Arguments for a 4-hour Work day

I define it as acknowledging that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, both as an abstract idea and also a realistic practice that given life's obstacles people can move forward and are not abused.


This means people acknowledge each other's needs, strengths, weaknesses, does their best not to belittle them like an expendable resource and sees other people as their family, or as an extension of themselves.

If you cannot work with someone, or stand to be around them disengage as politely as possible and do so for reasons that are easily understandable from many other points of view or because the other person(s) violated their respect for you.


--

And to define "needs" I define it as the basic biological, social, psychological, and societal resources needed for survival without hardship in those areas.

There is some gray area, for instance one person's luxury for internet access would be a need for someone else if that resource was used for the person's job, or to pay bills and generally function that person's present time.

 

There are differing economic ideas and opinions on employment the problem is that the currently dominant theory in the US (and UK) is basically a con game built on a false premise.

The whole neo-liberal, competition, supply and demand guff that is put forward is based to one degree or another on the principles of a ‘free market’ and there never has been and never could be a ‘free market’ so these ideas don’t even get over the first hurdle and its telling that not one supporter of these ideas whose come here has been able to defend them form criticism in any rational or reasonable way.

The supporters know this but still try to promote their dribble.

*

In any society where there are not adequate safeguards in place to stop it any ‘market’ is likely to be rigged to favour those with power and influence and in a money based economy that power and influence would mostly likely reside with wealth.

Wealth have promoted flawed ‘free market’ thinking because it favours its interests.

In employment neoliberal ideas are not about seeking full employment and a living wage as the Keynesian based models are, it is about having unemployment because that is one of the means of driving down wage prices. It is the same reason why neoliberals oppose social programmes because their removal would also increase the possibility for exploitation, (as in work or starve).

*

In more egalitarian times it was thought that new technology in the workplace and at home would free people up to have more paid leisure time. People would be producing the same amount but in less time and that production would still get distributed as evenly in the form of wages.

That’s not what happened with the rise of ‘free market’ thinking which is all about the maximization of profit to the few the distribution circle has got a lot smaller.

Part of that movement was the promotion of economic globalisation, which basically allowed back some aspects of exploitative 19th century capitalism by promoting the moving of production to nations that had not developed the more distributive systems away from those nations that had.

In this way the long fought for distributive system has been undermined in those places where it had developed. Neo-liberals argue that to ‘compete’ in the global market the elements of the distributive system need to be dismantled what is needed they say is deregulation, the cutting of welfare, tax cuts that benefit the rich, lower wages, weak government oversight etc etc.

If we had a more equitable global system it could be possible for a majority of people to get a living wage and leisure enough to enjoy life.

 

I agree.

 

Indie

Are you saying you respect people’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

How does that fit in with you being happy to have a society where if through no fault of their own people suffer or even die from want?

And that you push for policies that would bring about such a society?

That you have advocated for a “Spenceristic” model of society - named after that great champion of Social Darwinism Herbert Spencer who said –

It seems hard that a labourer incapacitated by sickness from competing with his stronger fellows should have to bear the resulting privations. It seems hard that widows and orphans should be left to struggle for life or death. Nevertheless, when regarded not separately, but in connection with the interests of universal humanity, these harsh fatalities are seen to be full of the highest beneficence…the same beneficence that brings to early graves the children of diseased parents, and singles out the low-spirited, the intemperate, and the debilitated as the victims of an epidemic. . .

It seems to me that while you may or may not respect people’s right to life and the pursuit of happiness - that you do seem intent in putting as many hurdles as possible in the way of a lot of people who are trying to achieve a long, healthy and happy life.

 

Agreed.

The trick now is to make sure whatever global system emerges is one that is equitable and fair worldwide, with the hopes that 3rd world countries can evolve and grow to shed their superstition.


The problem is the type of globalization, that IS going on, is what STP and others like him pick up on and only half-way understand.


I think it is very true that the rich, and the finance industry globally speaking, are creating a globalist system that allows for exploitation like you described above, rather than an equitable globalist system, using the wealth they have now at the national or federal level. (not all governments use a Federalist system, so I used the term "national" as well).

In regards to the concept of over-leveraging, and "too big to fail" precedents that frankly are a problem. Various trade-agreements have sketchy language in them that SOUND like they could be used to legally create a wedge for the 0.01% in the finance industry who are abusing their power and influence, same goes for other huge industries who dabble in other commodities just as valuable as monetary capital.

I just wanted to say this though, so I can actually give some acknowledgement to where STP and I agree in our displeasure with the current system.

 

monkjr

Agreed,I think governments are beginning to wake up to the problems of global capitalism but of course they are only seeing the tax issues involved, people will need to start pushing for the other things that would have to be done to bring about a more equitable outcome.

What ‘superstitions’ are you referring to? (I thought you were a christian are you saying you are going to give up your superstition?)

To me the problem is that a certain flawed ‘free market’ doctrines has become dominate in places like the US and UK, which as you point out has brought about a certain type of ‘globalisation’ that favours wealth.

And as shown here many seem to have an almost religious belief in such doctrines.

To me these neo-liberal ideas needs to be revealed as the ‘false idols’ that they are.

 

A true "Christian" knows not to kill others to promote the faith, and there are passages of scripture that promote tolerance and allowing sinners to keep sinning if that's what they wish to do.


Modern mainstream populace Christianity, doesn't and has never taught this though, instead they taught puritanical nosiness.

So my faith would promote the idea of world peace I wouldn't have to give it up.

---

Also in my case I've experienced miracles along with one of my friend's whose family member was cured from cancer in their spinal column without conventional medical treatment.

So for me it goes beyond superstition, not sure I would've converted if I didn't experience what I did.

 

words like "free market" are really just loaded words and don't really mean anything. free in this context can only be a relative term anyway [more free than what?].

the market system we have is hardly anything i would use the word "free" to describe. To me, "free" would describe a system where everyone was given an equal chance, but it is not so .. the odds are weighted and fixed in favor for the wealthy, or those with much political influence (those usually [always?] fall in both categories).

 

Terms like "free market" among others are campaign marketing rhetoric.


But like it's a vague ass shit term.


Debates and speeches need to be specific, inspiring, and planned.

Problem is the masses find technical talk boring on TV which is why campaign managers tell their candidates to say the vague sensational stuff.

Take Obama's 1st presidential debate against Romney in 2012, Obama was technically more factually correct, but the mass perception was Obama lost that debate.

Why?

It's because humans as a mass group tend to have faulty judging criteria on stuff that doesn't matter much, but only appeals to feelings, not logical coherent and wise policy.

 

monkjr

yep they'll listen as long as theres not too much thinking involved .. make it easier for me and take care of all that thinking stuff for me .. I trust you

that's the problem with society today, people don't wanna think, or at least not think on their own ..

 

I work 12 hour night shifts usually. Most people can't handle it. But I've managed 18 before.

 

To be fair though the tax code is way more complex than it should be.

I mean if you want a fair democracy, things should also go at least half-way to HELP make the average or lower than average intellectuals out there at least get the gist of the truth behind policy A, and policy B-Z, and bills/laws a-z.

Maybe not all the details understood, but enough to get an accurate broad understanding to people.


Because I tell you American people's hearts are usually in the right place, but it is usually misguided and abused by those who know how to deceive those who vote based on emotional-passion OVER critical thinking skills which take a 2nd seat.

 

Back in the 1970s during the Arab oil embargo and during the fuel oil shortage of the late 1970s there was a great deal of debate on the subject of a 4 day work week (or 10 hours a day) President Carter could never get it enacted even during the great winter cold-snap of 76’-77’


Hotwater

 

I do agree with you .. it seems like they make it so complicated so that people screw it up and get penalized for it. That shit is seriously complex! [talking about the hundreds of different tax forms and options] .. does it really have to be like that?

 

Min. wages workers deserve more, a lot more.

I've worked mainly min. wage jobs in my life, some retail and some fast food, and there was never any time or tolerance for slacking off in the workplace at any of these jobs. We all worked very hard and were busy and productive, and I mean everyone. Slower people (including myself at some jobs) were cast out and laid off for incompetence. They don't need a reason the way things are now.

I can tell you from personal experience that these jobs are stressful and extremely taxing and no one working at any job I've been to got away with taking it easy. The managers were like drill sargeants, screaming in our ears if we took even a moment to collect ourselves and rest.

I don't know what fantasy land those of Fox News ilk live in but there are so many lies about entry level work.

It's difficult and stressful work, and there were many adults much older than me working alongside me who weren't paid any more than I was.

Nothing like the picture painted by many conservatives.

Min. wage should gradually go up until it's at around $16 an hour. That would be more realistic for the harshness of the tasks demanded by positions at restaurants, retail, or any position at any job I've been at in America.

 

enjoying a lovely two days off.... i work part time, that's more than enough for me. i don't know how to make it work, I'll admit, but i do firmly believe people just need more time to simply be themselves, find themselves. create themselves, enjoy their life. I'm currently at the library!

 

A recent article on vice dot com about the campaign for a 4 hour work day both past and present. It's pretty thorough. It mentions the Black-Connery Bill for a 30 hour work week that the Senate had passed but the House stopped back in the 1930's.

http://www.vice.com/read/who-stole-the-four-hour-workday-0000406-v21n8

 

If your needs and wants can be filled by working only 4 hours a day then why not? Some of us may still have to work 8, 10, 12 or more hours to fill our needs and wants.

 

That's why it wouldn't work for me, 4hrs a day would barely cover my weekend lol.

 

This could work for unskilled labor-type jobs in a strictly socialist society... having more shifts, but with each of them shorter.

So instead of day shifts and night shifts, it could be broken up into early morning, morning, afternoon, evening, night, late.
Something like that.

It would help a lot if housing, food, health care and education were granted to all by the state... and people worked on a volunteer basis or in exchange for honors/special recognition/luxuries. It wouldn't matter how much it paid if the basics were covered. You might have to work for say a week in order to get a new TV, or a few days to get a new pair of shoes, etc.

Now that we have the Internet, it isn't so inconceivable that people could pick and choose when they do their work as well as how much, and are paid based on the amount of time they spend doing it. Even something like picking up trash, helping seniors, etc... could be rewarded.

Unfortunately, capitalism is pushing people into situations where they're being exploited and getting almost nothing in return. A lot of minimum wage jobs are practically slavery... it's not like you can get anywhere anytime soon, and education, health care etc are pretty much out of reach.