Now that 100% is an arbitrary number because GDP is an annual number and debt is not, but overall the ratio is still an useful number because it essentially measures how big a % of the entire GDP needs to be paid as interest on bonds and whatnot (multiply debt to GDP ratio by average bond interest)
In some scenarios. Some types of office work in particular, and not for everyone. Some people work best in short spurts, some do not. Those of us who qualify are incredibly privileged, as are the industries we work for.
Now try this with manufacturing, healthcare, etc. 24 hour weeks means that to get the same output, you have to hire nearly twice as many employees, at the same monthly cost per employee. There probably aren’t enough qualified unemployed people around to do that, so it’s easier to just let productivity drop (and do hospitals REALLY need so many people around 24/7? At nearly 2x the cost, perhaps not - can’t just increase pricing to make up for the cost increase in a single-payer system).
Depends on the situation. Suddenly going to 60% of the work load isn’t suddenly going to make the country or it’s people more productive. You’d need to hire more people to get the work done and Finland’s unemployment rate is already at 13%. So this would be a pretty poor solution when it comes to economics for everyone, unless you pay people less because they are working less hours.
I have thought of this. Paying people less could work out alright if you bring down their living costs. Housing is most of that and a lot of that cost goes to profit for banks.
Bring the cost of housing down and a lot of people will probably be happy to reduce hours worked. If you have a high unemployment rate there should be plenty of people to cover those extra hours too.
Even if people are more productive in less time, that doesn’t mean you can earn the same money. Many businesses operate on “hours spend” per task. As an example, let’s take hairdressers. If your hairdresser is now working only 6 hours instead of 8, that’s a potential 25% loss in revenue. And they won’t be magically faster now just because they work less. So if salary reduction is not an option, the only option is increasing prices.
What you’re saying is fine for office jobs, but just not an option for most service jobs. Waiters aren’t magically going to serve tables faster, cashiers won’t make customers move faster, etc.
You don’t see the long-term effects on Health, Education, and so on. Less mistakes are made. Yes, I understand that it’s harder for a small business to make up for the lost hours, but for a big business, the cost of an extra employee is nothing compared to the gains of extra productivity.
Healthcare has its own problems, but the 12 hour shift model was adopted because it improved patient outcomes. Only having 1 shift change per day provided less opportunity for patient context to get lost in the shuffle. In short, overworked doctors/nurses were better (for patients) than uninformed doctors/nurses.
Moving to 6 hour shifts/4 changes per day would quadruple that risk.
Now, there are plenty of ways to imagine changing procedures, policies, and tooling to reduce this risk, but it would require planning.
I’m not worried about big business. They will survive. I’m worried about the small bakery around the corner, about the hair salons down the street, the flower shop in the mall and basically every small, independent shop that exists which is a crucial part of every community it’s part of. And those small businesses make up a significant portion of the job market.
A 6 hour day at the same pay would absolutely annihilate any retail consumer B2C business that exists anywhere in the western world.
Most of that can be fixed with scheduling. Are all of those bakers and barbers fully booked for 8-12 hours every day? They don’t have gaps where they sit around waiting for business? When you offer shorter hours, people will have to schedule within those hours or go without the service. This should translate to less wasted time babysitting an empty store. And it’s totally possible to still accommodate all the customers. I know a chiropractor who is open 6-12 three days a week and 12-6 the other two days. He doesn’t have to work 12 hours a day, and it’s still easy for customers to schedule when they want.
I think it’s worth us paying some tax to support a small business, at the cost of having less things, but more time for ourselves.
The market corrects to match the available income of the consumer, usually. They want you paying, not hoarding.
Less goods and less work is ultimately better, leaves us with more time for people, for self-improvement, for the things that really matter, not the cheap plastics.
This is however, an opinion, and a matter of consensus, the economics are what they are.
As for why I’m suddenly writting entire paragraphs and am more literate, it’s because I got some good news, and the kind of misery knocks your IQ down.
Finland’s debt to GDP ratio is pretty high, they probably couldn’t actually afford this anymore without increasing taxes. 10 years ago maybe. At 86% debt to GDP they’re the 7th highest in the EU and I read a while ago that it it was projected to surpass 100% soon.
Now that 100% is an arbitrary number because GDP is an annual number and debt is not, but overall the ratio is still an useful number because it essentially measures how big a % of the entire GDP needs to be paid as interest on bonds and whatnot (multiply debt to GDP ratio by average bond interest)
The catch is that less work time actually INCREASES productivity.
In some scenarios. Some types of office work in particular, and not for everyone. Some people work best in short spurts, some do not. Those of us who qualify are incredibly privileged, as are the industries we work for.
Now try this with manufacturing, healthcare, etc. 24 hour weeks means that to get the same output, you have to hire nearly twice as many employees, at the same monthly cost per employee. There probably aren’t enough qualified unemployed people around to do that, so it’s easier to just let productivity drop (and do hospitals REALLY need so many people around 24/7? At nearly 2x the cost, perhaps not - can’t just increase pricing to make up for the cost increase in a single-payer system).
Depends on the situation. Suddenly going to 60% of the work load isn’t suddenly going to make the country or it’s people more productive. You’d need to hire more people to get the work done and Finland’s unemployment rate is already at 13%. So this would be a pretty poor solution when it comes to economics for everyone, unless you pay people less because they are working less hours.
I am quite curious on what the science will say on this.
We need another experiment.
I have thought of this. Paying people less could work out alright if you bring down their living costs. Housing is most of that and a lot of that cost goes to profit for banks.
Bring the cost of housing down and a lot of people will probably be happy to reduce hours worked. If you have a high unemployment rate there should be plenty of people to cover those extra hours too.
Erm, this will either cut profits for the sellers, or the pay will go down way more than the housing price.
But I also see there being hidden economic benefits to having more free time.
More time to stitch, repair, learn, take care of yourself.
Less medical costs and damages.
Its not that simple
Even if people are more productive in less time, that doesn’t mean you can earn the same money. Many businesses operate on “hours spend” per task. As an example, let’s take hairdressers. If your hairdresser is now working only 6 hours instead of 8, that’s a potential 25% loss in revenue. And they won’t be magically faster now just because they work less. So if salary reduction is not an option, the only option is increasing prices.
What you’re saying is fine for office jobs, but just not an option for most service jobs. Waiters aren’t magically going to serve tables faster, cashiers won’t make customers move faster, etc.
You don’t see the long-term effects on Health, Education, and so on. Less mistakes are made. Yes, I understand that it’s harder for a small business to make up for the lost hours, but for a big business, the cost of an extra employee is nothing compared to the gains of extra productivity.
Healthcare has its own problems, but the 12 hour shift model was adopted because it improved patient outcomes. Only having 1 shift change per day provided less opportunity for patient context to get lost in the shuffle. In short, overworked doctors/nurses were better (for patients) than uninformed doctors/nurses.
Moving to 6 hour shifts/4 changes per day would quadruple that risk.
Now, there are plenty of ways to imagine changing procedures, policies, and tooling to reduce this risk, but it would require planning.
You don’t see health care outcomes improve when you remove 40% of hours. Come on now.
Yeah just continue to overwork doctors and nurses, I am sure its fine.
Or just hire one extra, and cut their work hours.
Yes. Please do that.
I’m not worried about big business. They will survive. I’m worried about the small bakery around the corner, about the hair salons down the street, the flower shop in the mall and basically every small, independent shop that exists which is a crucial part of every community it’s part of. And those small businesses make up a significant portion of the job market.
A 6 hour day at the same pay would absolutely annihilate any retail consumer B2C business that exists anywhere in the western world.
Most of that can be fixed with scheduling. Are all of those bakers and barbers fully booked for 8-12 hours every day? They don’t have gaps where they sit around waiting for business? When you offer shorter hours, people will have to schedule within those hours or go without the service. This should translate to less wasted time babysitting an empty store. And it’s totally possible to still accommodate all the customers. I know a chiropractor who is open 6-12 three days a week and 12-6 the other two days. He doesn’t have to work 12 hours a day, and it’s still easy for customers to schedule when they want.
I think it’s worth us paying some tax to support a small business, at the cost of having less things, but more time for ourselves.
The market corrects to match the available income of the consumer, usually. They want you paying, not hoarding.
Less goods and less work is ultimately better, leaves us with more time for people, for self-improvement, for the things that really matter, not the cheap plastics.
This is however, an opinion, and a matter of consensus, the economics are what they are.
As for why I’m suddenly writting entire paragraphs and am more literate, it’s because I got some good news, and the kind of misery knocks your IQ down.
Productivity, but not production. They would still produce less than now, how much less is just not a simple ratio calculation.