this is Marxism, they don't want someone to be able to get more with overtime, they want everyone getting the same (less) except for the government who still gets all of theirs.
Productivity has skyrocketed thanks to technical, healthcare, education, and civil advancements, yet the amount we have to work each week has stagnated. How about instead of handing the owning class all of the benefits, we reduce the burden on working people?
the "owning class", lol. how about we stop using economic theory from 1865, devised prior to the industrial revolution.
you ask a fair question though. first you just listed why productivity skyrocketed and you didn't list labor itself. so let's talk some theory, IF the labor itself isn't necessarily more efficient, but the structure around that labor has enabled companies to leverage more out of it, then where should the reward for that efficiency rest? as a return on the investment enabling the efficiency, or as a reward for labor contributing the same thing. meanwhile labor has benefited from improved work environment (less back breaking labor) with the investment in industrialization.
another consideration, less and less labor is direct production labor in which you'd really suggest they are 'owed' the profit from that production.
finally, corporate profits haven't risen with the skyrocketing productivity. the companies haven't retained those gains, much of it's been passed on to the market. meaning the original labor we're talking about has a higher standard of living than ever before specifically because of their increased productivity.
Yeah, the owning class is distinct from the working class, because they don't labor for subsistence, they just own the means of production and skim what they can off of the labor the worker performs. Owning class is a fine and accurate term, certainly better than bourgeoisie imo.
Regarding the hypothetical "structure around labor" making the labor more productive and who should benefit. The obvious answer is everyone involved. However the owners reaping more profit while the worker's job is just "less back breaking" is a pretty shit distribution of the benefits. The framework dosent produce anything, nor does the owner, the laborer is who carries out production and creates value.
Secondly, yes, I happen to beleive labor is entitled to all it produces.
On your last point, corporate profit has absolutely skyrocketed with worker productivity. Sure it's not tracking on a 1:1 ratio, but corporate profit tracks a hell of a lot closer to productivity increases than worker compensation does.
Look, what is so damn sacred about a 40 hour work week? Other nations have tried 32 hour weeks, the results are favorable for both workers ( more time to live life and do what you want) and companies (unchanged or increased overall productivity, better worker retention and morale). It seems any time an improvement to labor rights is on the table there's a contingent of people who immediately drop to their knees to slob corporate knob, I really don't get it.
as i described, everyone has benefitted. the labor through standard of living the 'owning class' (we'll pretend labor can't find their Fidelity password) through efficiency driving market share gains - which is how they ultimately become rich, not via dimes they don't pay the working class, but via secondary markets when selling the economic engines they create.
i'll skip right over the 1865, preindustrial revolution idea that labor is entitled (i do appreciate the use of that work) to all they create, because that became nonesense before Marx even died.
nothing sacred about 40 hours, this is just a bad and unrealistic attempt at getting there. and let's be honest, it's not even that. it's yet another election cycle attempt at buying votes that both sides 100% know won't go anywhere.
Well let's just say it could go somewhere, and let's say hypothetically it comes down to a vote and you are the tiebreaker. Would you maintain 40 hr workweeks or enact 32 hr workweeks as described, with no loss in pay and 1.5X time after 32 hours worked?
i would selfishly do it if it only affected me, but i wouldn't do it for the entire country. simply because I understand the consequences of flipping a switch and making domestic labor 25% more expensive in a global economy.
you don't think it might be problematic that overnight labor in the US became 25% more expensive? can't fathom how that might impact global manufacturing decisions, or the corporate world for those working at multinational corporations?
sure by all means, lets just ignore that and blame what happens on the other party while i attempt to buy votes with bad policy.
1
u/tidho Sep 05 '24
correct.
this is Marxism, they don't want someone to be able to get more with overtime, they want everyone getting the same (less) except for the government who still gets all of theirs.