|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:07 pm Post subject: We don't need this culture of overwork |
 |
|
One thing that concerns me about going back into the workforce, is that to remain a good mother/lover/happy human being I need to find a job that pays OK, but still allows me a good work/life balance. When I worked in the banking sector in London it was clear everyone was overworked. People who were considered 'successful' appeared to me to be slaves to the company. My boss received a terrible shock one day when his wife asked for a divorce - because he wasn't spending enough time with her and she'd become lonely and found another. I made up my mind then I didn't want to work a 50 hour week (as had become the norm).
We don't need this culture of overwork
| Quote: |
It all began two years ago, when the state was facing a budget crisis. One night, the new Republican Governor Jon Huntsman was staring at the red ink and rough sums when he had an idea. Keeping the state's buildings lit and heated and manned cost a fortune. Could it be cut without cutting the service given to the public? Then it hit him. What if, instead of working 9 to 5, Monday to Friday, the state's employees only came in four days a week, but now from 8 to 6? The state would be getting the same forty hours a week out of its staff � but the costs of maintaining their offices would plummet. The employees would get a three-day weekend, and cut a whole day's worth of tiring, polluting commuting out of their week.
He took the step of requiring it by law for 80 per cent of the state's employees. (Obviously, some places - like the emergency services or prisons � had to be exempted.) At first, there was cautious support among the workforce but as the experiment has rolled on, it has gathered remarkable acclaim. Today, two years on, 82 per cent of employees applaud the new hours, and hardly anyone wants to go back. Professor Lori Wadsworth carried out a detailed study of workers' responses, and she says: "People love it."
A whole series of unexpected benefits started to emerge. The number of sick days claimed by workers fell by 9 per cent. Air pollution fell, since people were spending 20 per cent less time in their cars. Some 17,000 tonnes of warming gases were kept out of the atmosphere. They have a new slogan in Utah � Thank God It's Thursday.
But wouldn't people be irritated that they couldn't contact their state authorities on a Friday? Did the standard of service fall? It was a real worry when the programme started. But before, people had to take time off work to contact the authorities, since they were only open during work hours. Now they were open for an hour before work and an hour after it. It actually became easier to see them Monday to Thursday: waiting times for state services have fallen. |
| Quote: |
We don't stop primarily because we are locked in an arms race with out colleagues. If we relax and become more human, we fall behind the person in the next booth down, who is chasing faster. Work can be one of the richest and most rewarding experiences, but not like this. In a recession, this insecurity only swells. Under Prime Minister Lionel Jospin in the 1990s, the French discovered the most elegant way out of this, taking the Utah experiment deeper and further. They insisted that everyone work a maximum of 35 paid hours a week. It was a way of saying: in a rich country, life is about more than serving corporations and slogging. Wealth generation and consumerism should be our slaves, not our masters: where they make us happy, we should embrace them; where they make us miserable, we should cast them aside. Enjoy yourself. True wealth lies not only in having enough, but in having the time to enjoy everything and everyone around you.
It was the equivalent to an arms treaty: we all stop, together, now, at the 35 hour mark. The French population became fitter, their relationships were less likely to break down, their children became considerably happier, and voluntary organisations came back to life. According to the national statistics agency Insee, the policy created 350,000 jobs, because so many people moved to job-shares to ensure their post was filled five days a week. But under pressure from corporations enraged that their staff couldn't be made to slog all the time, Nicholas Sarkozy has abolished this extraordinary national experiment. The French people were dismayed: the polls show a majority still support the cap.
From the unlikely pairing of Salt Lake City and Paris, a voice is calling. It is telling us that if we leave our offices empty a little more, we can find a happier, healthier alternative lying in the great free spaces beyond. |
I wish we could follow the French example. I wish the French could still follow the French example! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the study is right that most people would probably be happier and healthier limiting their work week to 35 hours. While Libertarians might point out this would be a restriction for someone who wants to work more than 35 hours a week at their job, the people said Libertarians neglect are the individuals who don't want to work more hours than that, but are forced to when others do. If you allow an unlimited level of competition for positions, as the article mentions things escallate. Workers continue to go further and further to give themselves the edge, especially in situations whether either promotion or potentially being laid off become an issue. As a result, even people who would be happier working less are forced to keep up with the curve, and we do become slaves to our jobs.
Certain people here talk a lot about freedom, but they think only of freedom from the government. At least at times, freedom from the negative consequences of one another's actions needs to be considered as well; if the actions of others have potential to harm me in some way -- as they do here, by forcing me to work myself to an unhealthy degree if I want to retain my job or be promoted -- there's at least a good case for limiting them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great
Let's promote everyone who doesn't want to work for it.
There are plenty of people who want to get a head in the world, and that means you have to be better somehow.
Better doesn't necessarily mean work more, but does imply work better.
Why would I as a boss want to promote people who's goal in life is to work as least as possible for as much money as possible? Reward works in a different way.
That said, if you want to focus more on enjoying your life, no one is stopping you from taking a stress free job and living on a wage that is less significant.
It is your CHOICE, so let it be a CHOICE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Juregen wrote: |
| There are plenty of people who want to get a head in the world, and that means you have to be better somehow. |
And we can retain that without quantity of hours worked being one of the factors.
| Juregen wrote: |
| That said, if you want to focus more on enjoying your life, no one is stopping you from taking a stress free job and living on a wage that is less significant. |
Imagine if you didn't have to chose between significant wages and healthy work hours.
| Juregen wrote: |
| It is your CHOICE, so let it be a CHOICE. |
It stops being a choice when the competitive nature of the job market forces your hand. It becomes, "Work an unhealthy amount or die."
I'm reminded very much by this topic of how college degrees have played out. Originally people got bachelor's degrees to get an edge. Now having a bachelor's degree has become the norm.. So, people escallate further, and a master's degree is the new bachelor's degree. The required investment to enter the workplace keeps going up and up. It's the same lesson: unlimited potential escallation with regards to competition for positions, promotions, and the avoidance of layoffs hurts workers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trevor
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is actually much better for the environment if people don't work so hard. It raises carbon emissions drasticall if everyone is working 50 hours a week. We could drastically reduce greenhouse gases by relaxing a bit more.
Let's face it, laziness is green  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've never overworked in my life. At my last employer, many people worked 50+ hours. I stuck to 40. It wasn't because I was less ambitious, or was a slacker. I simply couldn't find enough to keep me busy during that 40, so why would I stay beyond it? Nevertheless, my boss had one criticism during my annual review: I didn't put in as many hours as my colleagues. Didn't matter that my workload was actually a little larger than theirs. Sitting at the desk I guess is an important task.  And no, my boss wasn't Korean or Japanese, just another white guy.
So my question is: how many people actually "work" over those 40 hours? And how many are pretending to work to look good for their supervisor and management? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
oh, and btw, to connect this to the OP, many US federal jobs offer the Alternative Work Schedule (AWS). Many in my office work 8-5:30 Mon-Thursday, then 8:00-4:30 every other Friday, with the other Friday free. And some federal agencies allow a person to have the schedule described in the OP (four 10-hour days/week).
And being overworked in the public sector? ha ha, yeah, those people are few and far between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
I've never overworked in my life. At my last employer, many people worked 50+ hours. I stuck to 40. It wasn't because I was less ambitious, or was a slacker. I simply couldn't find enough to keep me busy during that 40, so why would I stay beyond it? Nevertheless, my boss had one criticism during my annual review: I didn't put in as many hours as my colleagues. Didn't matter that my workload was actually a little larger than theirs. Sitting at the desk I guess is an important task. And no, my boss wasn't Korean or Japanese, just another white guy.
So my question is: how many people actually "work" over those 40 hours? And how many are pretending to work to look good for their supervisor and management? |
This is a massive problem in so many jobs I have worked. Trying to fill the time, rather than get the job done. It seems like so many co-workers I have had simply try to make themselves look super busy and important, instead of finding ways to do their job faster and in more efficient ways.
I have never felt work place stress in my life. Except when I have had conflicts with co-workers who are beholden to the way they were trained to do a job. And refuse to adopt methods that would make theirs and my job so much easier.
As to your question. I have never had a job where I was busy for the full 40 hours a week. However, I have had to stay late at almost every job I have ever had, finishing work that could have been finished before lunch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
oh, and btw, to connect this to the OP, many US federal jobs offer the Alternative Work Schedule (AWS). Many in my office work 8-5:30 Mon-Thursday, then 8:00-4:30 every other Friday, with the other Friday free. And some federal agencies allow a person to have the schedule described in the OP (four 10-hour days/week).
And being overworked in the public sector? ha ha, yeah, those people are few and far between. |
Check this out.
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/06/unions-next-victim-california/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Juregen wrote: |
| There are plenty of people who want to get a head in the world, and that means you have to be better somehow. |
And we can retain that without quantity of hours worked being one of the factors.
|
How?
| Quote: |
| Juregen wrote: |
| That said, if you want to focus more on enjoying your life, no one is stopping you from taking a stress free job and living on a wage that is less significant. |
Imagine if you didn't have to chose between significant wages and healthy work hours. |
Ok. I'm imagining. I'm also imagining fairies and unicorns. What is your point?
| Quote: |
| Juregen wrote: |
| It is your CHOICE, so let it be a CHOICE. |
It stops being a choice when the competitive nature of the job market forces your hand. It becomes, "Work an unhealthy amount or die." |
Who said that? "Work an unhealthy amount or die." We work long hours because the purchasing power of our wages is continuously eroded by govt backed inflation.
| Quote: |
| I'm reminded very much by this topic of how college degrees have played out. Originally people got bachelor's degrees to get an edge. Now having a bachelor's degree has become the norm.. So, people escallate further, and a master's degree is the new bachelor's degree. The required investment to enter the workplace keeps going up and up. It's the same lesson: unlimited potential escallation with regards to competition for positions, promotions, and the avoidance of layoffs hurts workers. |
This is true. Do you need me to point out the root cause of academic inflation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Juregen wrote: |
| There are plenty of people who want to get a head in the world, and that means you have to be better somehow. |
And we can retain that without quantity of hours worked being one of the factors.
|
How? |
Because there is more to how a good a worker you are than how many hours you work. Your level of productivity within the hours you do work is important, and if total working hours were limited, it would probably become the most important thing. After all, level of productivity is directly related to how well you're performing, while working more hours simply means you're willing to spend the time, not necessarily that you're using it effectively.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Juregen wrote: |
| That said, if you want to focus more on enjoying your life, no one is stopping you from taking a stress free job and living on a wage that is less significant. |
Imagine if you didn't have to chose between significant wages and healthy work hours. |
Ok. I'm imagining. I'm also imagining fairies and unicorns. What is your point? |
You consider being able to earn significant wages while working a healthy amount of work hours equivalent to faeries and unicorns? Indeed, this is very telling of the status quo. Companies have won the propaganda war so thoroughly that when it's pointed out, "Hey, perhaps we could work a bit less for the sake of our physical health, mental health, and personal lives," the suggestion is likened to mythology.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Juregen wrote: |
| It is your CHOICE, so let it be a CHOICE. |
It stops being a choice when the competitive nature of the job market forces your hand. It becomes, "Work an unhealthy amount or die." |
Who said that? "Work an unhealthy amount or die." We work long hours because the purchasing power of our wages is continuously eroded by govt backed inflation. |
No, we work long hours because a greater and greater portion of our wealth is being redirected to banks. Government banked inflation raises prices, but it also puts more money into the system, and that money needs to go somewhere. Ultimately it should still end up in workers hands. But it's not, it's ending up in banks hands, and it's the common man's fault that it is. Sure we have the obvious cases of things like the bank bailouts (which can be attributed to the government), but we also have things like the massive overuse of credit and bank loans (which are ultimately the responsibility of citizens), and the out of control price of health care (which is the responsibility of both government, whose regulations do have a negative impact, and citizens, who empower this system by continuing to participate in it despite how ludicrious it's become).
Finally, and most importantly, we have the fact that people are willing to work long hours for stagnant wages. The guy who is willing to work 50 hours a week instead of 40 at his salary position raises the bar for everyone, and enough of those people exist that it starts to become a requirement instead of an extra. All those other factors would mean very little if citizens weren't willing to work increasingly longer hours at stagnant pay.
All these things have an impact, and they cannot be laid 100% at the feet of the government. Indeed, even the actions of the government must ultimately come back to the people who empower said government: the voters. Needless to say, the Libertarian ideology that "All social problems are caused by government," is a ridiculous oversimplification that simply doesn't mesh with reality. Indeed, it's directly contradictory to the idea that human beings are rational individuals who are capable of functioning without being governed.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I'm reminded very much by this topic of how college degrees have played out. Originally people got bachelor's degrees to get an edge. Now having a bachelor's degree has become the norm.. So, people escallate further, and a master's degree is the new bachelor's degree. The required investment to enter the workplace keeps going up and up. It's the same lesson: unlimited potential escallation with regards to competition for positions, promotions, and the avoidance of layoffs hurts workers. |
This is true. Do you need me to point out the root cause of academic inflation? |
The truest and most fundamental root cause is people being willing to spend large amounts of money to get an edge in employment. If people weren't willing to do that, it wouldn't happen, period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
I've never overworked in my life. At my last employer, many people worked 50+ hours. I stuck to 40. It wasn't because I was less ambitious, or was a slacker. I simply couldn't find enough to keep me busy during that 40, so why would I stay beyond it? Nevertheless, my boss had one criticism during my annual review: I didn't put in as many hours as my colleagues. Didn't matter that my workload was actually a little larger than theirs. Sitting at the desk I guess is an important task. And no, my boss wasn't Korean or Japanese, just another white guy.
So my question is: how many people actually "work" over those 40 hours? And how many are pretending to work to look good for their supervisor and management? |
Quite a few are probably the latter, unfortunately, which is why it's so ridiculous. Working 50 hours a week still has an impact on you, even if you aren't constantly working while there. Simply being at work rather than being at liberty is tiring to a lot of people, myself included. It shouldn't be so, but it seems to be the case. It should also be remembered that although employers don't pay for commuting time, it does represent an investment of time related to your job. Many people are actually spending even more time on their jobs that is actually listed due to commutes. Again, this has a psychological impact.
So, based on the assumption that many people are spending more time at work than they actually have work to do, a reduction in work hours would not actually reduce our national productivity as much as one would think. Indeed, it might not reduce it much at all if people become more efficient with their time. Some fields were people are legitimately busy all the time might see reductions in individual productivity per day as a result, but that could be used to spur new job growth to make up the difference.
The biggest problem I see with a universal limit on working hours would be fields like doctors, which are all ready understaffed even with them working the hours they work now. Perhaps specific fields could receive exemptions on a case by case basis, as realistically, highly educated individuals don't necessarily need the same protections. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Juregen wrote: |
| There are plenty of people who want to get a head in the world, and that means you have to be better somehow. |
And we can retain that without quantity of hours worked being one of the factors.
|
How? |
Because there is more to how a good a worker you are than how many hours you work. Your level of productivity within the hours you do work is important, and if total working hours were limited, it would probably become the most important thing. After all, level of productivity is directly related to how well you're performing, while working more hours simply means you're willing to spend the time, not necessarily that you're using it effectively. |
Have you ever heard of the 80/20 principle? 80% of the output comes from 20% of the effort. There is possibly something like this at play here. And mandating work hours will not fix it.
I addressed this in one of my replies to Buncheon Bum. People almost never work efficiently and they are resistant to change. Your idea of limiting work hours will be wildly popular but it won't fix anything.
| Quote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Juregen wrote: |
| That said, if you want to focus more on enjoying your life, no one is stopping you from taking a stress free job and living on a wage that is less significant. |
Imagine if you didn't have to chose between significant wages and healthy work hours. |
Ok. I'm imagining. I'm also imagining fairies and unicorns. What is your point? |
You consider being able to earn significant wages while working a healthy amount of work hours equivalent to faeries and unicorns? Indeed, this is very telling of the status quo. Companies have won the propaganda war so thoroughly that when it's pointed out, "Hey, perhaps we could work a bit less for the sake of our physical health, mental health, and personal lives," the suggestion is likened to mythology. |
What does a "healthy" number of work hours mean? It sounds like something you made up. Everyone is different and it doesn't seem right to me that someone else can come in and dictate to you how many hours a week you can work. How do you account for farmers and such? My Grandfather worked every hour of day light his entire life. It didn't seem to do him any harm. He still put in a solid work week well into his retirement and he turns 90 next year.
I don't think this notion of a "healthy" number of work hours is something you can quantify.
| Quote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Juregen wrote: |
| It is your CHOICE, so let it be a CHOICE. |
It stops being a choice when the competitive nature of the job market forces your hand. It becomes, "Work an unhealthy amount or die." |
Who said that? "Work an unhealthy amount or die." We work long hours because the purchasing power of our wages is continuously eroded by govt backed inflation. |
No, we work long hours because a greater and greater portion of our wealth is being redirected to banks. Government banked inflation raises prices, but it also puts more money into the system, and that money needs to go somewhere. Ultimately it should still end up in workers hands. But it's not, it's ending up in banks hands, and it's the common man's fault that it is. Sure we have the obvious cases of things like the bank bailouts (which can be attributed to the government), but we also have things like the massive overuse of credit and bank loans (which are ultimately the responsibility of citizens), and the out of control price of health care (which is the responsibility of both government, whose regulations do have a negative impact, and citizens, who empower this system by continuing to participate in it despite how ludicrious it's become). |
These are small compared to the main issue. Which is we do not have a legal medium of exchange which acts as a store of value across time. The store of value factor of a medium of exchange is one of the fundamentals of a currency. Unfortunately, this has been outlawed and we are forced to trade using the debauched currencies of our sovereign nations. If we had a currency which was worth the same today as it is tomorrow, these things problems would fix themselves.
| Quote: |
| Finally, and most importantly, we have the fact that people are willing to work long hours for stagnant wages. The guy who is willing to work 50 hours a week instead of 40 at his salary position raises the bar for everyone, and enough of those people exist that it starts to become a requirement instead of an extra. All those other factors would mean very little if citizens weren't willing to work increasingly longer hours at stagnant pay. |
Who are you to dictate to people how long they are allowed to work?
| Quote: |
| All these things have an impact, and they cannot be laid 100% at the feet of the government. Indeed, even the actions of the government must ultimately come back to the people who empower said government: the voters. Needless to say, the Libertarian ideology that "All social problems are caused by government," is a ridiculous oversimplification that simply doesn't mesh with reality. Indeed, it's directly contradictory to the idea that human beings are rational individuals who are capable of functioning without being governed. |
Every problem in society leads back to the door of govt intervention. You have been shown this countless times but refuse to accept it.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I'm reminded very much by this topic of how college degrees have played out. Originally people got bachelor's degrees to get an edge. Now having a bachelor's degree has become the norm.. So, people escallate further, and a master's degree is the new bachelor's degree. The required investment to enter the workplace keeps going up and up. It's the same lesson: unlimited potential escallation with regards to competition for positions, promotions, and the avoidance of layoffs hurts workers. |
This is true. Do you need me to point out the root cause of academic inflation? |
The truest and most fundamental root cause is people being willing to spend large amounts of money to get an edge in employment. If people weren't willing to do that, it wouldn't happen, period.[/quote]
People are only responding to the incentives they perceive. You can't dictate the behaviour of millions of people. What are you going to do? Tell people to not go to college? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
[quote="Fox"]
Quite a few are probably the latter, unfortunately, which is why it's so ridiculous. Working 50 hours a week still has an impact on you, even if you aren't constantly working while there. Simply being at work rather than being at liberty is tiring to a lot of people, myself included. It shouldn't be so, but it seems to be the case. It should also be remembered that although employers don't pay for commuting time, it does represent an investment of time related to your job. Many people are actually spending even more time on their jobs that is actually listed due to commutes. Again, this has a psychological impact. |
How do you propose to fix it? There is literally no intervention you can make that won't make the situation worse.
| Quote: |
| So, based on the assumption that many people are spending more time at work than they actually have work to do, a reduction in work hours would not actually reduce our national productivity as much as one would think. Indeed, it might not reduce it much at all if people become more efficient with their time. Some fields were people are legitimately busy all the time might see reductions in individual productivity per day as a result, but that could be used to spur new job growth to make up the difference. |
Tell me somewhere this has worked before. You cannot make huge changes to the structure of an economy and not have things go wrong that you didn't intend. this is the nature of central planning. It always throws up absurd situations and lowers the general welfare of the population. this has been shown time and again. Central planning always produces unintended consequences.
| Quote: |
| The biggest problem I see with a universal limit on working hours would be fields like doctors, which are all ready understaffed even with them working the hours they work now. Perhaps specific fields could receive exemptions on a case by case basis, as realistically, highly educated individuals don't necessarily need the same protections. |
The biggest problem I see is that it is a colossally stupid idea. If it were so easy and worked so well, businesses would do it anyway. They could pay their workers less but get the same output.
Central planning fails 100% of the time. What? Are you going to have a "How many hours each worker in a certain industry can work per week" Czar. Give me a break. This is 1984 stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Have you ever heard of the 80/20 principle? 80% of the output comes from 20% of the effort. There is possibly something like this at play here. And mandating work hours will not fix it. |
If so, again, we can reduce working hours without actually meaningfully reducing national productivity. People will have more leisure time and be mentally and physically healthier while not actually giving up anything in return. As you point out, much of the time they spend at work now is wasted anyway, but because of a culture of competitiveness they can't simply stop going to work during that time, even if there isn't actually work to be done. You're not helping your case here.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| What does a "healthy" number of work hours mean? It sounds like something you made up. |
The more hours we spend on work, the less we have to spend relaxing, and the less we have to devote to important interpersonal relationships, such as family life. More time at work leads to more stress, which isn't healthy. I think this is a fairly obvious truth that you're intentionally being obtuse about because of your hatred of anything governmental, including a limited work week.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| I don't think this notion of a "healthy" number of work hours is something you can quantify. |
Obviously there is going to be both some personal variation and some variation between vocation. I still think it's fairly obvious one could quantify it. In fact, the idea that we couldn't quantify it is ludicrious if you really think about it for a moment. Consider a 100 hour workweek. That's 14 hours a day, every day, with no days off. I think it's safe to say the average individual would begin to suffer both physically and mentally in such a situation. It's a quantifiably unhealthy amount to work for most people.
It's intuitively obvious that working too much is unhealthy. The only question is how much is unhealthy. It can be quantified, and it should be quantified. What number is optimal is all that's up for debate.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| These are small compared to the main issue. |
No, they aren't. You want to construe it that way so as to keep the blame squarely on government -- which is where you want it to be -- but these other things factor in substantially.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| If we had a currency which was worth the same today as it is tomorrow, these things problems would fix themselves. |
Invest in gold. It's not illegal. Remember, all legal tender laws force you to do is accept the nation's currency. It doesn't stop you from accepting payment in other forms if others are willing to pay you in other forms, nor from storing your wealth in other forms.
Bear in mind I'm completely on your side with regards to a fixed-value currency. That's how it should be. But to pretend issues like excessive work weeks will simply go away if only we had a fixed-value currency is silly. It's not a panacea, it's just a good idea.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Who are you to dictate to people how long they are allowed to work? |
Can we have at least one conversation without this inane, "Who are you to blah blah blah?" rhetoric? Who are you to say we can't enact such a policy if the majority of the public were in favor of it (and mind you, you yourself asserted it would be wildly popular)?
And aren't you from New Zealand anyway? Who are you to even voice an opinion about American politics given you aren't an American citizen? But I don't ask these questions because all we're doing here is exchanging ideas. Why not show the same courtesy?
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Every problem in society leads back to the door of govt intervention. You have been shown this countless times but refuse to accept it. |
That's because it's not true; I haven't been shown it countless times, Libertarians have insisted upon it countless times in their monologues. In fact, it's so obviously not true that it's laughable. Murder is a social problem that doesn't lead back to government intervention. Alcoholism is a social problem that doesn't lead back to government intervention. And further, any problem caused by government intervention ultimately leads back to the voting base, as it's the voting base that both elects the politicians who implement these measures, and then continues to support said politicians after they do. So let's drop this inane Libertarian fantasy that all social problems are caused by government intervention. Many social problems are clearly independent of government intervention, and even when governmental intervention does cause a problem, the ultimate responsibility lies with the citizen base's political apathy and ignorance, not with the concept of governmental intervention itself.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| People are only responding to the incentives they perceive. |
And in their ignorant rush for a competitive advantage, they hurt themselves. That's the entire point: if the average man is simply allowed to compete in an unlimited field, the end result is the average man being hurt. They end up in pointless debt with productive years wasted.
Again and again we're shown that the average person is not competent to act in his own best interests. This completely destroys the basis of Libertarian Philosophy.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| You can't dictate the behaviour of millions of people. What are you going to do? Tell people to not go to college? |
How to best solve the problem of degree over-saturation is a separate topic. Let's not complicate the thread with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
