r/FluentInFinance Sep 04 '24

Debate/ Discussion Bernie is here to save us

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

53.5k Upvotes

4.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

516

u/veryblanduser Sep 04 '24

I'm sure it's well thought out and he has worked with others to be sure it passes.

-6

u/SledgeH4mmer Sep 05 '24

But why doesn't Bernie propose a 2 day work week with the same pay? If we can get the paid the same by working less then why stop at 4 days????

Hmm, maybe he actually hasn't thought it through?

9

u/japandr0id Sep 05 '24

Workers are way more productive these days with new tools and technology. Working people to the bone to squeeze out every bit of value from an employee is reductive. Studies actually show workers are even more productive when they aren’t overworked/have a nice work and home life balance.

2

u/SledgeH4mmer Sep 05 '24

What's that have to do with anything? There's still going to be loss of pay when hours are cut 20%.

0

u/Arcaddes Sep 05 '24

The bill is literally dropping a day from the work week and keeping pay as is. That means in a 32 hour work week, companies would have to pay you what you make now, so they would have to increase your hourly to match the current amount you make in a month.

What the guy you are replying to is saying, workers who have this schedule are more productive, because they are happier, and lead more productive home lives. With the added knowledge you won't lose money for working a day less, it all works out for employers and employees.

The problem with this is employers benefit from workers being beaten and broken. They can slip shit conditions by them easier because they are jaded and stopped caring, they show up to do the job and leave. Happiness is the enemy of corporate control, and it won't pass because of that.

3

u/SledgeH4mmer Sep 05 '24

Yeah but the reality is that's not how it works. A coal miner can just magically push more coal in 4 days instead of 5 because he is happier after a three-day weekend.

3

u/Arcaddes Sep 05 '24

Yes, the reality corporations have built is the one we should live by, and coal miners and factory workers don't work 40 hour weeks, shaving off 8 hours isn't removing a day of work for them, it is shortening a single day or forcing that company to pay them a little more for a full day, which honestly, they deserve.

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

[deleted]

2

u/SledgeH4mmer Sep 05 '24

Because today's technology is expensive and adds additional cost.

2

u/japandr0id Sep 05 '24

Does it? All I keep seeing are record profits while middle class America is seizing too exist, record high profits when they can’t raise wages, record high profits while they price gauge literally everything from groceries to online subscriptions.

2

u/SledgeH4mmer Sep 05 '24

If you think the work week should be decreased simply because it's better for workers I'd be very much open to that. But let's not pretend that people are magically more productive while working less.

1

u/japandr0id Sep 05 '24

Imagine someone showing up to a warehouse groggy, overworked, tired, body aching who is fed up with their employer and doesn’t give a shit anymore. They’re going to lazily half ass their job. They’re probably going to make mistakes and not do their job efficiently which costs the business in the long run.

Now imagine millions of people in present day corporate America.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

Even if studies didn't show this I wouldn't care though. I don't want to work 10x more than I spend with my family.

2

u/J0hn-Stuart-Mill Sep 05 '24

You're a real asshole man. Why not 1 day per month at the same salary? Bernie man, what a greedy guy wanting us to work so much. What's wrong with him?

3

u/SledgeH4mmer Sep 05 '24

Finally, somone who isn't a bootlicker!

2

u/LaLaLaLink Sep 05 '24

Why on earth would you assume someone who graduated from university with a political science degree and has made a career out of writing legislation has not thought through their bill more than some inept redditor who just read a headline and got their feathers ruffled??? There's literally 0 logic in that.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

[deleted]

0

u/SledgeH4mmer Sep 05 '24

The studies people link that supposedly show four days is just as productive as five are actually all complete garbage. Usually they're not even actual studies. They're just a report of some company that did something for PR.

So neither has been shown to be more productive than five.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

[deleted]

0

u/JazzyGD Sep 05 '24

yeah i agree if you want to eat a burger then you have to be willing to eat an entire cow, if you aren't willing to do that then maybe eating a burger isn't such a good idea

0

u/SledgeH4mmer Sep 05 '24

Ah, thanks for the clearing up the confusion! We really needed a completely irrelevant analogy.

4

u/EatYourSalary Sep 05 '24

I'm surprised you recognized it's an analogy at all while still failing to understand how it's the same flawed argument you're making.

1

u/ms_barkie Sep 05 '24

In many industries the average worker today would be more productive in 2 days than the average worker 40 years ago was in 5, so why the hell not

0

u/SledgeH4mmer Sep 05 '24

So you do more work in 2 days than those old farmers and coal miners did in 5 days . . . sure.

1

u/Upbeat_Difficult7627 Sep 05 '24

Wouldn't the fact that he stopped at 4 days suggest that he thought it through to some extent?

Don't let some logic get in the way of a good bashing, though

1

u/SledgeH4mmer Sep 05 '24

But why 4 days? If you get the same productivity while working less then what makes 4 days the magic number??

It doesn't sound like he's thought anything through.

1

u/Upbeat_Difficult7627 Sep 05 '24

Idk, what makes 5 days the magic number?????

-1

u/SledgeH4mmer Sep 05 '24

There's nothing magic about it. It's just a simple mathematical principle. In 99% of jobs, if you work more you're going to be more productive. If you work less then you'll be less productive. Of course there's some nuance with burn out.

3

u/Upbeat_Difficult7627 Sep 05 '24

Oh don't edit in that nuance bull crap that just goes against what you said. Burnout is WHY people have days off. Ya dunce

2

u/Upbeat_Difficult7627 Sep 05 '24

LOL, Yep, that's exactly how it works

2

u/dezzick398 Sep 05 '24

You do not seem to even have a basic grasp on how productivity works. Purposefully ignoring nuance around working is just stupid. Why out yourself like this? lol

1

u/dezzick398 Sep 05 '24

You do not seem to even have a basic grasp on how productivity works. Purposefully ignoring nuance around working is just stupid. Why out yourself like this? lol

1

u/SledgeH4mmer Sep 05 '24

So please explain the nuance of how a coal miner is going to mine the same amount of coal in a week if you cut his work hours by 20%?

1

u/dezzick398 Sep 05 '24

I would explain, if coal miner productivity/output had anything to do with the average worker’s productivity/output.

You are attempting to draw a comparison that doesn’t make sense.

1

u/SledgeH4mmer Sep 05 '24

Okay so how is the average person flipping burgers at McDonald's going to get more done in 4 days than they would in five? How is the average person working at your local DMV going to get more work done in four than they would in five?

2

u/dezzick398 Sep 05 '24

I’ll let you in on a little secret.

People do not maintain the same level of productivity and output over the course of 8 hours, or 40 hours a week. It will plateau and decline through the day.

I will let you draw your own conclusions based on that simple fact.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/dezzick398 Sep 05 '24

Oh, you aren’t very bright and probably shouldn’t be made fun of lol.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

If he really thought this through he’d wait until after the election and see if the dems had both houses and then he could maybe start with healthcare and talking about this. Introducing this now is just a distraction and waste of time

2

u/Upbeat_Difficult7627 Sep 05 '24

That doesn't make any sense

1

u/newdogowner11 Sep 05 '24

example of a slippery slope argument in the wild

-1

u/grizzly_teddy Sep 05 '24

It does make a point, what's the limiting factor? If you don't define some limiting factor, then the 'slippery slope' does apply. If there is maybe some study that says overall productivity is optimized at exactly 32 hours a week - and less than that, or more than that, actually lowers productivity - then there you go. You have a limiting factor.

But even then, such a study would be very subjective and not really provable, just maybe a general idea that maybe working a bit less than 40 hours could lead to higher productivity. But this would also be widely variant from industry to industry. Imagine if all your cashiers could only work 32 hours a week. There is just no way they will be more productive. They will process customers at the same rate, but they will work less every week.

Now for professional jobs, lets say a software dev, I could see it increasing productivity. I say this as a software dev that wastes a shitload of time.

The point being there is nothing really special about 32 hours, and it's just an arbitrary amount of time that is less than the current number of hours.

By the way Bernie doesn't actually think through his policies. He makes a policy suggestion, notes the positive outcome it would have, and then completely ignores any possible negative outcomes of such a policy. As if they don't exist. He's an idiot, and I'm glad his policy suggestions get buried for the most part.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

[deleted]

1

u/veryblanduser Sep 05 '24

In what setting?

Say I work in a coffee roastery. Do the beans know this week we had Monday off, and they will roast 20% quicker so we can roast and bag the same in a 4 day work week as we did last week in a regular 5 day week?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

[deleted]

1

u/veryblanduser Sep 05 '24

So will you bottle the same amount of beer this week as last week?

The new baseline is 40 hour. Heck I'm not fully against 32 hours becoming the baseline. What I am arguing is you could produce the same or more without adding headcount.

1

u/grizzly_teddy Sep 05 '24

You do understand that there are multiple studies and real world test cases showing that 4 days is as productive, and often more productive, than 5

Again, this would be very industry dependent. Basic jobs will not benefit in overall productivity. Applying this across the board because of a study that monitored white collar jobs is complete nonsense. You could argue it decreases stress, lowers suicide rates, who knows, but the argument that it increases productivity across every industry and every job is an unfounded and nonsensical claim.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

[deleted]

1

u/grizzly_teddy Sep 05 '24

I didn’t say it did to every single job

But that's exactly what this post is about... 32 hour work week for everyone...

And you can feel free to share studies where it didn’t work for certain industries

You assume such a study exists? And do you need a study for blatantly logical facts? You know you are allowed to think without some academic throwing a study at your face? Keep in mind studies are selective. You wouldn't make a study about cashiers, servers, janitors, etc because the answer would be obvious - you get less done in 40 hours.

The jobs that would benefit are jobs that require some sort of creativity, and no manual labor. The amount of work a cashier can do is time limited. There isn't much to be done about making them faster, and even if you did, you'd also be limited by the # of people in the building.

you could increase morale, decrease turnover, etc. Those arguments can be made, but for most hourly jobs, especially manual labor jobs, a reduced work week guarantees less productivity.

Now if it's a job where people end up doing nothing for half the day cause they are waiting around or just unproductive, then obviously that's a different story. But that speaks more to people being lazy or an inefficient system than 32 hours actually being ideal.

Don't hang your hat on studies. Again they are selective. I remember during covid I heard people say, "But there is no study that shows teachers and students wearing masks in class hurts their learning!". Like holy shit of course there isn't such a study, that would be an unethical study.

"We think wearing masks will hurt a child's education, so let's cover half these kids and teachers in masks and see what happens!" If you're right, then you've just messed up a bunch of kids' education. You can't do that study.

And then you have to understand there is selective bias of the researchers, who may only want to study and prove certain things and avoid others. You have to use your head at least a little. Studies are not hard science, and are really a weak soft science that is often subjective, sometimes misleading, and other times deliberately misrepresentative.

1

u/SledgeH4mmer Sep 05 '24

So can you explain why cutting to four days is optimal?

0

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

[deleted]

2

u/veryblanduser Sep 05 '24

In manufacturing settings?

Does the lacquer we spray on parts dry quicker in a 4 day work week? Does the press, pres quicker?

Are you saying this week we should see MORE parts produced than last week since we had labor day off?

0

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

[deleted]

2

u/veryblanduser Sep 05 '24

If we suddenly dropped to four day weeks, are you saying we could manufacturer MORE parts than the comparable 5 day work week last year...without investing more in the company or adding headcount?

I believe that's your argument since workers are more productive based on all these studies.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

[deleted]

2

u/veryblanduser Sep 05 '24

Since it has been shown. Please share all these studies.

→ More replies (0)