The plenitude economy

[chamaeleo]

Unemployment is rampant. Those fortunate to hold decent jobs don't know how long it'll last, nor do many foresee such opportunities for advancement as our parents enjoyed. We're overworked...the 40 hr week is more of a target than a rule, and though technically a lawful right, overtime pay can be an elusive beast to pin down for employees whose management currently hold all the spades.

Check it:


In a nutshell...on a voluntary basis, reduce the typical fulltime workweek to ~32 hours. 4 normal days or 3 long ones. Consequently, reduce pay in proportion. More time off, longer weekends to actually get out and do fun stuff...or take another job if need be, or even write that book you've been pondering for years.

For every 4 jobs today, one more would be created to fill the labor gap: BOOM, 20% job growth!

Happier workers, they say, are harder workers.

More time for DIY projects, saving consumers money and diversifying their skills.

Fewer childcare conflicts for families, two parents working 4 day schedules might only need the sitter 1 day out of the week.

Less commuting time.

I believe that we're on the verge of a new, more decentralized economy, wherein individuals can empower themselves like never before. The big-company model is crumbling. 20 years ago, Borders was gobbling up their smaller competition...but they themselves have been eradicated in part by small-time vendors selling their wares on Amazon and Ebay! Newspapers are losing to bloggers and webmedia, TV's increasingly web-oriented, Blockbuster and Hollywood Video's are gone, the music industry's failing as independent garage label go viral via social media...the writing is on the wall, plain for anybody to see.

This reduced 'real-world' workschedule might be viewed as an incubator mechanism for entrepreneurship. What would you do, given the option of one extra day off every week, at a reduced salary?

What do you see are potential tradeoffs...advantages, disadvantages?

Employers, supervisors...thoughts?

Dutch members...how's this working out for ya'll?

[Menelik_I]

verdict :

1- hate the lefty class warfare crap.
2- green BS.
3- good idea about work flexibility.

overall C-

[chamaeleo]

verdict :

1- hate the lefty class warfare crap.
2- green BS.
3- good idea about work flexibility.

overall C-

Aw, shucks. I should be glad to have such a dependably reactionary foil, but at least you recognize the flexibility.

I too dislike the gushy greeny puffy-cloud delivery: the fiscal advantages should do the talking. Focusing on that aspect: what do you specifically like about the reduced workweek concept?

"why should i share my 160k salary job with you? I doubt you are even qualified."

I don't want your job.

However: would you trade it for a meager 128k salary, with 3 day weekends? An extra 52 vacation days each year, to do whatever it is you enjoy most? That is the question you need to consider.

[bushbush]

I don't want your job.

However: would you trade it for a meager 128k salary, with 3 day weekends? An extra 52 vacation days each year, to do whatever it is you enjoy most? That is the question you need to consider.

It might not be up to me at that point. My family might need that extra 32k a year. And frankly, 52 days of vacation sounds pretty boring. I think 3 weeks a year is good enough.

My point is that it is really hard to convince people to give up their jobs (partially here) and salary to other people. I don't expect others to do it for me and I don't want to do it for others. We already pay taxes to redistribute incomes, why redistribute my job too?

[Rolling Thunder]

It might not be up to me at that point. My family might need that extra 32k a year. And frankly, 52 days of vacation sounds pretty boring. I think 3 weeks a year is good enough.

You must have an incredibly dull social life.


This is an idea that, frankly, isn't that brilliant as of now. But it is likely to happen as increased mechanisation takes over.

[bushbush]

You must have an incredibly dull social life.


This is an idea that, frankly, isn't that brilliant as of now. But it is likely to happen as increased mechanisation takes over.

Meh, I don't think I can only have a good social life during vacation. Not to mention providing a good life for my family is more important for me than "social life." If I am making minimum wage, what is the point of "social life" if I can't have my family live in a nice house and my kids going to good schools.

I guess people want different things in life. I just feel great doing the things I love, which happens to be legal studies and lawyering. I am bored already during the two week Christmas break I typically have. I will admit that working in a law firm can be tedious but the key is to have a good balance (or find a place that allows you to have such balance).

And I really haven't met too many successful people who actually wants to give up some of his work for 52 days of vacation, at least not younger ones. Any motivated individual who wants to realize his or her self-worth will work harder than that and they know they have to work harder than that to achieve their dreams. You should too. That is why this whole scheme doesn't make much sense --- people with good jobs don't want to give up their jobs to others.

[Menelik_I]

Aw, shucks. I should be glad to have such a dependably reactionary foil

thanks to oblige

I too dislike the gushy greeny puffy-cloud delivery: the fiscal advantages should do the talking. Focusing on that aspect: what do you specifically like about the reduced workweek concept?

1 - Allow people to be more flexible about their workload and thus would increase performance, ie if you value your free time more than an extra $5k, you have a choice.
2- all in favor of anything that favor liberty of contract.

But what would happen if it goes the other way ? some people decide to prolong their workweek ? would you let them do it ?

Something that the video dance around and fail to focus on is that anything ressembling full employement would require a lot of self-employed people.

[Condottiere 40K]

Seems a little too idealistic; you'd have to massively change the work culture, and not be afraid of the guy in India or China who'd happily work 20% longer for half your salary.

On the other hand, if you have a hot girlfriend with similar and corresponding time off, the non-consumption aspect might work, not including calories.

[Claudius Gothicus]

I can see the disadvantage of producing for large demographics on a large scale, and that simply turns me off from any ''small oriented system''... you can't feed 300 million consumers with a heavily decentralized and chaotic system.

Who's gonna have enough capital(in both terms of organizational instruments and machines) to mass-produce the everyday objects of our lives without falling into a massive artisan like -disaggregation of the productive process?

I know the Western World has already developed out-sourcing for that kind of thing but... a multitude of decentralized productive subjects simply doesn't look like the way to sustain an economy numbering 300 million consumers.

[bushbush]

"why should i share my 160k salary job with you? I doubt you are even qualified."

[Menelik_I]

"why should i share my 160k salary job with you? I doubt you are even qualified."

Would be fun if some people decide to work even more to reach 250k salary job

[Denny Crane!]

Man I'm just guessing you've never been involved in serious work or the proposer hasn't. When you run a big project or co-ordinate a team you simply can't just turn it over, turning it over to someone else would have doubled my workload when I was organising the UK team and not only that I wouldn't have wanted a paycut because quite frankly I didn't have a load of money to begin with given my mortgage and supporting my spouse.

[LSJ]

Less hours means less money, and unless goods and services become cheaper (which won't happen) or employers pay more (which makes no sense for them) the average person will not benefit. When you work for $10.25/hour and live in Toronto, you need every penny. Going from 40 to 32 hours a week is the difference between having an apartment of your own and having to share one. For the idea to work, it would have to be implemented in a coordinated fashion so as to change the value of the money people have, so that the short work week actually provides what one needs to live. That won't happen.

[The Fishman]

In before 'climate change is a hoax'...

[Menelik_I]

In before 'climate change is a hoax'...

[The Fishman]

Hahahaha. That was quite clever. Well, except the fact that climate change isn't some religious cult Al Gore just invented, it's an established scientific theory which has been around for decades.

Evidence for global warming:
It's clear that the climate is changing (we know this from temperature records and other data)
It's clear that CO² is a 'greenhouse' gas (discovered in the 19th century)
It's clear that we are emitting vast amounts of CO² (discovered in the 19th century)

Therefore, it stands to reason that the climate changes we are observing are being driven in large part by our CO² emissions.

The temperature increases of the late 20th century do not correlate with any other possible cause. Volcanism obviously isn't interfering, and current solar activity levels should in fact be cooling the world down. No significant natural release of greenhouse gasses is known to have occurred in the last 50 years.

We also know from geological evidence that mass greenhouse gas releases are followed by mass extinctions and climatic upheaval. It is incredibly naive to think that these changes will somehow be beneficial to the world as a whole, especially in a human timespan.

Evidence against global warming:
Some scientists in a single university might have been involved in some slightly unprofessional activities

Some of the current figures might be a bit off

Regulating emissions would require a big government, and this would benefit Communists/Fascists/Illuminati

Computer models are sometimes wrong, so there must be nothing to worry about!

Jesus doesn't say anything about it



Hmm, this is a tough one!

[Treize]

Dutch members...how's this working out for ya'll?

Que?

[GrnEyedDvl]

Its sad that people actually think like this.

Unemployment is rampant.

Decreasing work hours will not change this.

Those fortunate to hold decent jobs don't know how long it'll last, nor do many foresee such opportunities for advancement as our parents enjoyed.

Says who? For every study you see like that, I can point to someone like myself who is self employed and is doing better than ever. I may have a record year this year.

We're overworked...the 40 hr week is more of a target than a rule, and though technically a lawful right, overtime pay can be an elusive beast to pin down for employees whose management currently hold all the spades.

This attitude is the problem. I havent worked a 40 hour week for more than 20 years. Its more like 70. And I do it because I want to, because it produces results.

Check it:
In a nutshell...on a voluntary basis, reduce the typical fulltime workweek to ~32 hours. 4 normal days or 3 long ones. Consequently, reduce pay in proportion.

When many people are already living paycheck to paycheck, you expect this to work? Especially when basic stuff like food, fuel, and utilities are going way up?

More time off, longer weekends to actually get out and do fun stuff...or take another job if need be, or even write that book you've been pondering for years.

I want to make sure I understand the logic here. Reduce your hours and your pay so that you can take another job? Even if you make the same wages, you lose the travel time between jobs and spend more money traveling. How the hell does this help anyone?

For every 4 jobs today, one more would be created to fill the labor gap: BOOM, 20% job growth!

More flawed math. Seriously flawed. You might end up with more jobs, but you havent changed the stuff that drives the. Namely production. The GDP stays the same at best, in the real world it would go down as you lose all the overhead tied up in managing this. Its a pipe dream.

Fewer childcare conflicts for families, two parents working 4 day schedules might only need the sitter 1 day out of the week.

When someone reduces their pay from their primary job and takes a second job, how the hell does that reduce childcare conflicts?

Less commuting time.

See above.

Employers, supervisors...thoughts?

I already posted a bunch. As an employer its a nightmare, I now have to manage paperwork for 2 employees, not just 1. And increase my workmans comp, and insurance, and SS payments, and all kinds of other stuff, for absolutely no increase in productivity. Not to mention trying to schedule people. Obviously you have never run a business.

[xcorps]

I already posted a bunch. As an employer its a nightmare, I now have to manage paperwork for 2 employees, not just 1. And increase my workmans comp, and insurance, and SS payments, and all kinds of other stuff, for absolutely no increase in productivity. Not to mention trying to schedule people. Obviously you have never run a business.

This.

Only in sales can you expect a direct increase in revenue to compensate for the increase in wage expense, but even in sales it doesn't take much to saturate an area and keep the entire salesforce broke.

[GrnEyedDvl]

This.

Only in sales can you expect a direct increase in revenue to compensate for the increase in wage expense, but even in sales it doesn't take much to saturate an area and keep the entire salesforce broke.

Well you can increase revenues through higher production as well, but not under this template. If it costs you $10,000 to make 10,000 units and you can figure out a way to lower that cost to $9,000 you have increased your profit by $1,000. But you are not going to do that by making ridiculous changes like this to your workforce.