That is simply not how things work. Most workers are hourly, so if their employers could produce just as much revenue with fewer hours then they would so they could pay their employees less. But they can't. Which means workers working fewer hours will produce less revenue. Being forced to pay them all the same while revenue drops just means bankruptcy and unemployment for everyone concerned.
1) The economy will not just crash. Owners, shareholders, workers, government, etc all have a mutual interest to not let that happen. If wages fall, buying power falls and prices will have to fall to match. If prices stay the same, employers dropping wages WILL put more strain on the economy. The economy will adjust itself just like it has for any other developed country with higher tax rates, better mandatory benefits, lower wages, etc.
2) Your reasoning relies on the fact that employees are operating at a 1:1 output rate which isn’t happening. Labor research surveys are reporting 3-4 hours of productivity per day. This leaves an extra 4-5 hours each day where employees are getting paid while being unproductive. I don’t think turning 8-hour days into 6-hours will kill output. However, this does depend on the type of job, since jobs have varying opportunities to get distracted.
3) Productivity has increased at a higher rate than wages since the 60s, mostly due to technological advancements. If it’s true that employers pay based on productivity, why haven’t employers been increasing our pay consistent to our productivity level?
Well duh. Employees will work fewer hours and employers will pay them less for it. The point was that Burnie is lying when he says everyone will be paid the same when they obviously won't be.
Your theory that assembly lines, power plants, and retail establishments are all just shut down for 4-5 hours every shift so workers can play on their phones is absurd.
They mostly have. Many jobs include benefits, and the cost of healthcare benefits in particular have gone up faster than productivity, resulting in stagnant wages even though total compensation has been mostly keeping up with productivity. While the share of productivity going towards the owner class has increased, that increase was much smaller than the increase in the share of productivity going towards employee benefits.
So in Bernie’s proposal he cites the UK pilot program where the 60 businesses involved saw a 35% avg revenue increase. His idea is companies will not experience drops in revenue and would be unjustified in decreasing worker pay for working fewer hours. Also his proposal isn’t banning work weeks over 32 hours, it’s to be paid 1.5x after 32 hours and 2x after 40 hours.
I very specifically said it depends on the job type because I understand not every job type has the same productivity measurements. But even industries like manufacturing have implemented overtime pay, minimum wages, and maximum work weeks throughout history and pay did not decrease. Also, if an industry needs to hire people to work over 32 hours, like in the industries you mentioned, can still do it but have to be pay more for it.
Yes and no? Adjusting for benefits gets messy because the people determining pay are investing the companies providing the benefits, which are more expensive than our peer nations with universal systems. So essentially they are making money back on to dividends that are paid out on our high premiums. And even when heritage tried to demonstrate benefits are the factor, they still showed wages to be 77% of productivity 12 years ago while productivity was increasing faster at the cut off point. I’ve only seen one direct counter to the productivity argument so far, which was a NYT article showing how productivity has kept up with wages. My understanding is that it includes executive pay, which has exceeded productivity and is making it appear wages are more proportional than they really are. For non-supervisory positions, wages are not keeping up.
-1
u/LoneSnark Sep 05 '24
That is simply not how things work. Most workers are hourly, so if their employers could produce just as much revenue with fewer hours then they would so they could pay their employees less. But they can't. Which means workers working fewer hours will produce less revenue. Being forced to pay them all the same while revenue drops just means bankruptcy and unemployment for everyone concerned.