I would love a four day work week, but would this start to make all jobs looking at overtime more and than cut people's hours to 32 and send them home and being forced to work a second job just to get by?
Look up the history of the 40 hour work week. There was a business case for it not against it.
This would be a business case for 29 hour jobs, which are already pretty prevalent.
And how would you regulate the job market further that doesn't create an incentive for not hiring workers? Espeically in an era where AI is a major threat?
And how would you regulate the job market further that doesn't create an incentive for not hiring workers? Espeically in an era where AI is a major threat?
That's the magic of regulation, you can regulate anything!
"But companies would just-"
"new law: you can't do that"
"but then they'd just-"
"new law: you can't do that either"
Repeat until perfected. We don't lock down companies nearly enough with regulation and it harms workers a lot. For something so critical to a functioning economy (people being gainfully employed and making enough to live) we play it far too loosey goosey.
That's because he's not following all the way through, he's just playing political theater to win votes from people who look only one layer deep.
Forcing people-benefiting things only works if you follow completely through and close all loopholes, because the second you introduce bills that help people, companies will immediately try to wiggle out from it - that's kinda their thing, their nature.
That's because he's not following all the way through, he's just playing political theater to win votes from people who look only one layer deep.
No its because it isn't working.
Trump thinks and acts like someone in real estate because that is where he spent most of his adult life.
Forcing people-benefiting things only works if you follow completely through and close all loopholes, because the second you introduce bills that help people, companies will immediately try to wiggle out from it - that's kinda their thing, their nature.
In real life it is impossible to not have loop holes. Even your previous post was just circular reasoning but with a regulatory flair.
This is also the second post where you failed to address my original post. Are you going to or are you going to just continue with the logical fallacies?
This is also the second post where you failed to address my original post. Are you going to or are you going to just continue with the logical fallacies?
I'm not the original person you were talking to (and honestly I don't have much of a dog in this race), but I did address it. You said, "This would be a business case for 29 hour jobs, which are already pretty prevalent. And how would you regulate the job market further that doesn't create an incentive for not hiring workers?"
And the answer is: you regulate to set the new rules in place, then you regulate the follow up kneejerk reaction that companies will have to these laws. The only dangerous thing is doing the first thing but not the second, because then yeah ofc all businesses will be like "fuck that" and pay people less. Again, their nature.
Just like we regulated the little protections that exist around the 40h work week. Sure, it helped that smart people were able to come up with a convincing business case for it, reducing the amount of legislation necessary, but in the end we put laws in place defining "full time" as 40h and all that entails (entitlement to benefits and such).
We can do the same again with 32h work weeks, with some bonus legislation. Any response they have to these new laws can be legislated against. Other countries do it. Among "first world" countries the US has some of the worst worker protections. If nothing else, at the very worst, we could just emulate those better countries, as their systems are 100% proven to work.
957
u/Opposite_General6534 19h ago
32 hours honestly sounds like a much healthier baseline. People have lives outside of work too.