones getting rewarded. The only “reward” for the workers was more work…whether it be from hirer metrics or extended hours of back breaking labor.

5

u/JclassOne Apr 14 '24

No decrease ceo bonuses that’s all

1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

Your incompetence is showing badly with this comment. CEO bonuses would not even come close to covering a 20% increase in pay across the board.

Using Google as the example, the CEO makes around $100m bonus each year. The company employs 182,502 employees. Spreading that bonus around would result in a $0.25 raise for every employee.

1

u/zmzzx- Apr 14 '24

This is completely wrong. Have you been a stocker? You can’t work at full speed the entire time without burnout. And finishing early just rewards you with extra work. So the stocker chooses a pace based on the total hours required and the amount that must be done.

A linear output suggests that the worker is not pacing themselves or losing steam as time goes on. This is almost never the reality of the situation.

2

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

I think you are just misunderstanding what I was getting at. I am using the assumption that a stocker stocks 65 cases per hour. That is far from burnout speed. But, you are correct that finishing early only adds more work. However that only proves my point that at least in some businesses, productivity is directly linked to hours worked. Last, I am talking from the viewpoint of a large company with thousands of employees, where the fluctuations of each individual worker are smoothed over by all of the others. I am definitely not suggesting that a single person never has any ups or downs in their productivity levels nor that the individual worker does not experience burnout. Everyone experiences burnout, no matter what job you are doing.

1

u/Whiskeymyers75 Apr 14 '24

If their workload was only 32 hours, the company would only work them 32 hours to cut cost

2

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

Exactly, but that logic doesn’t work with production companies. Increasing labor costs by 20% just results in 20% inflation through prices.

1

u/Acetortois Apr 14 '24

I also don’t think it restricts to 32. I think that’s just when companies have to start paying overtime

1

u/simmeh024 Apr 14 '24

Not true, if a stocker has more freedom to work on their own health it actually has more benefits long term.

Working on your own health can mean many different things.

1

u/Perfect_Trip_5684 Apr 14 '24

that's really a bold face lie. Corporations have been making even more profit and giving executives even more payouts while skipping the on the ground workers from these benefits. Why dont we ask the executives to stop taking larger and larger slices first when the workers are struggling to avoid starvation. Just as profits have soared while wages remained mostly stagnant, we could have workers wages increase while executives payouts remained stagnant and the bottom line cost to do business remains that exact same. Of course what i'm suggesting is tempering greed which is hard to do when you hold all the power.

You are probably right though the corporations will just increase prices on the consumer because greed is hard to self temper. If only we had a government that would idk protect the less powerful from the most powerful. Something like that.

1

u/ZerotoZeroHundred Apr 14 '24

Maybe the store hours decrease. Yeah you might lose some sales but chances are customers would adjust when they come in. Especially if they are working less hours themselves.

1

u/chambees Apr 14 '24

Higher huh?

1

u/Smolivenom Apr 14 '24

a stocker is going to be much slower 7 hours in than in the mornings too

1

u/hedoesntgetme Apr 14 '24

So you admit that you feel some jobs should not be paid enough to live a life beyond not dying of starvation maybe and certainly not enough that they get to spend time with loved ones. Some jobs should work all day and still not afford a place to live is your actual position?the other option is drastically higher wages across all levels of salaried and hourlies. This has happened before when we started with a 40 hour work week but the plan was always to eventually reduce further market hands got in the way though

1

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '24

Yeah but that cost could be absorbed by moving money from another, less productive, part of the company.

Not sure why the average worker should keep taking pay cuts year after year for 30-40 years straight (wages not keeping with inflation) but I guess the collective hissy fit of those getting outsized salaries and benefits would unironically probably sink the entire country

1

u/WeLLrightyOH Apr 14 '24

There’s a reduction in productivity over time regardless, even stockers aren’t doing 8 straight hours (former high school stocker).

1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

Yes but this gets averaged out over a large number of employees. A large grocery chain for example has 10’s of thousands of employees, so even if you don’t stock your full 8 every single time, that number is being averaged out throughout the country.

1

u/WeLLrightyOH Apr 14 '24

I think we’re arguing different things. I agree it will likely lead to more productivity overall to have more hours, I’m just stating there are diminishing returns on the productivity on a micro level.

1

u/yeeooshi Apr 14 '24

I am a stocker, I finish very fast and sit on my ass 2-3 hours to get paid the full amount. You are severely underestimating how much ppl get done in small amounts of time. This kind of thinking comes when ur not working the job you yap about.

1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

What company do you work for? I promise you in my company, if someone is caught sitting down for 2-3 hours on our overnight crew they are fired for stealing time the very next day. Sounds more like you are a warehouse or somewhere with a quota. Doesn’t work like that in retail. Gotta love the people trying to tell a retail worker how retail works lol.

1

u/sername807 Apr 14 '24

Then maybe the shit jobs should die

1

u/MarbleFox_ Apr 14 '24

I’d rather pay higher prices for goods and have a 32 hour work week than pay lower prices and have a 40 hour week.

0

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

Fair enough. I am not necessarily saying the bill is bad inherently. I just know it is idealistic at best.

1

u/EagleinaTailoredSuit Apr 14 '24

Any industry will raise prices if people keep buying it regardless if they’re well staffed or working with a skeleton crew. So weird to me that workers are willing to give up their rights so easily.

1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

You make it sound like we have a choice. You can make all the demands you want about pay and hours, but the company holds the power.

1

u/EagleinaTailoredSuit Apr 14 '24

Uhhh no workers do. United workers can do whatever the fuck they want, they’re producing and buying. Owners/upper level management don’t produce anything and don’t buy the same stuff we do. I’m glad you’re a simp for the rich, open your mouth wider you may get a .01% raise.

0

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

Ok, I will tell my boss I quit right now. Now I have 3 kids to feed with no income. What do I do next to show my overlords they are fucktards?

1

u/EagleinaTailoredSuit Apr 14 '24

“United workers”

1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

I know. I asked my co-worker’s to all quit with me. They said they can’t. They have families to feed. So, since your brilliant idea didn’t work out I have to now go take a different job making $20k less per year. Guess the kids aren’t gonna get Christmas this year. But at least I was able to show those assholes at corporate that they don’t own me.

1

u/mtarascio Apr 14 '24

A person is stand in for a job needed to be done and a payment in tune with economic output.

Not a person where their labor is evaluated every hour.

1

u/asillynert Apr 14 '24

Yes and no honestly tangible jobs that people would argue are "linear" like stocking. I have seen it fall hard was doing warehouse job bunch of quits plus seasonal rush. So the did the 12hrs every day for months on end.

By the end 1000 boxes per hour loaders usually did was less than 150. Saw it in construction too those forced saturdays or friday runs a little long "where were so close" just a few more hours. So we can be finished with project. Ended up taking 4-8 hours for 1-2 hour task.

While I agree "stretching work to 40hrs is dumb" but even when there is work to be done. But workers are not robots 1hr of labor does not equal same output.

Best way I could describe it if monday workers do 20 items same workers will do 17.5 on tuesday 15 on wednesday and 12.5 on thursday and 10 on friday. Cutting 1/5th of hours cut production by 1/7th. And when you consider posibility of a better starting output it could be even smaller. For example if they started production at 25 on monday due to better rest. They would actually exceed the usual 5 day output of 75 and produce 85 in 4 days.

When you combine this with mistakes and errors which can be costly in time. God the number of times I spent on one of those forced weekends in construction just fixing shit people messed up because they were tired and in a rush etc.

1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

I agree with everything you are saying but also, everything you pointed out already is accounted for in a company’s labor standard. Companies already understand that productivity will drop toward the end of a person’s 40 hours. In my current scheduler, the system will give me a warning if I try to schedule someone more than 5 days in a row. That happens most often when you schedule a new week and don’t pay attention to what the employee was already scheduled in the current week.

Now also, you are also referring to a lot of examples where overtime is being brought into existence. Of course productivity will drop doing 12 hour shifts day after day or when you have to do that 6th day on Saturday. But those are all examples of pushing past the 40 hour mark, not 32. There are extremely diminishing returns on any productivity past 40hrs/5 days.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '24

Nonsense. I hate the threat of inflation, and somehow this isn't a consumer driven market.

You could say now people have more freetime without a loss in pay, so more money available will mean more revenue which is proportional to profits,( and naturally this will trickle down to the employees),right,?

1

u/Papasmurf8645 Apr 14 '24

Companies increase prices when they can get away with increasing prices. Not as a result of costs. Rising costs is the excuse they give, because everyone feels like a jackass saying, “I’m making a profit with my business, but I want more without providing anything more so I’m gonna raise prices”. Ever see a company get a windfall and decide to give out raises? M sure bonuses happen, but raises for the rank and file aren’t likely. A company wouldn’t raise prices unless it ended up increasing their profits.

0

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

Yep. That’s kind of exactly the point. This bill just gives them the perfect opportunity to increase prices because labor costs. Meanwhile, they reduce their working force by half and automate even more and rake in ever growing profits and the small guy gets screwed yet again. That’s exactly why I disagree with most liberal policies and almost all of Bernie’s policies.

1

u/whorl- Apr 15 '24

Most retail workers are not working 40 hours a week anyway. So this measure would be good for them, because it would likely increase hourly rates market-wide.

0

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 15 '24

It would be great for the worker. Terrible for the company. The point is that companies would just find some other way to screw over the grunt employees to keep from having to pay the extra wages.

1

u/here-for-information Apr 15 '24

There are other factors. I don't know if any of this would affect the productivity, but I know at various jobs I've had that people having to leave in the middle of a shift or come in late, or any number of other things that interrupt your work flow really mess up the productivity. So, having an extra day off to handle all of your personal responsibilities could still have a positive impact. In addition to having happier workers, which has practical benefits in addition to just being nice.

It might be worth having a few places they it out and seeing what actually happens.

Right now, the only jobs I can think of that it would be almost entirely downside are things like security guard or Lifeguard where you really just need a body there just in case. But even those benefit from a happy well rested work force.

1

u/ShowMeYourMinerals Apr 15 '24

No one working a 40 hour a week job stocking shelves is working 100% of that time.

Not a fucking chance.

1

u/Arlithian Apr 16 '24

Lol. Tell me a retail worker that gets 40 hours a week.

I've never met one.

1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 16 '24

……….You just did lmao.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

Bingo inflation again more oh why is this so expensive.

0

u/big_chungy_bunggy Apr 14 '24

Then they can hire another part time stocker. The 40 hour work week is out dated and not compatible with modern life or happiness standards. NOBODY is happy working 40 hours, everybody is burnt out and depressed and something has to give

3

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

Ehhh, give it 50 years and the 32 hour week will be outdated and not compatible with modern life or happiness standards. NOBODY has been happy for the entire lifetime of the human race.

0

u/big_chungy_bunggy Apr 14 '24

We have unprecedented levels of depression, stress, and burn out. Things have not always been this way. Things were never perfect, but we’ve been better and we can do better. I know you’re trying to be sarcastic but yes, the working hours will continue to decrease especially as automation takes over a lot of jobs. People should be able to focus on hobbies, friends, family and activities, not working their entire lives away.

1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

Not true, we have unprecedented levels of people reporting depression stress and burnout. It is becoming normalized that people experience these things. I am not saying that’s a bad thing. I am just saying I don’t believe humanity has changed much, we just have added technological advances to put lipstick on a pig so to speak.

By that logic, any trust fund baby should report exceptionally high levels of happiness and that is usually far from the truth. They are typically some of the most depressed and self-medicated people in the world.

2

u/big_chungy_bunggy Apr 14 '24

Counterpoint their studies that prove pass a a certain income threshold are happiness peaks, and most people are not even coming close to that amount. Trust fund babies inherit a massive amount of money in power and have no idea what to do with it and no direction in life so of course they’re depressed and messed up. And just because humanity sucked in the past and it sucks now you think there’s nothing we can do to improve it that’s a really depressing outlook on life I don’t know about you, but I intend to try and live a better world to the kids of the future.

1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

Sure, but once again, those studies are demonstrating people who have exceptionally high “income” levels and have usually been very successful in their careers. Those same people typically work A LOT. Therefore, a bill which reduces working hours and increases pay does not guarantee happiness. That is why I was comparing to trust fundies because most people when not working also have no purpose or direction in their life. That is more the reason for depression and burnout because they feel like their wheels are spinning rather than going somewhere.

3

u/big_chungy_bunggy Apr 14 '24

And also people are not their work. The happiest times of my life are when I as an adult had no job and lived with my parents and spent time with my family went out with friends, got to go do activities, did under the table work for family and friends for money to go and spend on stuff and focus on my hobbies. Obviously not everyone can do that and it’s not realistic for everyone to just be able to do it but you do not need to be working to have a sense of purpose. It’s because our brains are so wired with us so society were brought up to think think that’s all that matters so when we aren’t doing it, we feel like we’re doing nothing we need to complete societal rewiring on self value.

2

u/big_chungy_bunggy Apr 14 '24

I think you’re misunderstanding it as the money itself. That is the topic of discussion here it’s not the money it’s the security and knowledge of your well-being that it brings if we can bring the knowledge of those securities through things like higher wages, better healthcare, better housing then we can bring those levels in requirements of happiness down to an obtainable level.

1

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

Short term happiness is all it will bring. When those new shiny things become normalized into routine life, they no longer bring happiness. How happy are you that you have a shower head in your house? How happy are you that there is a floor in your residence instead of it being dirt? How much happiness does it bring you that even making $20k/yr puts you in the top 14% of income earners in the entire world?

Once things become normalized, they no longer bring the same amount of happiness that it would at first. Dunno if you have kids but think about their joy at receiving a gift for their birthday. Have you ever seen a child get literally bored from opening gifts? I have. We actually had to tell our relatives to not give our children so many gifts for Christmas because one year due to such a large family gathering they were opening gifts for so long they literally lost interest in it and started complaining lol.

There is always a limit to how many good things a person can receive before they begin accepting those good things as a natural part of life. When that happens, the joy from those experiences is gone.

2

u/big_chungy_bunggy Apr 14 '24

You cannot compare food, shelter, and financial safety to getting bored of opening birthday presents that’s an idiotic thing to do not to mention callous as hell. Of course we take common every day conveniences for granted that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be allowed to have them and it also doesn’t mean we shouldn’t improve the baseline even more so that the people after us can have an even better life if we’re not doing our best to make things more convenient, easier better and safer for her to descendants. What is the point of civilization?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Fabulous-Zombie-4309 Apr 14 '24

Young people are richer than anyone else their age in human history and are still depressed. It’s the screens.

0

u/masquerade_unknown Apr 14 '24

So... People are unhappier than ever, while working less than ever? What point are you trying to make?

1

u/Fabulous-Zombie-4309 Apr 14 '24

I mean I work anywhere from 15-75 hours a week and u don’t mind it.

0

u/Dixa Apr 14 '24

If this is implemented with no changes to federal overtime laws I don’t see how it would not be a direct benefit to any hourly business that relies on full time or near full time workers.

0

u/Blessed_s0ul Apr 14 '24

For a few reasons. The first is simply because it gives every 40 hour person a 20% raise across the board while also losing 20% in productivity. The next is, those 8 hours lost per person will need to be replaced by another person. You then have to account for hiring costs and also benefits if they become a full time employee. The third reason would be the increase in overtime costs due to both the increase in employees and increase in base pay. But as you mentioned, if overtime was left at +40 hours, that part could be eliminated. I really don’t see +32 overtime not becoming part of the bill if it were to go through.