Should U.S. Workers Be Forced To Work Less?
	found on: CNN written by arcanis, edited by Tim (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Tue 6 Aug 5:40am
		We've got all these new technologies, they're raising productivity, we think we may be on the cusp of one of the greatest technology advances in history in the 21st century, why aren't we talking seriously about raising the idea of a 35-hour workweek, or a 30, or even a 25? "A short transcript of a Crossfire segment asks whether or not the U.S. workweek should be shortened, and whether or not the U.S. government should mandate required vacation time for U.S. workers in an effort to improve overall productivity by reducing stress." arcanis writes, "The transcript is short on insight, but the idea that with all the productivity improvements of the computer era, the work week should be shortened, is compelling. When the modern worker is capable of producing much more per unit time than a worker from, say, fifty years ago, why is that worker working as many hours per week? And, since stress levels seem to be up at many jobs, would forcing people to take time off help to improve their productivity even more? As the fisherman in the article says, 'So we're at war, the economy is tanking; if our president and our vice president can [go fishing], why can't we?'"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 105 commentsmost: 17 commentsbest: 7 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Question   by WastingMy       at Tue 6 Aug 5:56am score of 1     Do we really need to forced to work less?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Re: Question   by Custer       at Tue 6 Aug 6:14am score of 3.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 1     Yes. When one is conditioned to believe that the purpose of life is to justify your existence by working, consuming, and accumulating wealth, one does need to be forced. Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking. -- J. M. Keynes   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   6.  Or, another scenario.   by MAYORBOB       at Tue 6 Aug 6:46am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 3     When one is currently performing the tasks which used to require an additional body because the company has reached such peaks of efficiency that they could lay off some excess bodies, your willingness to work those extra hours are more a matter of seeking to survive rather than a matter of protecting your self image. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: Question - some thoughts   by PenguinSushi       at Tue 6 Aug 10:45am score of 2 intriguing   in reply to comment 3     very true - but, despite the continued efforts of our very capitalistic & materialistic society, there are those of us who do not define who we are by how we earn money. Also, even people who DO define their existence by what they 'do' generally fall into one of two attitudes about work. 1) really enjoy their job, and so, do not need the extra vacation time because they are not stressed to the point the article wants to avoid 2) do not like their job and look for any opportunity to get out of work so they can pursue the hobbies/interests that give them fulfillment ...therefore, according to this line of thinking, the only people who need to be forced to take off are essentially mindless drones anyway because they are blind to the fact that there is more to life than accumulation & consumption. "One Penguin To Rule Them All..."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Question   by Ayn Marx       at Tue 6 Aug 11:14am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 3     When one is conditioned to believe that the purpose of life is to justify your existence by working, consuming, and accumulating wealth, one does need to be forced. And just who is conditioned? They dumb masses, sans you? Awfully presumptuous to believe you have some special insight that justifies the use of force against other people, who are (of course) not as wise as you. What should we do with all those people who have been conditioned to believe that they have the right to force others to behave the "right" way? Mde_de_ondragon? WTF?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  Nice to know...   by mad_clown       at Tue 6 Aug 12:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     there's people like you who have no qualms about forcing others to conform to your definition of what is right and what is wrong. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: Or, another scenario.   by Custer       at Tue 6 Aug 6:58am score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 6     What you describe is actually the same scenario and demonstrates why it must be forced. Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking. -- J. M. Keynes   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  I see it as a subtle difference.   by MAYORBOB       at Tue 6 Aug 7:13am score of 1   in reply to comment 10     I read your comment to be the socializing implications of The Protestant Work Ethic writ large upon the working class, with the emphasis being placed on working harder, earning more, spending more, accumulating more, which in turn makes you want to work harder, etc. My point was really that, due to more efficient means of production, the workers tend to be required to do more. The ones who are left on the payroll view working the overtime and killing oneself at work as avoiding the abyss (or at least the uncertainty) of unemployment. I'm sorry if I can't explain the distinction I sense any better than that. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: I see it as a subtle difference.   by Custer       at Tue 6 Aug 7:28am score of 2.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 12     Feeling like you have to work long hours just to keep your job isn't a problem if nobody else is allowed to work long hours either. I don't mean to say the ambitious Protestant is evil, I'm saying the ambitious Protestant must not be allowed to force everyone else into his way of life. Or, to look at the lack of difference from another angle: your worker's fear of losing ones job is the same as my worker's conditioning. Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking. -- J. M. Keynes   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Question - some thoughts   by jarmell       at Tue 6 Aug 11:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 27     I just want to challenge the exclusivity of your first category. I think it's possible to be stressed out and still enjoy the work you do. As a matter of fact, I think any job or career that can be considered 'fufilling' has to be at least a little stressful, or else, where's the sense of accomplishment?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: Or, another scenario.   by doogie       at Tue 6 Aug 11:17am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     I believe that mindset is actually more prevalent in the public sector rather than the private sector. Enjoy it, 'till they tell you it will kill you...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: Question - some thoughts [cont]   by PenguinSushi       at Tue 6 Aug 11:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 35     good point - well taken. There are exceptions to everything. However, i think even with that addendum, the point still holds pretty true....but perhaps you've poked a nice hole in it for discussion... "One Penguin To Rule Them All..."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: Question   by Custer       at Tue 6 Aug 11:55am score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 37     They dumb masses, sans you? Awfully presumptuous to believe you have some special insight that justifies the use of force against other people, who are (of course) not as wise as you. Perhaps, but then it's pretty presumptuous of you to assume I don't include myself. Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking. -- J. M. Keynes   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Question   by SteamboatDreamboat       at Tue 6 Aug 10:40am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     Do we really need to forced to work less? Only when I'm doing what I love. "When life hands you lemons, make coffee... and then you'll have the desire to make lemonade." --Jon Friedman   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Yes, because it's the standard   by VesuviusDC       at Tue 6 Aug 10:46am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     Ask any HR department at any compnay across the US, and you will be told that 40 hrs/week is the "standard". Pay rates, contracts, and salaries are all based on this number. If a salaried employee works less than 40 hours (in many cases, if he or she ONLY works 40 hours), it is a detriment to their employment record. They must justify this with vacation time, sick time, or both. So, yes ... if we are going to change the standard work week from 40 to 35 or 30 hours, it must be understood by everyone as the new standard. 40 hours is also the standard for many companies to pay overtime ... in lower paid hourly jobs, anyway.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   99.  Why not flexible standards?   by rananite       at Wed 7 Aug 11:01am score of 1   in reply to comment 28     Why not just give workers the option of working 35 hours or 40 hours? Those who want to receive less money for the option of working fewer hours, can do so. Those who want to continue working the normal shift for the same salary can do so too. The government just needs to mandate that no one can be fired as a result of his or her selection of work hours (with some exceptions, say, for companies with fewer than eight employees). Yes, HR departments will have to change their accounting systems, but that, too, will increase productivity (esp. among companies that make HR software, such as the one I work in)! While we're at it, we could make dollars and hours freely exchangeable, so anyone could get fairly paid for overtime. Allow us to fully negotiate the terms of our labor, instead of acquiescing to the employers' insistence on an artificial "standard" biased in their favor...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  A quick solution   by cptnrandy       at Tue 6 Aug 5:56am score of 2.5 brilliant     Less productivity: Introduce them to Plastic. Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  who can afford to work less?   by waldeaux       at Tue 6 Aug 6:14am score of 1.5 compelling     with unemployment (in some areas) as high as it is, and with wages as low as they are (well, unless you're a CEO with a golden parachute), who can afford to have a 35, 30, or 25-hour work week? I'd LOVE to have as much time off from my job as, say, the Germans do, but I really doubt that if people curtail their hours by 25%, that their employers will give them a 25% raise to cover it, esp. when so many are cutting back on medical and insurance coverage as it is. Right now I'd like to be able to find a house within 50 miles of Boston that can be purchased on a VA loan. From the looks of things, veterans only live in Fargo where housing is still affordable. Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Re: who can afford to work less?   by ddp42       at Tue 6 Aug 7:20am score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 4     I, too, "doubt that if people curtail their hours by 25%, that their employers will give them a 25% raise to cover it," but for very large corporations where top execs get compensation that can be as high as 600 times what their average worker earns, some kind of cap on what executives get could release some funds for such a purpose. Limiting compensation differential to, say, a factor of 100, would hardly force starvation on the guys at the top. It might even have another positive side effect: I've read how companies say they have to offer incredible amounts in order to get the best top executives. Given the state companies like Enron are in right now, it doesn't sound as if that technique actually works, mind you (if these were really the best leaders the companies could get, we are in a deep quicksand of do-do) , but a legal cap on recompense would release companies from an apparently infinitely-increasing one-upsmanship in hiring practices. Good luck, waldeaux, on the house hunting! Not all flowers open in the morning.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: who can afford to work less?   by waldeaux       at Tue 6 Aug 8:31am score of 1   in reply to comment 13     well, see they're looking in the wrong places aren't they? I'd take the job with training for only 60x the lowest paid worker! Pick me! Pick me! Resume available on request... :-) Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   97.  Re: who can afford to work less?   by superdude       at Wed 7 Aug 10:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     with unemployment (in some areas) as high as it is, and with wages as low as they are (well, unless you're a CEO with a golden parachute), who can afford to have a 35, 30, or 25-hour work week? Companies don't pay the salaries they pay now out of a sense of social responsibility. They pay what the market will bear. What the market will bear isn't going to change because we have a 35-hour week. As for unemployment: Reducing the work week was, in France, a response to high unemployment. Assuming productivity remains constant, a company will need to hire more workers to make up for the output lost by reducing the working week.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   109.  Re: who can afford to work less?   by mattlee       at Wed 7 Aug 8:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     Fargo is very close to some very good Minnesota resort areas, I say go for it!! You'll have a smaller salary but a much higher quality of life. I heard on NPR that some areas of Boston has jut realized a $100,000 home price increase in just 6 months. WTF? Are scared Manhattanites This seems a lot like writing letters to the editor.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Web's Smartest Readers   by zyxwvutsr       at Tue 6 Aug 6:30am score of 1.5 informative     Been there. Done that.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

51.  Web's Crotchetiest Readers   by MandaX       at Tue 6 Aug 11:55am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     Been there. Done that. Yes, about 16 months ago. If we limited stories on Plastic to topics that haven't been covered in, say, the last year and a half, we'd have precious little to talk about. Besides, many of our current members weren't around to contribute to the previous discussion. Think of it as a chance for you as an "old-timer" to impart your received wisdom to a new audience. I think we're going crazy, things don't even faze me.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   85.  Re: Web's Crotchsctatchingest Readers   by zyxwvutsr       at Tue 6 Aug 3:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 51     'Think of it as a chance for you as an "old-timer" to impart your received wisdom to a new audience. Indeed. And what better way to impart a smidgen of Plastic's collective wisdom on a subject than through a self-referential hyperlink?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Legislate at least one day off for everybody   by Brian Jones       at Tue 6 Aug 6:48am score of 2.5 clever     Election Day. Pull some other holiday off the federal calendar if necessary. Long as we're tinkering, move Election Day to September 11. The significance of the date alone should put a crimp in the most ridiculous of campaign skulduggerances, and in presidential election years there'll be more time for transition. (I'd also move the Inaugural to 8 a.m. on January 1, just to mess with all the drunken sots in DC.) Or move it to a Wednesday (or Sunday - yes, I agree with the French on this one). Less temptation to create a long weekend replete with clogged roads and super-mega-sales on new, used and reconditioned mattresses that absolutely MUST BE SOLD! As for regular vacation time, I suggest that it only be mandated at companies whose lead executives own second homes - in which case, once a year all workers go into a lottery, with winners getting a week to bring their drinking buddies up to the boss's place in Aspen or the Hamptons. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Re: Legislate at least one day off for everybody   by Custer       at Tue 6 Aug 7:12am score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 7     Hear hear. In fact, I'd go a step further: You only get the day off if you vote. People who really can't take the day off would be allowed to vote-by-mail and in return would get a voucher for an extra day off some other day. Next, we vote for free bread! Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking. -- J. M. Keynes   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  I don't want anything like compulsory voting   by Brian Jones       at Tue 6 Aug 11:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     Or rewards for voting. If, after making it as easy to vote as is humanly possible, people still can't be bothered, then screw 'em. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: Legislate at least one day off for everybody   by holgate       at Tue 6 Aug 7:30am score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 7     Long as we're tinkering, move Election Day to September 11. Want to wave that shroud a bit more, just so we can see it on this side of the Atlantic? (How about moving it to today, just to sober people up?)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   88.  Hey, we're desperate over here   by Brian Jones       at Tue 6 Aug 6:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 15     Anything to stop the arriving barrage of campaign commercials: Dick Democrat wants to mandate the cannibalization of unborn babies! Ralph Republican wants to fill your children's playground with jagged shards of glass! (disclaimer: Paid for by a wealthy recluse who at this moment is humping a 12-year-old Greek boy at his estate in the Hamptons.) Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Legislate at least one day off for everybody   by nickdrake       at Tue 6 Aug 9:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 7     Everybody who donates a pint of blood to the Red Cross gets a day-off coupon, too!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  mandatory vacation   by eidilon       at Tue 6 Aug 6:49am score of 2.5 astute     The problem with this is that it overlooks the fact that a lot of people like working. By that I don't necessarily mean they enjoy work but rather that it provides a certain something that they don't get elsewhere. Work provides a structure to your life; for the most part it provides strong guidelines about what you should be doing, when, where, how you should be dressed, and so on. It provides a structured set of relationships and responsibilities. It often provides a potential for fulfillment that is otherwise lacking from life. It provides a temporary escape from your imperfect family. When you look at the reasons why workaholics work as much as they do you find that not only are there a lot of reasons, but they are also essentially present in all of us when we work. I saw a quote once that went something like, "Why are millions of people interested in immortality when they don't even know what to do this weekend?" Will shortening the work week really accomplish anything? Has it accomplished anything in France? Or are the real problems unrelated to how much vacation time you have?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Why Would I Want Less Hours   by bitflip       at Tue 6 Aug 6:54am score of 3 witty     Why would I want to cut back the number of hours I goof off? When else would I pay my bills? Shop? Get the oil changed in my truck? Read Plastic? If we cut back the number of work hours, I may have to do those things on my time, and I ain't having that, no sir! I'm not psychotic. I'm disturbed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  back in oh...1999   by wetkarma       at Tue 6 Aug 7:32am score of 1.5 brilliant     My fellow geeks were working 80 sometimes 100hour weeks prepping for Y2K. Did we want to work 35 hr weeks? Not if we were going to be COMPENSATED for the amount of productivity a 35 hr week produces. I can't believe that anyone would hold up France as a shining example for what work ethic is supposed to be. The french don't even have enough energy to fight for their own soil, and we're supposed to take guidance from them? Shifting the work week from 40 hrs to 35 hrs is a savings of roughly 1 hr per day. The average commuter time is just short of an hour. A better solution it seems to me would be to increase transportation capacity, telecommuting jobs, as well as locate work places nearer to homes. This way people can take back that portion of their lives which is increasingly spent in automobiles. Ceterum censeo socialsecuritatem esse delendam.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Re: back in oh...1999   by emperorpenguin       at Tue 6 Aug 8:25am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 16     The average commuter time is just short of an hour. A better solution it seems to me would be to increase transportation capacity, telecommuting jobs, as well as locate work places nearer to homes. This way people can take back that portion of their lives which is increasingly spent in automobiles. Sounds easy, right? I'll agree on the telecommuting as an actual solution, but not everyone will be able to do that. Many jobs continue to require working away from home. Locate work places closer to homes? It used to be, in the olden days, that people lived close to where they worked. Then we developed 'increased transportation capacity' and people found that they could live farther away with the same commute time. People just drive instead of walk or take public transportation. I don't think there's a simple way to cut down on commuting times. If you make commuting twice as fast, people will just live twice as far away. If you really want to cut down on commute times, the solutions are more complicated -- controlling sprawl, urban revitalization, and better public transit can all help but they are difficult to implement and even more difficult to ensure that these accomplish desired goals. everything moves real slow when it's forty below   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  As to commuting time   by ddp42       at Tue 6 Aug 8:57am score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 16     If people were willing (and employers agreeable), working 35 hours a week but doing it in four days instead of five (or more) would also give people that extra commute time as their own, in addition to (depending on what people actually do on that extra day off), save them toll fees, make traffic less crowded, and cut down on pollution from cars. And in some industries, the four-day workers might be working different four-day segments of the week, making recreational spots more evenly used (fewer people would have to cram in their lakeside visit on Saturday/Sunday) and perhaps even spreading out shopping more evenly throughout the week. All of this might also, of course, have a ripple effect requiring other changes in how recreational, retail, and various businesses operate, but it would be interesting to see this tried somewhere on a scale that would let us see the ramifications. Perhaps it already has - anyone know of examples and their results? Not all flowers open in the morning.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Oh, fuck off.   by vurt       at Tue 6 Aug 10:40am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 16     I can't believe that anyone would hold up France as a shining example for what work ethic is supposed to be. The french don't even have enough energy to fight for their own soil, and we're supposed to take guidance from them? When, oh when, will people stop reguritating that lame and hackneyed "example" of What the French Are Like? Grow up, wetkarma. Read some history. The French also didn't bother staying in Vietnam past '54--wow, we showed them, huh? Your suggestion, however, is good, except for its lack of suggesting how we'd ever pay for it, or even get people to want to ride mass transit instead of driving to work. And if you're terminally bored / fall in behind the motorcade and lock the doors / money money!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   96.  Re: back in oh...1999   by superdude       at Wed 7 Aug 9:23am score of 1   in reply to comment 16     My fellow geeks were working 80 sometimes 100hour weeks prepping for Y2K. I'll bet 40 of those hours were spent fixing the mistakes your exhausted coworkers made the night before. So why not just work 40 hours, and not screw up so much? Because then you don't get to go around boring everyone with stories about how hard you work? Very few people are so special they need to work more than 40 hours a week. Very few are so special they need to work more than 20 hours per week, really. But the workplace is competetive, and it's a lot easier for a supervisor to see who's still in the office at 7pm than it is to measure productivity. So people sit at their desks reading Plastic, playing games, instant messaging their friends, and just generally running out the clock. God forbid they should do the solid two hours of work they actually need to do then go home. That's a sure way to get fired, or at least passed over for promotion. A government regulation can fix that by changing the rules of the game. Instead of competing on the basis of who is willing to spend the most time in the office, we can compete based on who is most productive within an amount of time that allows people to pursue interests outside of work. I say, to hell with the 35-hour week. Let's make it a 20-hour week and see how much productivity really suffers.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   105.  Re: back in oh...1999   by wetkarma       at Wed 7 Aug 1:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 96     I'll bet 40 of those hours were spent fixing the mistakes your exhausted coworkers made the night before. So why not just work 40 hours, and not screw up so much? Because then you don't get to go around boring everyone with stories about how hard you work? This has to be a troll. Are you serious? Do you have any concept of what it takes to overhaul an entire global network, or stress test millions of lines of code or even the remotest clue as to what it takes to generally increase a businesses fault tolerance/uptime from 2 nines to three? The fact is that at the height of the dot com boom people were working these hours, and it was not spent surfing the net. You might think that there is no possible reason that people would be required to have that level of productivity, but your belief is more a reflection of your disassociation/general cluelessness with enterprise environments instead of having any grounding in reality. I don't what job it is -you- do, but for people on the forefront of technology a 50 hr week is considered light. Moreover in the era of budget cut backs and layoffs, every single bit of that time is usually accountable to a particular project/implementation. There are no slackers left in most fortune 500 companies, and definetly none left in consulting companies. Ceterum censeo socialsecuritatem esse delendam.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   107.  Re: back in oh...1999   by superdude       at Wed 7 Aug 4:05pm score of 1   in reply to comment 105     Are you serious? Do you have any concept of what it takes to overhaul an entire global network, or stress test millions of lines of code or even the remotest clue as to what it takes to generally increase a businesses fault tolerance/uptime from 2 nines to three? The poster said he was pulling 80-100 hours a week. I say, if you can still function effectively at your job after Hour 79, then your job must not be very intellectually demanding. In that case, we can hire some recent grads to take some of the load off so you don't have to work so much. I know that in software development, there is often one developer on a project who is absolutely indispensable, but come on... fixing Y2K bugs wasn't the engineering equivalent of, say, creating the operating system and GUI for the first Macintosh. It was a lot of grunt work done by mostly anonymous programmer drones, most of whom were interchangeable. I know, people don't like to think of themselves as interchangeable drones--especially programmers. But most people are, at least in their working capacity. Assuming you're not Albert Einstein (and trust me, you're not) there are plenty of people who can do your job. You're just not that special. If you're seriously working 80 hours a week, then your employer is screwing you. They need to hire someone else to share your workload. If they can't afford to, then, well, something's seriously wrong with their business model. Witness the collapse of the technology sector that was, until recently, working its employees to death. As for the dotcom boom... in spite of all those hours worked, no one at these companies seems to have come up with a coherent strategy for making a profit. A lot of people spent a lot of time and money keeping track of the latest buzzwords and writing software that ultimately didn't have a reason to exist. Perhaps if some of those people had taken some time to reflect and put things in perspective, things wouldn't have gone so badly?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   114.  Re: back in oh...1999   by blather       at Fri 9 Aug 3:52pm score of 1   in reply to comment 105     Almost nobody can do 80 quality hours of work a week for any considerable length of time. I've worked in software startups that relied on small teams of really brilliant and suicidally committed people: Almost nobody can put in 80 quality hours a week. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  Hell yeah!   by alaffin       at Tue 6 Aug 8:43am score of 1.5 astute     I also think that we should be forced to drink beer and receive oral sex from attractive members of our preferred gender! And we should be forced to take long vacations in beautiful tropical locations! And we should all be forced to live in huge mansions and drive luxury cars too! We'll just use all the money we get when we take all of Iraq's oil to pay for the whole thing right? satire   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  The French case   by LoRes       at Tue 6 Aug 8:43am score of 3 informative     I haven't really followed French news in detail for a while, but short-term effects of the mandatory 35 hours are like this: - Small companies (artisans, restaurants) complain they can't hire additional workforce (price & qualifications), so they usually strike a deal with their employees for a little raise in salary and a normal 39 hours week. - Medium and large companies don't grunt too much. I don't know of any study on the overall result on productivity levels. - The entertainment and tourism sectors are booming. - Charities get many more volunteers. And the people? - Untrained workforce and students love it, they can find many more part-time jobs. - Clocking employees love it, they usually get a day free every two weeks for a nominal drop in salary. - Engineers and the kind love it too, they usually get 8 or 9 weeks of vacation for the same salary. - Owners of small companies don't like it at all, because the cost directly comes from their pocket. Both owners and employees of said companies must usually work too much to take advantage of the shortened week. In the end, everybody I talked to and heard of is happy with the new situation, except for artisans, shopkeepers, agricultors, and all kinds of small businessmen. Of course long terms effects are not really taken into account, and are probably too complex to even be accurately predicted - what if the burden becomes too heavy for the little companies, what if there is a shortage of qualified workers for specific industries, what if shareholders lose money because companies do less profit, or for the matter what if productivity actually stays stable while unemployment goes down? But the general feeling is that the loss of a little income and a little corporate profit are more than compensated by the extra quality of life. The new right-wing government, who were at first fervently opposed to the 35 hours week, are now merely talking about relaxing the rules and allowing longer weeks under certain conditions, provided proper compensation. Which makes perfect sense to me. I am not concerned by the work time reduction, but I think it's a big step forward for liberty from social norms. It sends the message that wealth and status are not ends in themselves, and that if one prefers so there are other paths to live well. It provides a middle-ground to the slacker/high-performer duality that doesn't cut off on all luxury. It effectively ensures that some of the gains in productivity are redistributed to people rather than corporations. I hope time will tell granting this freedom was a major idea in the improvement of society.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

63.  Re: The French case   by JamesOfTheDesert       at Tue 6 Aug 12:45pm score of 1   in reply to comment 20     I hope time will tell granting this freedom was a major idea in the improvement of society. This "granting of freedom" is all happening under the threat of force, i.e., at the point of a gun, right? Hope it's worth it. - - - - - - - - - - - - Every law means a gun.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   77.  Re: The French case   by LoRes       at Tue 6 Aug 2:29pm score of 1   in reply to comment 63     Yes, it is, although the new government is soon going to replace the gun with a smaller one. But then how could it happen otherwise? Do you believe corporations would grant this on their good will alone, or would be happy to participate into any major social change, for the matter? Law isn't the only threat of force to apply on a given entity. Market and economy are also one. In this case the law aims to balance the force of market with its own, to avoid non-corporeal entities taking precedence over humans. It may have found a correct balance and succeed, or it may tip it too much and fail. In any case, I consider it a worthwhile experiment.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   98.  Re: The French case   by superdude       at Wed 7 Aug 10:48am score of 1   in reply to comment 63     This "granting of freedom" is all happening under the threat of force, i.e., at the point of a gun, right? Hope it's worth it. An assistant manager at WalMart isn't under threat of force, right? Because he can always go work for Target. Except Target is in such fierce competition with WalMart that it will go out of business if it pays its employees substantially more than WalMart pays theirs. Target isn't under threat of force either. It's free to go out of business. That's some freedom. The freedom to starve! Personally, I think a little government regulation never killed anyone.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   103.  Re: The French case   by mlilback       at Wed 7 Aug 1:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 98     Then go to work for yourself. And if you can't do that, tough fucking luck. Stop whining and trying to drag the fit (in a darwinian sense) down with you. I work 80+ hours a week and would be miserable if I worked any less. Hell, I wish I could train my body to sleep less so I could work more. I love my job (a side-benefit of working for yourself) and enjoy it far more than "normal" activities like entertainment, consumerism, etc. I will work as much as I want. I will also fire my employees if they don't work as much as I think they should, regardless of any regulation. I wouldn't hire someone not eager to work more than the "standard" work week. Otherwise, they don't have a passion for the job and I don't want them. As an employer, no one has a right to demand anything from me. If you don't like it, go work for yourself or someone else. If you don't like the way my company does business, don't do business with me. a little government regulation never killed anyone You're assuming death is the worst thing that can happen. I consider any reduction of my rights without my express permission to be far worse than death. You can kill me, but you will never take away my liberty.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   106.  Re: The French case   by superdude       at Wed 7 Aug 3:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 103     I love my job (a side-benefit of working for yourself) and enjoy it far more than "normal" activities like entertainment, consumerism, etc. I will work as much as I want. Fine. Since you're self-employed, no one will even try to stop you. Have a ball! I will also fire my employees if they don't work as much as I think they should, regardless of any regulation. No, see, you can't. There's a law against it, and eventually someone will sue you for everything you've got. As an employer, no one has a right to demand anything from me. Not even a timely paycheck? A safe workplace? I consider any reduction of my rights without my express permission to be far worse than death. You can kill me, but you will never take away my liberty. Your "rights"? You have a right to be bound only by the laws you agree with? Interesting concept. Except that I happen to have James Madison right here with me, and he has a different definition of "liberty." JAMES MADISON: Neither myself nor any of the other founding fathers ever made citizenship "optional" for people living in the United States. Therefore, I find your idea preposterous and stupid. You're bound by the laws of this country, so suck it up and deal! Thanks, Mr. Madison.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   89.  French case on how it doesn't work   by MakesYouFrown       at Tue 6 Aug 7:18pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 20     The interesting thing is that the shorter work week was introduced to reduce unemployment, not to improve quality of living. Unfortunately, the opposite effect was reached, bringing France to the highest unemployment rate of the major industrialized countries.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   93.  Re: French case on how it doesn't work   by LoRes       at Wed 7 Aug 2:30am score of 1   in reply to comment 89     That was the original intention, yes, but the biggest effect was social and not economic. As for the 'opposite effect was reached', don't be disingenuous. Unemployment has risen more slowly since the SWW than in most other OCDE countries (note that I don't say it's thanks to it), the ex-government claim it created 400 000 jobs, its opponents set the number at 40 000 (from cyberpresse, in French). Whatever the exact number, the SWW has cut unemployment.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  We're at War? Coulda fooled me.   by panpan23       at Tue 6 Aug 9:50am score of 2 clever     NOVAK: ... We are in a war, the president says we're in a war. The stock market has collapsed. The economy is not so good. A lot of people have to work ... Shit, I didn't realize we were in a war. I mean, I haven't been asked to cut back on steel, rubber, or sugar; limit my fuel consumption; or use blackout curtains. I haven't been asked to buy war bonds ... all I've seen are reports of us bombing everyone BUT the enemy and detaining people who may or may not be criminals. Nothing about a war, though ... I TOLD YOU NO WIRE HANGERS, EVER!!!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  Vacation Days   by Heywood Yabuzof       at Tue 6 Aug 10:53am score of 1.5 astute     So, how many vacation days does the President get, anyway? 200? It's going to be hard to force any more vacation. I know plenty of people that would gladly trade in half of their existing vacation days for cash, if that option were available. In the tech industry (generally), it's hard to use up the days you already have, since you are usually discouraged from taking long vacations (can't have those servers blowing up while you are on the beach).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

50.  Re: Vacation Days   by underchuckle       at Tue 6 Aug 11:55am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 29     Not that this is directly related to a reduced work week, but just to throw some numbers out: AVERAGE NUMBER OF VACATION DAYS (Source: World Tourism Organization) Italy 42 France 37 Germany 35 Brazil 34 UK 28 Canada 26 Korea 25 Japan 25 USA 13 Granted, no details are provided on their methodology for arriving at these numbers, but if they're even close...I'm moving to Italy! Sure, they change socialist governments every few months, but 42 days? Sure, our standard of living here is higher (or at least appears to be higher) in terms of $$$, but do you have enough time off to really enjoy all of your expensive new toys that your working life affords you? Also note that those Koreans and Japanese, who supposedly work their asses off, still get nearly twice the time off, on average.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   84.  Re: Vacation Days   by tbo       at Tue 6 Aug 3:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 50     Don't the Koreans work a 6-day week? Don't the Japanese typically work really long hours? Isn't Canada too cold for people to actually take their vacations? OK, I'm from Canada, so I know the last one isn't true (at least not on the west coast). Still, there are lots of factors to consider here. Besides, with the US already running a huge trade deficit, I don't think decreasing productivity is a good idea, unless you want to see the US Dollar drop even more.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   90.  Re: 13 Vacation Days   by mikko       at Tue 6 Aug 9:20pm score of 1   in reply to comment 50     I bet this does not take into account floating holidays, public holidays or the fact that in many countries consecutive holidays must include Saturday.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   76.  Re: Vacation Days   by gameCoder       at Tue 6 Aug 2:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     oh man... i wish i were in that situation. Here in the video game industry, people are expected to be devoted to the project. I get 2 weeks of vacation a year, plus 10 holidays. But that doesn't take into account the weekends & late hours we have to work to get the game out the door in good condition. And supposedly we get comp time at the end of the project to make up for those weekends, but it doesn't nearly cover it. Sure, I get paid a little more than most people (actually less than most coders i think) but I would gladly trade in extra money for more vacation. I wish we could shorten the "normal" work week so that they couldn't screw me over so much. And by the way, I've thought of quitting my job, but I really do like the work, just not the hours. Master Shake: "Oh you think you're the expert? Lets see how much your ass knows about flyin'!"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  Vacation is a Liability   by mrwarmth       at Tue 6 Aug 10:58am score of 1.5 informative     I don't think there's that great a problem with people not taking whatever vacation time they have, for one very simple reason. Unused vacation time has to be carried as a financial liability on a company's books, because if the employee leaves before using it up the company has to compensate them for unused vacation time. Smaller companies often make the mistake of not tracking this expense, but once they do they suddenly start demanding that employees take their vacations. Most medium and large companies force employees to take their vacations by not allowing unused vacation time to roll-over to the following year for this very reason. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

32.  Spin, spin, spin..   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Tue 6 Aug 10:58am score of 2.5 astute     I love the story headline--"Should U.S. Workers Be Forced to Work Less." Could just as well be "Should Employers Be Forced to Stop Exploiting U.S. Workers?" After all, it's not as if the 40-hour work week was revealed to Moses by a flaming shrub, unearthed from beneath the Pyramids, or enshrined in the Constitution, after all. It was the product of years of often-violent struggle between labor and capital, remember? It wasn't that long ago that the Eight Hour Day was viewed as a sinister Red slogan as hateful to bourgeois ears as "dictatorship of the proletariat"--and we all know what a disaster that radical measure proved to be. Would American capitalism abruptly fall to ruins if a couple hours were trimmed from the government-mandated standard work week? Somehow I doubt it. It's not as if there are no workers in America today who put in more than 40 hours a week--it's just that they're generally [ie. legally] entitled to either overtime or salaried compensation in return for their trouble. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

47.  Lacking Mod Points. ...   by Clarkex       at Tue 6 Aug 11:48am score of 1   in reply to comment 32     ... All I can say to this assessment is Rock the Fuck On. No worker needs to be ordered to work less, as the first poster so fatuously put it. Many Owners/Managers need to be told that their staff should be able to afford to live well off of work well-done, and compensated so that things like heroic overtime efforts are regarded and low hourly wages and the standard of living for all are raised by a collaboration between the government and the private sector. ... And Yeah, I've already talked about this before, but I can't help that everyone in this country who isn't rich would be helped out a lot if there were a system in place that but the needs of many ahead of the greed of a few. "Karma's just justice without the satisfaction. I don't believe in justice." -- James Caan, The Way of the Gun   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  Re: Spin, spin, spin..   by Anaximander       at Tue 6 Aug 12:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 32     After all, it's not as if the 40-hour work week was revealed to Moses by a flaming shrub, unearthed from beneath the Pyramids, Yes, it was. Along with other sacred and unquestionable numbers: three meals a day, twelve years of school, and the five rings of the Olympic logo.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

33.  it's AGAINST THE LAW TO WORK! GO HOME!   by snut_rucket       at Tue 6 Aug 10:59am score of 1.5 informative     well, yeah, the key question is how to legislate and enforce a 40-hour social norm when: a) the most productive Americans don't always see an effective difference between work and leisure b) you're in the awkward position of selling the idea of less productivity, which may lead to embarrasing questions about the meaning and validity of the work being done c) you can't always tell when people are working and when they're not d) what happens when somebody break the rules? you gonna bust 'em for working? this is how the enforcement angle played out in France...... In a recent government crackdown, hundreds of labor inspectors have been counting cars after hours in parking lots, checking office entry-and-departure records and quizzing employees about their schedules. Several large companies have been fined for allowing employees, including managers, to stay longer than the legal limits on the regular workweek and overtime. Jesus Christ, only in France. I hope.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

52.  Re: it's AGAINST THE LAW TO WORK! GO HOME!   by Militant Elvis       at Tue 6 Aug 11:56am score of 1   in reply to comment 33     "Even a top manager does not have the right to work more than 48 hours. It has to do with security and public order." Sort of like laws against me from sticking my tongue up my partners' bum are in place to protect the children? I hope that something was lost in the translation from from french to english. Really. I suspect that you have very little hands-on knowledge of rape. --davidpalter   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  Re: it's AGAINST THE LAW TO WORK! GO HOME!   by emperorpenguin       at Tue 6 Aug 1:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 33     b) you're in the awkward position of selling the idea of less productivity, which may lead to embarrasing questions about the meaning and validity of the work being done A bit of a nitpick, but this is incorrect as written. Productivity is a measure of value added per unit of an input, and in the case of labour productivity the unit would be hours worked. Decreasing hours worked would not in itself decrease production per hour; in fact it would be likely that productivity would actually increase slightly, with less worker fatigue, etc. Productivity today is higher than it was with 80-hour or 60-hour work weeks; I won't say that it's largely because of shorter work weeks, I just want to show that shorter work weeks do not mean less productivity. If you mean less production will arise out of a shorter work week, that may be the case; however I doubt a five-hour drop in the standard work week (overtime would still be permitted as it is now) would cause much of a dent in the economy. everything moves real slow when it's forty below   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

34.  email parable, idle theory and leisurely links   by lopati       at Tue 6 Aug 11:01am score of 3 compelling     i got this email forward from a friend a while back and thought i'd share. below that is a great synopsis of idle theory from chris davis and then a little further down are some links i found useful on the subject :) --- A boat docked in a tiny Mexican village. An American tourist complimented the Mexican fisherman on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took him to catch them. "Not very long," answered the Mexican. "But then, why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?" asked the American. The Mexican explained that his small catch was sufficient to meet his needs and those of his family. The American asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?" "I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, and take a siesta with my wife. In the evenings I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs. I have a full life." The American interrupted, "I have an M.B.A. from Harvard and I can help you. You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat. With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers. Instead of selling your fish to a middleman, you can negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New York City! And, from there, you can direct your huge enterprise." "How long would that take?" asked the Mexican. "Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years," replied the American. "And after that?" "Afterwards? That's when it gets really interesting," answered the American, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start selling stocks and make millions!" "Millions? Really? And after that?" "After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep and play with your children, catch a few fish, take a siesta with your wife, and spend your evenings drinking and playing the guitar with your friends." --- Idle Theory doesn't fit in with the current economic paradigm. Idle Theory is a variant of Utilitarianism which replaces "utility" or "happiness" with leisure or idleness. In Idle Theory, economic growth is increasing social leisure, not GDP. Inherent in this is a limit to growth, when a society is completely at leisure. And implicit in complete social idleness is social equality. Idle Theory also makes a distinction between "needs" and "wants". Useful tools, techniques, knowledge serve to increase leisure time, and are "needs". Amusements, toys, pastimes, luxuries and so on use up leisure time in their manufacture and use, and are "wants". The test of whether any good is a need or a want is whether it increases leisure or not. Idle Theory regards leisure as the prime good, without which there can be no time to do any of the things which make for a good life, whether these be conversation, romance, play, art, music, literature, philosophy, and the manufacture and exchange of amusements and toys. In the current economic paradigm, human leisure is taken as a given, and no distinction is made between wants and needs. But in other respects, Idle Theory fits fairly well with the current paradigm. It accepts profit, money, trade, competition and other free market concepts. It simply changes the goal of economic growth. The main problem with modern economic systems, as seen from the point of view of Idle Theory, is that while new technologies do apparently increase social leisure, that leisure is immediately forfeited in the production of amusements and toys. Everyone is kept working as hard as they ever did, if not harder. This creates alienation, stress and even illness, while at the same time generating an ever-increasing mountain of consumer goods which use up resources and generate pollution at an ever-increasing rate. --- some books and articles on leisure economics: a virginia.edu link theory of the leisure class by thorstein veblen a everything2.com link in praise of idleness by betrand russell a www.zpub.com link the abolition of work by bob black a www.theatlantic.com link waiting for the weekend by witold rybczynski a www.zmag.org link the overworked american by juliet schor a www.basicincome.com link the end of work by jeremy rifkin a www.idlex.freeserve.co.uk link idle theory by chris davis read the entire comment...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

44.  Re: email parable, idle theory and leisurely   by bitekman       at Tue 6 Aug 11:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 34     And this would explain why hundreds of thousands of Mexicans risk their very lives to enter the US to work every year? It's easy to kick back and think about how great people used to have it. And it's true -- go back as far as the hunter-gatherers, and they had a pretty good life. No infectious disease (population density too small), short work hours, etc. But there really aren't many hunter-gatherers left. Most of the world is either a peasant, or stuck in some kind of urban slum. And being a peasant pretty much sucks. Sure, you can stop fishing when you're full. But what happens when there's a fish kill and you have no food? Or a drought? Or disease? And let's not even get into the life of a slum-dweller. I spent some time living in a village in the Kalahari, and you know what? It's really boring. Boring, boring, boring. And I had a car, and could go to a nearby town where i could purchase the luxury of cold coca-cola and canned fish. I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Re: email parable, idle theory and leisurely   by lopati       at Tue 6 Aug 12:58pm score of 1   in reply to comment 44     i don't disagree with your assessment, that's why i look at it as a parable (of the all work and no play variety :) i think technology is great and markets are okay (when properly understood) it's just that as chris davis points out, if you look at the matrix of variables you need to optimize (for all you linear programming types!) to achieve maximum "social utility," leisure is oftentimes overlooked. the US in particular i think should take note. of course, "other factors including productivity, compensation, unemployment, levels of technology, social benefits, job security and cultural attitudes to work and leisure need to be considered for any meaningful analysis of working time" ... ("And there is a widespread tendency to under-estimate and under-value the working time of women.") sure full employment is good, it's just not an unalloyed good :) especially when we have robots!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   70.  Re: email parable, idle theory and leisurely   by bitekman       at Tue 6 Aug 1:11pm score of 1   in reply to comment 67     Yeah, I came on too strong. I think it's good for people to have enough leisure time, and it's something i've tried to encourage when I've managed people. My concern is that we don't automatically look at not working as better than working -- leisure time sucks if you don't really have anything to do with it. The ideal is having work, but not so much that you lose your mind or your family. I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   80.  Leisure DOES have an econmic value   by mrfurious       at Tue 6 Aug 2:45pm score of 1   in reply to comment 34     In the current economic paradigm, human leisure is taken as a given, and no distinction is made between wants and needs. I disagree. In basic economics, everything has a value associated with it, even leisure. Suppose someone has a choice of working an extra hour and making $10 or watching TV on the couch for an hour. Seemingly the person could make $10 one way and earns nothing the other way, so naively one might think that according to economics, the person is going to work the extra hour. But what's actually happening is in making this decision the person assigns a dollar value to watching TV. If watching TV for an hour is worth less than $10 to this person, then they would work the extra hour. If watching TV is worth more than $10 to the person, they'll watch TV. Significantly, the value of watching TV actually changes with time. The more the person works, the more tired they are and the more value they assign to being able to kick back and watch TV. So for the first hour it might be worth it to make an extra $10, but eventually watching TV will be worth more than that. Kind of an opposite of diminishing returns. Well hopefully you can see that leisure has an econmic value, and fits into simple, standard economic decision making. +underrating disingenuous -disingenuous modederations since 2002   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   100.  Re: email parable, idle theory and leisurely   by rxwid       at Wed 7 Aug 11:27am score of 1   in reply to comment 34     this (perhaps apocryphal) story neglects to mention that the children of the fisherman will probably be fishermen themselves with very little security if the boat sinks, the water gets polluted, or they become injured. but who cares right? a small simple life is much better than trading your soul at the altar of mammon.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

36.  Good idea   by viniosity       at Tue 6 Aug 11:14am score of 3 brilliant     Worldwide people are being forced to work longer hours to make a magic 'productivity' economic number work. US workers put in more hours than just about every other nation and our reward has been, for the most part, economic prosperity and global disdain. Why? Spending so many days at work means we have to be especially careful with our offtime. It means planning our offtime so that it's efficient. Not for everybody certainly, but for a lot of us who have the magic 10 days. Planning and executing a flawless vacation can be stressful! How many people come back from a vacation needing a vacation?! My second point is that since Americans don't travel enough, it can (again, in general) have a negative effect on our understanding of the global community. When we have trouble understanding other cultures we have trouble understaning life in general. (Travel in it's purest form is the desire to understand life.) When we have trouble understanding life there is trouble setting priorities. When we have trouble setting priorities we make made decisions. When we make bad decisions, the world takes a look at us and either follows us, b/c we are globally respected from an economic perspective, or they look at us, shake there heads and say 'those folks need to relax.'   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

38.  Ridiculous.   by Leviathant       at Tue 6 Aug 11:16am score of 1     Maybe it's just because I'm a computer nerd, but I believe that increased productivity does not mean you should do the same amount of work in less time and just idle on your spare time. The way it analogizes in my head is something like this: I'd rather play Grand Theft Auto 3 than a tricked out copy of Doom. Does that make sense? Probably not. To use higher levels of daily productivity as an excuse to let your overall productivity plateau eliminates the advantages gained by that increase in productivity. I am Leviathant, and I approve this message.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

56.  Re: Ridiculous.   by 0tim0       at Tue 6 Aug 12:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 38     You're right. Sortof. The advantage of increase in productivity is a higher standard of living. But to some people, a higher standard of living would mean working less. That's why some people work hard for 20 years, live below their means and retire young. While others spend every penny they earn and can't retire until 65 or later. (Well, that's an oversimplification, since some people have more earning power than others -- but all things being equal). I always thought it would be cool if our country were (able to be) more flexible in this manor. Wouldn't it be cool if you were a factory worker and you got paid by exactly how many widgets you turned out (adjusted for quality, obviously). And then you could choose to work anywhere between 10 and 60 hours a week and have between 2 and 12 weeks vacation? You could decide what 'standard of living' you wanted and/or how soon you wanted to retire. You would be able to choose to work more and drive a nicer car or work less and spend time with your family. That's what I call freedom. Obviously it's pretty impractical in most cases, but to me, that's what a free-market utopia should be ;) --tim "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

40.  Perhaps we are rewarded in other ways   by empathogen       at Tue 6 Aug 11:22am score of 1.5 astute     Maybe the compensation for our increased productivity is the fact that all the modern conveniences we enjoy are affordable for the average worker. Though some corruption certainly exists, I am doubtful that all that extra productivity goes into the pockets of a few fat cats. I figure that the productivity goes into making high tech items, like computers, satelite TV, DVD players, washing machines, late model cars(what with all the silicon chips inside) and microwave ovens, affordable to the average person. If I'm mistaken, please correct me, but I figure these items require much more "productivity" to produce than do the average home items of 1900. I figure this is where our new productivity is going, and we just take it for granted. Again, correct me if I'm mistaken.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

108.  Re: Perhaps we are rewarded in other ways   by superdude       at Wed 7 Aug 5:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 40     Maybe the compensation for our increased productivity is the fact that all the modern conveniences we enjoy are affordable for the average worker. Wages, in inflation-adjusted dollars, have stagnated for middle-class people and have gone down for working-class people over the past twenty years. Over the same period of time, the income of the richest 2 percent of Americans has skyrocketed. Cars and housing, the two biggest expenses for most American households, have become more expensive over the past 20 years. Medical care has also become more expensive. So has university tuition. An increase in the abundance of cheap walkmans and PCs doesn't make up for these big expenses. A lot of people have maintained their quality of life by charging things to their credit cards, and the increase in credit card indebtedness reflects this. But this can't go on forever. Not to worry--recently passed changes to bankruptcy law ensure that middle class consumers will pay, rather than the credit card companies who encouraged them to run up so much debt. Never mind Bush's tax cut for the wealthy and push to repeal the estate tax. And, like I said, the income of the wealhiest two percent went up several-fold while the incomes of everyone else remained constant or declined. So I think it is safe to say that worker productivity increases have almost entirely benefitted the wealthy. At least food is still relatively cheap, but that's only because Enron hasn't figured out a way to take control of America's water supply.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

41.  At what price?   by IBeatTheFuckingWiz       at Tue 6 Aug 11:32am score of 0.5     It may also be helpful to turn the issue on its head for comparison purposes. Assume that the length of a work week and never been legislated and the "standard" work week was still around 80 hours. The vast majority of workers would probably be completely miserable and quality of life would likely be less for those who are working. On the other hand, even accounting for the non-linear scaling of worker productivity with respect to time, humanity would likely be far ahead of where it is now in terms of productivity and wealth. Perhaps we would have already produced a cure for cancer, alternative fuel sources, and incredible (though maybe somewhat unequally distributed) wealth. It could be argued that with an 80 hour week, we would be living longer, better, and with far less hardship than we (and the poor) do today. At what price, of course? The implication is that to shorten the work week would slow the pace of growth in productivity and technology. The trade off is that we'd be lying at the beach 3 more weeks than usual. Is it worth it? I don't know.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

43.  Less? My company wants MORE   by Mephron       at Tue 6 Aug 11:38am score of 1.5 informative     The company I work for is trying to demand that exempt (non-hourly) personnel accept that a 'standard' work-week is FIFTY hours. I think they'd have heart attacks en masse if they heard of this getting close to actually happening. Someone tell them. Brazil has decided you're cute.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

78.  Re: Less? My company wants MORE   by gameCoder       at Tue 6 Aug 2:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 43     When I read your post, I was absolutely incredulous. I couldn't believe a company would be able to get away with such things. But then I realized that when I started at my company, they told me that most people work 9 hours a day (sure sure, that includes lunch, but most people here work through their lunch) and that was the standard during non-busy times. Of course, during our crunch times, everyone is expected to give up their weekends and work really really late. I think the US should do away with salaried positions altogether. It's a nice idea in theory I suppose, but man oh man would I love to get paid for overtime. Master Shake: "Oh you think you're the expert? Lets see how much your ass knows about flyin'!"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

46.  Less work hours = less extravagant lifestyle   by Spunkmeyer       at Tue 6 Aug 11:44am score of 1.5 succinct     While it's true that many European countries do not work as many hours as Americans, it's also true that they do not enjoy the standard of living (possessions, toys, etc.) that Americans seem to want. Live simpler, and work less. I could get used to that!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

73.  Ive been looking for a motto   by pattonbt       at Tue 6 Aug 1:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 46     And I think I just found it in: "Live simpler and work less" Right out of college I was on the fast track to corporate stardom and then after a couple of years I realized all the money in the world wasnt going to make me any happier and in fact, the more I progressed the less happy I was with my life. So I learned that a simpler life worked for me and my resume since four years ago looks like a backslide in progress but my happiness has had a huge upswing. I now push alternative work schedules for me with my bosses. I travel 70% of the time and hate being in the office when not traveling. I offered my bosses to reduce my salary 30% and then I wouldnt show up in the office when not traveling. It was too radical approach for them to handle so it was shrugged off with a "youve got to be kidding, right?". In my mind, it seems to be a win win for me and my company. They dont have to pretend to keep me busy for 30% of my work time and they also dont have to pay me for it. Otherwise a good chunk of that 30% will be spent here on this site while getting well compensated. Its hard to buck the status quo, but I always try. I know my example only works for me and I know plenty of people who equate success with personal happiness. I cant understand how they make the connection, but they seem to be well adjusted and happy none the less. So more power to them. But for me, I can give up work and compensation for simplicity and happiness. So I think its up to the person to make their choice. Find what works for you and go after it. Ive made my decision: "Live simpler and work less" Thank you for the new motto.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   83.  Re: Ive been looking for a motto   by Spunkmeyer       at Tue 6 Aug 3:28pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 73     Glad to help. My last motto, "Come home grumpy and drink beer", hasn't been quite as effective as I'd initially hoped.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

48.  What will happen when workers work less (OT)   by Argus Defthammer       at Tue 6 Aug 11:52am score of 1     Three guys work at a machine shop. One is from Lewiston, another is from Auburn, the last one is from Turner. (You'll have to insert your own geographical references) Another worker walks into the shop and says, "Hey guys, the boss is gone for the day, let's take the rest of the day off". The guy from Lewiston goes home and has a nice cold beer. The guy from Auburn goes home and works on his correspondence course in order to better himself. The guy from Turner goes home planning to go fishing, but instead finds his boss having sex with his wife. They are so involved in their love-making that they don't see him. The next day, another worker walks in and says, "Hey guys, the boss is gone again. Let's split." The guy from Lewiston says, "Oh boy...more beer". The from Auburn says, "Great, I can study some more." The guy from Turner says, "Not me guys, the boss almost caught me yesterday!" Diamond encrusted howler monkey   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

112.  Re: What will happen when workers work less (OT)   by quacksalve       at Thu 8 Aug 4:49pm score of 1   in reply to comment 48     Three guys work at a machine shop. One is from Lewiston, another is from Auburn, the last one is from Turner. (You'll have to insert your own geographical references) Ah ... I had a friend who used to tell people she was from the greater LA area. She didn't usually bother to mention that she meant Lewiston-Auburn.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

53.  What working 20 hours a week looks like:   by Ormolov       at Tue 6 Aug 11:57am score of 3 intriguing     And it ain't even work. I've been a professional dogwalker for 10 years and I make enough money to survive by working 4 hours a day. For years I have watched my friends lose their dreams to the friction of every day overwork. What is it with you people? When it is time for me to put real work into something I love, I throw myself into it 20 hours a day without a break. But that isn't work. It's love, of course, and I know that many of you love your jobs and are doing exactly what you want to be doing with your days. But think back, please, to your early dreams of what you would do with endless empty days, and how you would fill them with your dreams. This is what the overwork of our society has taken from you. And sure you've got a house and a retirement on the far horizon to keep you sane and to force you out of bed in the morning, but this life is going to be over sooner rather than later, in case you forgot. I just came back from Mexico, where I saw the endless beach developments of wealthy American retirees ruining the spectacular Caribbean coastline. And I raged endlessly about how these stupid fucking pigs, even in retirement, can't stop working and working and working. Even if it's to build their dream home and then meticulously construct and control every detail of life around them. Our endless appetite for such work is destroying the world around us, and we all know it's getting worse instead of better. People dismiss me when I talk about such things. "Oh, sure. It's easy for you to sleep in and play with dogs and watch my kids and go see movies and run in the sun and do nothing but sit outside and dream about what life is really all about while I work my ass off. You're a DOGWALKER." But I didn't inherit the position. I just made a decision, back when I came out of the University, that giving my preciously short time on this planet to ANYONE AT ALL was a foolish surrender. There is nothing weak in moaning into your pillow every morning about how you don't want to drag yourself away from your loved ones to put in your hours in a highly abstracted dehumanizing futile career. The standard machismo of -- "Life is hard. Work yourself to death. Get over it." --never impressed me. Would anyone else like to help me find the studies by anthropologists about the many hunter-gatherer societies who work(ed) no more than 20 hours a week to feed, clothe, and house themselves? It's what we're designed to do by a million years of evolution. The Puritans ruined us. And no, we can't all be dogwalkers. But these types of jobs are really out there for all of us. It only takes a serious re-ordering of priorities. Face it, the security you work so hard to sustain is only illusory anyway. Just how many of my 30-something peers expect their retirements to actually be there for them when they retire? Work in your communities NOW. Take care of the kids and dogs and old people with your time and your heart, not your 401k plans. Why isn't anyone else actually talking about this?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

62.  Re: What working 20 hours a week looks like:   by elish       at Tue 6 Aug 12:31pm score of 1   in reply to comment 53     Hells yeah! Out of college, under the beaming supervision of most mentors in my life, I took a "prestigious" office job. It was an abstraction of my interests, sure, but everyone said I'd grow to like the challenge. Actually, and in short order, I grew to despise getting up in the morning. This was a 60+ hour/wk glorified cubicle job. I kissed ass, shuffled data sets, and forgot what the weather was like. But, everyone pointed out, you're just at the bottom of the ladder! You'll soon advance to a work life just like your superiors!Which actually is a glorified cubicle job, this time maybe with a 70+ hours/wk, and maybe with a window. That maybe you forget to look out more and more. So, I quit. I teach elementary school. Where I can spend a chunk of each day outdoors. Where I can spend a chunk of each day volunteering in my increasingly fucked city. Right now, in the summer, while I amble out of my apartment, on my busy street, past the gridlocked traffic and the irate 70+hour/week Audis, I just laugh like hell.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: What working 20 hours a week looks like:   by 0tim0       at Tue 6 Aug 12:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 62     Don't you feel like a leech on society? I mean it's fine and dandy for you to work 120 days a year, but it doesn't scale. If everyone did that, no one would be able to pay people like you and the dog-walker. You probably get paid a decent amount. Our educational system in this country continually gets more and more money thrown at it because students are not performing. Because we can't attract good teachers. Maybe a better idea would be to have school run 52 weeks. That way only people that want to be teachers will be -- instead of people who are just looking for an easy union job that has summers off. --tim I know, I know, "-1 Obnoxious", but you gotta vent sometimes ;) "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  Re: What working 20 hours a week looks like:   by elish       at Tue 6 Aug 12:58pm score of 1   in reply to comment 66     Actually, I chose teaching because I love teaching, and I chose special needs teaching because a) I'm good at it b) most teachers avoid it and c) no I don't feel guilty, because my current job is a hell of lot more socially conscious than Making Money (and I don't make much), plus I use the rest of my time in efforts to rehabilitate the poor of a city ruined by d) money-making assholes who commute from the suburbs.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   72.  Re: What working 20 hours a week looks like:   by Anonymous Idiot       at Tue 6 Aug 1:41pm score of 0.5 astute   in reply to comment 66     Wait...so someone is "a leech on society" if the majority of what they do (ie volunteer) is done selflessly, without request for compensation? Whereas you, or anyone, who is compensated for most of their time is an upstanding citizen? More money for more of your time = morally upright? We all get the same 24hours to the day, buddy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   81.  Re: What working 20 hours a week looks like:   by gameCoder       at Tue 6 Aug 3:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 66     Don't you feel like a leech on society? I'm really surprised you said that. Just because a person works a full time job less than 50 weeks a year does not make them a leech on society. Once upon a time, only the men worked in society (40 hours a week or a little more) and the women stayed home with the children. Now that most adults work full time, I can't understand why anyone works more than 20 hours a week. Not to mention this teacher is contributing an extremely important service to society as opposed to sitting around on welfare. You probably get paid a decent amount. I also feel the need to disagree with this statement. How do you have any idea? Most teachers are woefully underpaid. My cousin is a teacher in the middle of nowhere in California. She gets paid such a small salary that she has to work at summer school. And this is in a very cheap part of California. The particularly shocking thing is that teachers in the rest of California get paid on exactly the same scale that she does, which means if she lived in San Francisco, she wouldn't be able to eat, let alone pay for housing. I have a huge amount of respect for teachers in general, and I think they deserve large pay raises, and I think that they deserve all the vacation they get. ...but you gotta vent sometimes Yeah... me too. :) Master Shake: "Oh you think you're the expert? Lets see how much your ass knows about flyin'!"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   87.  Re: What working 20 hours a week looks like:   by 0tim0       at Tue 6 Aug 4:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 81     You're probably right. I was probably out of line. But when I read something like: I grew to despise getting up in the morning... So, I quit. I teach elementary school... now, in the summer, while I amble out... past the gridlocked traffic and the irate 70+hour/week Audis, I just laugh like hell. it bothers me. Those irate drivers are paying his salary. And I think it is a little disingenuous (note to moderators, this is the correct use of the word ;) to laugh at them. I think the reason it really caught my ire though, is that, like you, many people give high respect to teachers. The problem is, not all of them -- particularly these days -- live up to it. For example, the shameless way the teachers' unions tried to misrepresent the voucher issue for selfish reasons. It seems the peculiarities of the job -- short hours for those who choose not to work hard, and long vacations -- can attract the kind of people who are looking to not work. Which is the kind of guy this one sounded like. Don't get me wrong. There are a lot of wonderful teachers. I've had some that have really had a positive influence on my life. But I've had others who clearly had no interest in teaching me anything. I'd like to pay the good teachers more also. I think they deserve it. It think the most important service the government provides for this country is education. But the state of the system here makes it very hard to single out good teachers over bad -- and the teachers unions are trying to keep it that way. Oh well. I guess it was just another rant. I'm sorry for getting heated (twice). There's nothing to see here. Please move along... --tim "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   91.  Bah   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Tue 6 Aug 11:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 87     For example, the shameless way the teachers' unions tried to misrepresent the voucher issue for selfish reasons. There is no shame in any effort to discredit the "voucher issue," although its fundamental practical and ideological asininity shouldn't have demanded much rhetorical maneuvering on the part of opponents. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   71.  Re: What working 20 hours a week looks like:   by bitekman       at Tue 6 Aug 1:19pm score of 1   in reply to comment 53     The study you are looking for is The Original Affluent Society, by Marshall Sahlins. It wasn't the Puritans who killed this lifestyle, though. It was agriculture as a whole. As population densities rise, so do infectious disease, starvation (ironic, but the large pop. densities means crop failure is catastrophic), war (as can only be waged with large numbers of specialized soldiers), so on and so forth. Believe you me, being a peasant (aka subsistence farmer) is not a life of leisure, now or ever. I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   75.  Re: What working 20 hours a week looks like:   by wicked_sprite       at Tue 6 Aug 2:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 53     Yeah, I tried this outta college. I'm a wannabe novelist, so what better way to write all the time than to jump on the bandwagon of the "voluntary simplicity" movement now! Easy, right!? Wrong. I had to take a roommate in order to survive cheaply. Many didn't pay thier share of rent, we were evicted by another who was bringing drugs into the house, and the third had a boyfriend who would dress in my clothes. Ahem, and yes, I am a chick. Then my car breaks down and I have no money to pay for it cuz what I'm taking home only covers expenses and I can't save much. So I put it on a credit card and hope to pay it off with the minimum. What else can I do? Oops, Fluffy is sick and there's a vet bill now. Same deal. No decent health insurance also costs you. I always wanted to dabble in photography, but forget it. I couldn't can't afford the film let alone the camera. Travel was out of the question. I hit the last straw when the computer I was using to write with blew up. I felt like I was in "survival" mode and my creativity sank and my stress increased. Anyway, the point here was that it sucked. It had nothing to do with materialism and everything to do with lack of being able to support myself in anything but ideal conditions and the erosion of my life options. I ended up broke all the time and in debt. I'm not saying you should stay in a job you hate. I've loved what I do in life and it's sooo invigorating. I'd say I like what I do now. Wouldn't do it if I wasn't paid but don't hate getting up in the morning. I work no more than 45 hours a week and get paid damn well for the time I'm here. I take my free time AND my MONEY and use them to continue to pursue writing. I'm actually writing a lot more productively now. If it ever takes off and I can live off of it, great!! If not, it's still an enjoyable hobby and I know I'm finanically stable. Anyway, not to lecture, but this works for me just fine.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   102.  "At least You have a job"   by Awesome Gary       at Wed 7 Aug 12:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 53     There's one expression that's wearing awfully thin on me. Last year I was rewarded by my company for being a 'top performer' (their words) with the same 7% pay cut everybody else got. This year my company was bought out, and my vacation time will be reduced from 17 days to 10. My European counterparts will see no reduction in vacation as a result of the takeover due to their workers rights laws. At least I have a job. The economy's bad, you know. Fuck that. It a couple years at this rate I'll have no vacation and have to pay for the privilege to work. But again, at least I'll have a job.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

54.  just one extra hour of work each day...   by wry toast       at Tue 6 Aug 11:58am score of 3 intriguing     if you are salaried and don't get overtime, will give your employer over a month of free labor in a year! Conversely, if all employed Americans worked just two hours less a week that would leave enough full-time work available for 7.7 million people, or a million more jobs than the number of currently unemployed. But alas, working overtime has become a badge of honor for many. A consultant friend of mine recently shared this story: She was working on a project for a large bank and one evening was leaving earlier than usual -- 7 p.m. Almost all the consultants, in fact, worked ridiculously long hours at this place -- in by 7 and out no earlier than midnight. A colleague asked her why and she explained she was going to see a play. A discussion ensued in which it arose that she also took guitar lessons one day a week, sometimes took yoga classes, did volunteer gardening at a local park, and other activities one might expect in a normal social life, while the colleague looked, she thought, wistfully jealous and admitted he did little more than work, eat, go to the gym, and sleep. To her surprise, however, he suddenly took a superior tone that indicated he knew why he was going to beat her in the race to become a partner in the firm, and announced with no irony or self-consciousness, "You know, the problem with you, Melissa, is that you only work to live. I," he said proudly, "live to work." He ain't gonna make partner, though. The firm was famously sold to IBM. The job of the journalist is to provide a portrait of reality on which citizens can act.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

58.  John Henry   by swissiku       at Tue 6 Aug 12:16pm score of 1     I don't think this new productivity is leading to more people sitting around and twiddling their thumbs all day. If your company buys a machine that sorts mail, you fire half of the mailroom staff. If you get a new online automatic order entry system you can fire your data entry staff. Got a new car building robot? Get rid of most of the people on the factory floor. In short i think new technologies are going to lead to positions becoming obsolete. Sure people are more productive but this just means that companies get smaller and individual workers work on a larger variety of tasks than they did in previous years. Plus there are industries like IT that didn't even exist 50 years ago. I don't think we are wrking more productively per se but are just working differently. Also this is only going to benifit those who can afford to work less. People who can afford to work less probably don't punch a clock and in my experience work much more than forty hours a week anyway.(if you factor in the work done at home, on the train, on weekends etc.) Outside of a dog a book is a man's best friend, inside of a dog it's too dark to read.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

60.  Such exquisite deja vu   by shantih       at Tue 6 Aug 12:17pm score of 1.5 compelling     Somewhere around here, in a foul old cardboard box, I have a 1960 issue of Time Magazine that waxes rhapsodic on the future of work and leisure in America. I haven't read it in a few years, but I remember that it predicts - promises, really - that, in the Future, computers and automation will do so much of the work that the work week will not only be shortened, but the government will have to subsidize many of us in our comfy, middle-class, suburban lives, because there really won't be enough work for all the people to do. And yet, there will be sufficient wealth to go around and around again. It's a happy picture, a paradise of luxury and idleness (replete with the obligatory rocket cars and self-cleaning kitchens). What Time Magazine got wrong then, Mr. Rifkin gets wrong now. Civilization has always meant, in part, creating work (and so wealth) out of nothing, making opportunity out of circumstances, where earlier and simpler cultures required some land, a crop, or a vein of ore as a basis for work and opportunity. So there's always work we can do. And capitalism has always relied on scarcity to support the value of goods and services. That scarcity, and the prices it elevates, don't really allow for enough of everything for everyone. In fact, I find it hard to believe that capitalism doesn't require poverty for some, as a direct consequence of the scarcity which drives it. (There, btw, is the basis for asserting an obligation for the wealthy to assist the poor, but that's another topic.) Believe me, if I had a job, I would need a long vacation. I think I might even get as much done, or more, in 35 hours as in 40, since I stare into the middle distance as much as any professional person. But Rifkin seems to be suggesting what Time did, that we can show up for half the time, make sure the machines are humming along, and then turn out the lights, pick up our checks, and go fishing. It still doesn't work like that. It never will. Of course, if I can have my rocket car now, I'll take it all back. Where do I go to march for democracy?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

65.  For some people, a break helps...for others, no   by Brian Jones       at Tue 6 Aug 12:51pm score of 1     If I recall correctly, President Clinton was a real sunup-to-midnight worker until one of his advisers got worried about the pace of work, and recommended he set aside some afternoon time for a break - and it was during those breaks that he got mixed up with that woman. Imagine the stature Clinton might be held in today, and not just by his avid supporters, if his advisers had left well enough alone, and let him take his time off away from the White House. Hell, he could've found some discreet lovin' on vacation and nobody would've been the wiser (at least not for decades). Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

95.  Re: For some people, a break helps...for others,   by holgate       at Wed 7 Aug 8:59am score of 1   in reply to comment 65     If I recall correctly, President Clinton was a real sunup-to-midnight worker until one of his advisers got worried about the pace of work, and recommended he set aside some afternoon time for a break - and it was during those breaks that he got mixed up with that woman. I recall something a bit different, but that'll need double-checking. In fact, it's the thing that struck me most when I skimmed the Starr Report: that Clinton was still up working all-nighters, and that the interns would be sent out for pizza. ('Pizza?' I remember thinking. 'Would Tony Blair send out for a curry?') Classic student working patterns, see, which is what endeared the man to me. So perhaps he took his eyes from the prize during his coffee breaks, but the late nights also meant he was around his overly-eager staffers during the witching hour. (Of course Dubya gets his bananas at 5:30pm, which means Laura ensures he won't stray.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

74.  What would be the point?   by Cerebus       at Tue 6 Aug 1:56pm score of 2 compelling     When I was little (from as young as I can remember until I was about 13), my family of four took out-of-state beach vacations for two weeks every year, on a single income. We rented a bungalow fifty feet from the boardwalk. We could even afford to bring our regular babysitter (both as a reward and as babysitting so my parents would get some time to themselves. Today, I head a single income family of four, just like my father did. I make more money in constant dollars than my father did at my age, and I can't afford to leave the county, much less the state, much less rent a house for two weeks, much less bring a damn babysitter. My last "vacation" was me working around the house doing chores for a week. Whee, what fun. Even if you gave me the time, what good would it do me? -- Cerebus -- Cerebus   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

79.  Ayn Rand ...   by mrfurious       at Tue 6 Aug 2:33pm score of 1     would roll over in her grave! That aside, it seems outright absurd, and unconstitutional, for the government to mandate vacation time. Yes, Americans are some of the hardest working people on the planet. Yes, this is related to high stress. But this is the lifestyle we've chosen, reward is loosely proportional to effort, and I'll be damned if Uncle Sam is going to tell me to take it easy if I don't want to! +underrating disingenuous -disingenuous modederations since 2002   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

92.  Well, that's certainly cause for alarm..   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Tue 6 Aug 11:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 79     Ayn Rand rolling over in her grave, hoo-whee. That aside, it seems outright absurd, and unconstitutional, for the government to mandate vacation time. What makes you think it would be unconstitutional for the Congress to pass a law mandating vacation time? Please cite. Or was that just rhetorical excess? But this is the lifestyle we've chosen, reward is loosely proportional to effort, and I'll be damned if Uncle Sam is going to tell me to take it easy if I don't want to! More power to you if you get off on going to work--this may surprise you, but I'm afraid there may be several of your fellow citizens who don't look forward to punching the clock with quite the same breathless glee you feel. A cynic might even suggest that your assertion that "this is the lifestyle we've chosen" would more properly read "this is the lifestyle that those who own the means of production have chosen for us and enforced upon us with the collusion of the government they bought for us." stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

82.  Flexibility is what we need   by bother       at Tue 6 Aug 3:25pm score of 1.5 astute     Personally I think that we work too much as a society and extra time off would be a good thing. I can't remember the link, but there was a recent article that I read examining productivity numbers. As everyone knows, the US has the highest productivity, but guess who has the highest per hour worked - France. At a certain point the law of diminishing returns sets in. The recent heat waves have got me thinking about our work habits. Imagine working without AC in the heat - you can't keep it up for long. Humanity evolved in the heat of Africa, but we learned how to work in the cool of Northern Europe. Could the work ethic have arisen in the South? Finally, to explain my subject line. The reason mandatory time if is being considered is because if company's aren't forced to give you more time off, they won't give it to you. What would happen if you told your boss that you wanted an extra week of vacation in exchange for a comparable drop in salary? I know I couldn't get it. As society greys and retirement funds disappear with the stock bubble we need to accommodate people working at least until 65 if not later. While I expect to lack the stamina (or desire) to work a full week at that age, working 15-20 hours would be feasible. But I don't want to be forced to do it in a minimum wage service job. What we need is the ability to truly negotiate with employers about the terms of our employment and not just about salary and benifits. To be able to say, I want the same vacation as my kids or that I only want to work 3 days a week. When we have that type of negotiating power we won't need labour legislation that mandates vacation.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

86.  not a bad idea   by pyite       at Tue 6 Aug 3:55pm score of 1     Guaranteeing, say, 6 weeks of vacation per year would be fantastic. I'd vote to support it. Ignorance is the real gateway drug   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

111.  very very short work week   by FONADI       at Thu 8 Aug 5:29am score of 1     Ok, this is my first post on plastic. rules? may they be broken. typos? oh well I wait tables for a living, (not to be confused with life, 2 different words) I do this for the following reasons. 1. I like being around people. i think i would prefer the streets, than live a a cubicle, getting paid next to nothing, for sittting around for 40-???hrs a week, getting calls in the middle of the night, and having to work weekends. 2. I work around 20-35 hours a week, and when i am at work, i work hard, for very little. 3. When i am at home, i work even harder. usually around 80 hours a week. I am working on a demo, and as it is now in it's final stages (artwork, bio, cd burning, etc. ) i am sleeping less and working more. 4. I see people i love, who do not or could not work in the field i do (real customer service, not the tech support/phone crap that passes for customer service, although not all) hating themselves everytime they wake up, they curse, drive in rush hour, and do who knows what, come home, bitch for an hour, watch useless tv programs (i stopped watching tv a while ago), pass out and repeat. and no matter what these people do, it won't matter. (great 100,000 in life insurance premuims, sorry doesn't mean shit.) 5. The other half of the people i know, do what i do, but have no real direction. they make thier money, sit around drink, pass out, wake up the next morning, and go back to work. 6. Then their are the ones who work 2 or three jobs, make barley enough to pay for the basics (food shelter water etc) and never get anywhere (ok 5 and 6 a very similar yet quite different) ok. still with me. (i write in a stream) ok. now what all this means, and the real question is where is it getting us. Now we are producing more, and we are working more and harder for it. Yes i do know something about the good old days, mom stayed home dad went to work, blah blah blah, then there were social revolutions, and now, we seem to be at a point where we have produced so much, and we have gotten to where we don't know what we have actually produced (see also the dot com boom and crash). Because the more i see everything that's going on, our Production is becoming less tangible (you can have your cars, and your caviar, your high priced guitars), but now we have insurance (an industry built on a scam, and some get it some dont) high priced drugs we don't need, (sometimes i wonder if the disease creates the drug, or the drug creates the disease, have you taken your welbutrin, prozac paxil happy pill? your ritalin dexidrine pay attention pill) and told we need things we don't (do your doritos taste different out of that plastic can? is the second house in the hamptons necassary?) I guess what i am really trying to say, in many many words (sometimes brevity has a purpose, sometimes ideas just need full expination, or chasing every last tail of them) Production is up, but what good is it if it's just crap to begin with. ok that felt good. So at your desk in you cubicle, or where ever you might read this, i guess you have to ask yourself, what the hell am i actually doing, and what the hell is my real call in life. If anything tells you to get up and leave, Scream FUCK WORK real loud. i don't work. i have fun. And if you seriously believe you are helping humanity, (read, not just doing this [whatever this is] to pay the bills, and to increase wealth, which is nothing but a number) scream it louder. have a good, productive day. even if you are producing nothing. So maybe it's not a shorter work week. maybe it is. maybe the guy at the top is making too much. Or maybe we just don't know what we are doing. Just following orders. now i feel like i am going to be torn apart. which is fine by me history repeats itself constantly. so therefore, evolution must repeat itself.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]