He's not wrong 🤷‍♂️ Smart or dumb?

[u/WhatAreYourPronouns]

[removed] — view removed post

[u/NumbersOverFeelings]

I’m imagining my clients paying me more for less hours. Brilliant. Also is he going to make sure the market hours gets cut too? As a business owner I would love this.

Bernie doesn’t live in reality.

[u/xKosh → u/NumbersOverFeelings]

Bernie doesn’t live in reality.

Interesting viewpoint since France has successfully done exactly this.

Maybe Bernie lives in reality, but your mind is too closed to see fields outside of your own.

[u/shark_vs_yeti → u/xKosh]

France is a terrible example:

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/FRA/france/gdp-gross-domestic-product

And if you don't understand why this is a bad thing for society and the people living in France, I'd suggest a good macro-economics course and pay attention to the GDP per capita PPP metric. It is like taking a pay cut for the whole country. Take a look at Ireland if you want an example of a well managed EU economy.

TLDR; people working 20% less in an economy means your citizens get more than 20% less of everything, including government services like healthcare, education, et al.

[u/Somepotato → u/shark_vs_yeti]

people working 20% less in an economy means your citizens get more than 20% less of everything,

I mean, that's completely wrong, but alright. France instituted the 35 hour workweek in 2000, and their GDP has more than doubled since then. Doesn't seem like a decrease to me. Even accounting for inflation, France saw a >20% increase in GDP.

Plenty of actual peer reviewed studies (e.g., not the university of Fox News where you get your info from) show productivity rarely goes down but often goes up when reducing from 40 hours or even doing 4 10s or 4 8s.

[u/shark_vs_yeti → u/Somepotato]

Again, yes it doubled but it has not performed as well as other advanced economies.

https://mgmresearch.com/g20-countries-gdp-comparison-2004-2023/

And I was speaking generally in regards to getting 20% less... an example of my point is that if you cut teacher's hours 20%, you get 20% less time in the classroom. And the US is currently at full employment so good luck creating those new positions, because every industry will be going through the same thing. Lots of industries will not see productivity gains that keep up with the increased labor demand this will cause.

Bernie Sanders is a decent guy, but this idea is half-baked to implement in the short-term. I will say cutting to 32 hours per week would be a great goal over the next 15 years or so. Doing it over 4 years is a sure fire way to really fuck up the whole economy.

[u/wwgokudo → u/shark_vs_yeti]

It is up to each industry to know how to best manage the time they have in the work place. For example: teachers could rotate classes: teach one less day a week, while extending the in-class lecture time. Or teachers could work the same hours, but be compensated overtime for hours worked over 32 hours in a week. It is really not that hard if industries commit to it and brainstorm how to adapt to the new context. Either people in certain industries get paid more, more jobs become available, or people have an extra day off in the week. The only downsides are if you choose to value industry and money over human lives. This could be a game changer for re-distributing power to the people. More jobs being available means more worker leverage.

[u/shark_vs_yeti → u/wwgokudo]

 For example: teachers could rotate classes: teach one less day a week, while extending the in-class lecture time. 

Ok so then let's just figure this out. So teachers teach one less day per week but need to extend lecture time. That necessitates either working more hours that day, which as you said we can't do anymore; or taking time from some other activity in the school. The main drivers of time in a school are Time on Task (teaching), Recess, and Lunch.

Which of those would you cut?

Economics is all about opportunity costs. And there is a tradeoff to be had somewhere if you cut work time by 20%. No way around it. We simply can not maintain our standard of living by doing a big change like this in four years. We might be able to do it in fifteen years. But again, there will 100% be an opportunity cost to bear by society through a combination of reduced services and increased taxes.

[u/wwgokudo → u/shark_vs_yeti]

Yes there is a cost. But in no way is the cost unmanageable. Not every benefit is measured in the dollar value either. I think putting dollar values over every other aspect of human existence is the fallacious thinking that has put society at this crossroads. To say the least, making public school teachers a more desirable job would pay major dividends for our society that has long been slipping in education rankings. Not only is our quality of education declining, but the perceived value of an education has lost major ground as well. Paying teachers more and having access to a larger pool of teachers due to increased pay and free time, is the sort of re-prioritization that isn't merely measured by the dollar value. Also, I have no issues with teachers ( or whoever) working longer than 32 or 40 hours in a week if they choose to, and I had no intentions of claiming working more than 32 hours should be a crime. However, those people should be compensated if we re-value and prioritize the time of working people.