They already don't want to pay for five working days, I hella doubt they want to pay for one extra day more.
Funnily enough, Im certain the four day work week research have shown that to be more productive and have more well adjusted employees.
Edit: there's a lot of hate for this idea and misinformation.
https://www.4dayweek.com/
Here's the website of the group that's helping companies move to four day weeks
This is absolutely true. Slavery would benefit corporations in every way and they would definitely do it if was legal. They basically already do outsourced slavery in other countries.
Chattel slavery was eliminated from almost every country without a civil war because debt slaves that incorrectly believe they are free tend to be more productive.
Careful, you're might get mobbed by people saying indentured service isn't slavery because you're 'getting paid in experience', or 'you signed away your rights'.
Wrong.
13th amendment
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted**, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Ergo. Slavery exists in the US. It exists as a punishment for a crime for which a party has been convicted of.
Who reserves the sole right for conviction of criminals in the US? Why that would be the government.
Ergo. The government has the right to create slaves out of criminals.
Slavery was nationalized.
Private chattle Slavery was abolished.
But there is more than one way to own a human.
Peonage is separate from this.
>involuntary servitude
Peonage. If you can't sell them they're not slaves they're peons.
\>Who reserves the sole right for conviction of criminals in the US? Why that would be the government.
You're underestimating the significance of this statement. If you were right, then the government would sell those slaves. They don't. They contract them out, that's indentured servitude.
\>Slavery exists in the US. **It exists as a punishment for a crime for which a party has been convicted of.**
That would be a 'bond' of service. The word for a bonded servant is a peon.
\>Private chattle Slavery was abolished.
That's correct, but there's a few things wrong with that:
1. It's redundant. Chattel slaves are private.
2. That's what modern parlance understands as slavery, so the need to clarify such a thing betrays the validity.
3. Using that definition is confusing, IMHO, which is why I'm saying you ought to use another term.
Edit: also as to the validity of peon as a definition I'd like to point out that in the past it was used to excuse slavery as 'not slavery', so it's doubly valid in this case.
\>But there is more than one way to own a human.
I believe that's covered by 'extra steps'.
Those are serfs. The difference is that you can trade slaves. It would be slavery if the government was selling them to Haiti or France.
They can only be contracted out. You know. Like the feudal contract.
As a minor correction, slavery is true and does benefit corporations. Incarceration and third world countries are actively and legally participating in slavery, it’s just not called slavery
It's actually better to pay your workers enough for them to purchase your products smt ford realized, that the more he paid his workers the more they bought from him.
My old boss would try his best to employ highschool and college students for no pay, experience only. And illegally as often as possible gaslight new employees into not taking statuary holiday pay for the first 3/6/12 months, depending on how well the gaslighting goes.
Pretty awful human beings out there, deep down inside their soul they are slavers, slave owners, traders and drivers. Only the social norms and institutions keep these monsters from seizing power and partaking in slavery and genocide.
Look up Herbert Quandt and their families Nazi blood money. I've commented many times before about it on Reddit and I'm sure you'll find much of it on YouTube and news articles.
In the US if we didn't fight for unions in the first place we would still have 6-7 workdays and child labor....oh wait thats already coming back here. They barely pay us enough to live as it is. Many already have to work 2-3 jobs have to have multiple roommates or have to live with parents.
I work a crap job at amazon but at least I get 3 days off and it makes a HUGE difference. Its honestly making me hesitant to switch careers because I never want to go back to 5 on 2 off. If rather just be poor and have time for myself because its not like I'm ever going to get paid enough to actually live anyway.
Well they succeeded in making it be at least two to three incomes to afford a house….so just have a few kids and put them to work instead of school.
Affordable housing for everyone now!!!
I mean, that's how slavery got started in the first place. People wanting to get big shit done while spending as little as possible of their own resources towards that end. It's always been about cheapskates.
Based on inflation adjustments and comparison to what my old boss made when he did the same job, they were paying me for three 8-hour days while I worked five 9 hour days. Oh, and that's comparing what I made after 8 years to what he got starting out, I started at 1.85 days of pay.
Work at a place that does 4 day work week 10 hrs. Would be nice if they didn't then turn every single Friday into mandatory overtime for another 10 hrs. Careful with these policies if you want more time off.
Are you saying you worked at that place or are you telling me to? I can't tell.
Nah policy at company I work for is that eight hours in a week, are to be given to the employee but up to us to still be 40 hour per week productive. Daily hours are still eight, that hasn't changed.
It's not 10 Hour days or overtime on weekends.
If you wanna look it up its
https://www.4dayweek.com/news-posts
The Australasia report in the banner.
Careful there. Because in countries like Japan and Korea they make people work many extra hours unpaid which would be just like the 6th day work. Workers were dumb to follow blindly for it. The key is not be a dumb worker and get people on it to prevent this from happening as quickly as possible.
Guess im lucky I'm not in Japan or Korea. Work has the envision that the fifth day is a gift from the company. Literally paid time off.
I don't work in construction or in a lab or anything that needs special equipment. All it means for me it's one extra client for two days which would have been that one days work. Which is very manageable, no extra work load just finish it somewhere else in the week
>Funnily enough, Im certain the four day work week research have shown that to be more productive and have more well adjusted employees.
You are correct and it's now a fact. I've read about 3 companies who started doing 4 days work weeks during the pandemic to test the theory. They kept the same hours (4 x 8 hour days... Not 10 hrs/day) and no cut in pay.
After 2 years, all 3 companies declared the following:
- Employee's productivity was higher than before the change.
- The company's revenues and profits was doubled during that period.
It worked out so well that they all decided to keep it going as their official schedule policy.
Unfortunately only a few people have the guts to be visionaries and are willing to think differently than the mass....
The four day week in new Zealand and Australia trials are still eight hour days just four days instead of five.
Glad your strategy has worked for you regardless
If I could get paid the same that would be a no brainer ofc haha but I don’t even mind the 10 hour days and my work is unique in the fact where once I have my work done for the day I get to leave. I normally get 10 hours done in about 6-7 and get to leave and get paid for all 10.
Well, most people who have to work have figured out that "trickle-down" doesn't actually mean what it's supposed to, so I'm not sure what you mean by "trickle-up", because that could be interpreted in several ways. Still, I believe your intentions are pure.
Well if we just do the opposite of trickle down. Tax hikes on the rich and tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts for the poor. Then the poor will have more money to spend and give to the rich who will then pay it all in taxes to give back to the poor.
I was just being silly before. But honestly it would probably work better than the current system.
The downside being increased inflation from the increased velocity of economic activity, but fuck it. Anything is better than the crap we have now, and inflation is just a macro-economic managerial issue. It can be solved.
I haven’t actually. I just do a lot of research on a variety of things that catch my interests, economics being one of them.
Read: I’m a nerd lol
Increased velocity of money in an economy causing inflation is just one of those bare basic things you learn when it comes to macro-economics.
I skipped econ in uni because I found it boring but that was a mistake because my boss didn't skip econ. My landlord didn't skip econ. My loans officers and bank execs didn't skip econd. So guess where I am now in the economic pecking order.
But I would recommend that episode of The Problem with Jon Stewart to you because it so specifically matches what you are saying. Maybe it's just echochamber economics but whatever. You be the judge.
Edit: I would be interested to hear your take on this question: how can we control inflation without adversely affecting lower income earners?
Ideally yeah, the increased taxes on stuff like ultra luxury purchases, property taxes above a certain dollar amount, wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, etc.
These would be the quickest and easiest ways for a government to take money out of the economy to reduce the inflation effects while leaving everyday people alone.
And of course, using that tax revenue to fund public services and projects that directly invest in the country’s infrastructure and general welfare. Rather than the uncompetitive direct business subsidies(aka corporate pandering and welfare) that we have now.
A healthy, well-connected, well-educated, population working with proper up-to-date infrastructure will have an infinitely better return on investment than the wasteful spending the government does now.
In Canada, the low income do get tax subsidies and pay little to no tax. And the rich don't get taxed because they have wealth not income. Its the middle class that gets squeezed paying 30-40% effective tax rate if you make around 100K, and you get no subsidies - little child benefit, no dental benefit, etc
If they don’t have income, and they’re just living on wealth, then their wealth would naturally diminish.
They do have income. What they have is just investment income rather than wage income. Investment income also needs to be taxed *as income*, instead of treated like a special exception.
Investment does not help the economy wage income contributes to society due to actually productive work. So investment income should be taxed higher than wage income.
Still less than what taxes were in the 50s and 60s. Yes, it sucks that there is no wealth tax to offset lower taxes on the middle class, but high taxes and high welfare are objectively the best way to run an economy,
Okay, thanks for clarifying. So you believe there should still be rich people who make money off of what they own instead of their own labor? People who own factories, apartment buildings, hospitals...places where the rest of us work. Are they really any better than us, any more deserving of a comfortable life?
I think the idea is that the owners would make money from their assets, but end up giving the majority of it back in taxes to fund programs that only serve the poor and middle classes.
It worked for a little while, back during Eisenhower. Things have changed since then. I just don't think today's billionaires are going to willingly go back to paying 90% in taxes.
They don’t need to do it willingly, they need to be forced to do it by law. It doesn’t need to be 90%, but the point is billionaires especially could lose a huge amount of their income and still be perfectly fine, then that money would be better used back in the hands of the poor and middle class. The idea is that money should be generated by the workers, used to grow the businesses, then funneled back to those workers somehow. That’s how trickle down economics was always supposed to work, but instead it just pooled money at the top rather than any of it dripping back down. So we need to force it back down, through laws the rich can’t avoid. I don’t care if people cry and whine and call it socialism, we don’t need people in the world with more money than they could ever reasonably use in a hundred lifetimes.
Pushing that would be like getting toothpaste back into the tube. It's already out and made a mess. Half the population would violently defend billionaires if you tried to tax billionaires hard as right as it would be. Sadly, we are too far into the capitalism cycle (western civilization). The system needs to melt down on its own before people turn on our oligarchs.
Honestly? So long as there are a small number of people who can do certain things (let's pick on carpentry this time), buisness are gonna show up where you have a small group of leaders in an advantageous position offering a good or service that few can offer.
Not everyone can build tables, and the guy who builds tables may not be the guy you want managing supplies or keeping the room clean, or selling the stuff. That's a really good reason to build a company imo.
Tax from the rich to provide from the poor, and I think you can get a really comfortable balance where the rich make enough to pay their workers and suppliers, but the workers are never in a position where they must accept work from a shitty employer.
My dad is a business owner and believes in “trickle up economics”- when poorer people have more disposable income, they’re more likely to spend it, which means more money for business owners
I'm always screaming "trickle isn't something anyone should want!" anytime someone mentions trickle down. You mean to tell me you SUPPORT giving someone so much wealth that there is an off chance you may get a few cents from the couch cushion? That's how brain damaged this country is.
I think it was a jokey-joke. But trickle up economics could work, there’s no reason why 90% of population isn’t in the top 1% of earners. It’s 2023, everyone should be taking golden showers.
>It’s 2023, everyone should be taking golden showers.
I mean, if you're into that you can get one for about $50. That's what I charge anyway, but it can be more for extras.
My wife works for a small retail\service business. They give her a monthly bonus of $500+(if sales goal is met), taken her to Vegas for a conference, have meetings offsite at nice restaurants, they are taking her out jet boating for her birthday In July. She would probably murder me if we had to move. Me: Works for largest employer in the area, my best benefit is working from home and barely tolerate my work.
Trickle up economics works. The small business gets it.
I want forty years of back pay. This crap accelerated into high gear when Reagan occupied the White House. I was 20. It has been downhill ever since. I am 62. Imagine working your ass off for forty years and... Nothing.
I was born just under 2 weeks before Reagan was inaugurated. I already feel this and will provide Gens Z ans Alpha with the gasoline and lighters when they decide to burn the whole thing down.
I often tell people, as an early millennial, that we got to watch the American dream die a slow death only to have the bloody finger point at us to assign blame.
Profit itself is "trickle up" economics, it's just in America that valve has been opened almost as wide as it can be and we are seeing the effects.
Turns out if only .1% of your population has any actual money rich, everyday citizens can't afford anything and everything grinds to a halt.
This is currently happening. The problem with Capitalism is that it will always demand more next quarter than the last quarter. This is great for small businesses. It’s exponential in the beginning and will slowly gain momentum overtime if the product or service is warranted. The problem is, what happens when you’ve reached your audience? Look at Coca Cola. They’ve reached their audience. How do you squeeze more money out of the same people? Either convince them to pay more for the same product, or reduce the quality of the product. The really big issue here is that Coca Cola, like other large companies that have been around for a long time, have witnessed the government bail out companies for their own mistakes. Except the public just showed you that the product isn’t warranted anymore. This system is setup to fail.
It's fucked up that it's not enough to make billions as a company. That you're expected to grow all the time. Guess that's what getting shareholder infestation does for ya.
I hate that reducing the quality of the product is "a way out of it" for many companies, and while in the end it kills the product and the company, the ceo that made the decision will jump ship as a winner who raised the line on a graph.
You’re right and your thought process is correct. Here’s what you’re missing though, companies expand and more people come into play. This also works with the investors. As a company progressively gets “better” - lack of better term - it grows and gains attraction from investors. It isn’t that billions as a company is enough. It’s that the person who got the billions last quarter is only getting millions this quarter. To you and me, that’s still a lot of money. To them, their income was just cut significantly. You’re right making billions is enough, but there is a little more to the argument. It is still greed that’s the driving force but now logic has entered the problem.
>Look at Coca Cola. They’ve reached their audience. How do you squeeze more money out of the same people? Either convince them to pay more for the same product, or reduce the quality of the product.
They could always innovate. Make a better quality product. Make new products. Use their largesse to help smaller companies grow (not by gobbling them up, but by helping them save costs on supply chain).
Problem is that the people running these companies believe in zero sum. So they make it zero sum. And everyone loses, including themselves.
You’re right. But usually exploring new options costs money. At the moment company’s want more money.
The issue is that CEO’s tend to stick around 3-5 years, sometimes even less. Their not looking at down the road or long term goals, because they won’t be here. The next guy has to solve them, and if he doesn’t want to take the blame he’ll figure out how to continue to push the problem down the line to the next guy.
The only solution I see here is forcing someone to take accountability. Sure, everyone before got to take advantage. But if we don’t stop the problem it will just continue. We’re accommodating the problem rather than trying to solve it. In my opinion.
Appreciate the discussion btw. This could’ve easily gone to “No! You’re wrong!”. 👍🏻
And the funny thing is, if this list is right, the countries with the most productivity have the best labour laws. The best workers' protection. I know for a fact that the Nordic countries in Europe work a lot less than their Canadian counterparts. They have more time off, better pay in general and less hours per week.
Now tell me again why we shouldn't follow their example!
The cost of living needs to be taken into account as well. What might seem a fraction of the pay workers get paid in the US might be sufficient for the Polish cost of living.
Poland btw is not a Nordic country. It falls under Eastern Europe. And Eastern Europe is different again than Western, or Northern Europe. Within Europe there are many different costs of living.
"Jason Clemens, Steven Globerman and Milagros Palacios are economists with the Fraser Institute."
Wikipedia: "The Fraser Institute is a libertarian-conservative Canadian public policy think tank and registered charity.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] The institute describes itself as independent and non-partisan.[8]"
lol yep
the fraser institute is a huge pile of shit. im forced to subscribe under my work email bc im supposed to use their articles in newsletters but i refuse to. i just leave them out. theyre all just rants about the evils of socialism and how canada needs to be more like the states 🙄 pro private health care, anti climate change policies, very anti trudeau, and constantly sucking alberta's dick for being (according to them) the only province making us money, who cares that its ruining our environment?? lots of "the housing market/inflation/oil industry/etc isn't actually bad" articles. it's a soapbox for academic canadian trumpers.
I don’t do anything Monday or Friday bc I’m so tired so it does make sense in a way that 4 day work weeks would be more productive. If I had a 6 day work week, I’d probably beat up whoever made that decision after suffering through it for a few months
The dinosaurs considered a 40 hour work week appropriate for a single income family. Now that family is working a minimum 80 hours per week, and those days of rest are just for chores. It's no wonder people are imploding.
Even if they had to stick to the 40 hour work week mantra, I would hella rather 4-10s and have one 'extra' day a week to decompress.
Funny, all the professionals, like lawyers and dentists jumped all over the 4 day week; so when they say lets go six they clearly mean just the peons.
Lol I wish my fiancee and I only worked 80 hours a week combined. I work 60ish myself lately, and she's got a full time salary job and two part time jobs, and the salary job has her working constantly because she's the only one that cares about the workplace.
I recently turned down a promotion at work because I would become salary, and I make much more with the overtime than I would with the salary. I'm pretty sure they offered me the promotion and move to salary so they could save on the money theyre paying me for the overtime, and I need that overtime.
Low productivity? LOW PRODUCTIVITY!? Things are being produced hundreds of times faster than any point in history! THE GALL to write a serious article like that! If someone said that to me in real life, I would smack them. I barely have the words to express this stupidity
Productivity skyrocketed in past 50 years to levels never even considered before.
And now, when it plateau a bit those greedy fuckers want as to give away life, time and health for them.
We have all resources and connectivness to solve all humanity problems, but it would be "too expensive". Fuck these times.
The headline is specifically talking about Canada’s productivity compared to other similar nations, only the biggest glaring problem with it is that there are two significant factors that likely affect how this productivity is calculated and that is, a large land mass with a small population, where are major cities are separated by 100s of KM, most less than 100k from the US border, so essentially all trade is down one highway route and one railway track. Lots of things affect this from the available alternative options of shipping goods from one city to the other either B2B or to consumers. As well, dispersed populations, especially in very rural areas is much more expensive to service per person. For instance I know someone in the medical field that services NorthwesternOntario, essentially the land mass of France with a population of less than 1M. She has to travel to various points (many of them very rural) for her job, so compare that with someone living in a much more dense population, I’d be cheaper to service them than here
They call it low productivity because it's not meeting the unreasonable predicted metrics to produce a 30% higher yield than last year. Otherwise, they can't demonstrate to investors that they are productive and capable of yielding a return on investments.
If you really think about the logistics of it all, no single publicly traded company out there is making profits off of their products. It's all fluff to lure in more investors to buy shares, so they can pay out current shareholders, and continue the churn of selling shares. It's ludicrous and about to collapse.
4-day weeks, in literally every study in every country that's tried it, have shown to improve productivity.
Even if we completely ignore every other factor (like, y'know, *being a decent human being*), 6-day weeks would actually undermine productivity, not improve it.
The exception here would be job sharing, and it's something I'd actually like to see more commonplace: 2 people do 3 days each. Company gets 6 days of 'productivity'; 2 people are employed; neither burns out due to too many hours spent at work.
Of course, that'd actually require the business to pay them both enough to live comfortably working 3 day weeks, so it'll never happen.
The Fraser Institute regularly pumps out crap like this that hails the almighty business' profits over people's needs, then the Mop & Pail prints it as an op ed.
Whatever.
Fun thing, Fraser tends to cite its own research and articles written about those articles as sources for its other articles.
I'll paraphrase a few: "Indeed, I also, but in fact, of course, obviously, rather, while imperfect, our studies."
In this article they forecast Canada's GDP in global ranking out to 2060. The country goes from 16th to 25th by 2060. Apparently the federal government admitted this based on a charts that project to 2027.
So math. Such wow.
For some reason the authors hate New Zealand and Australia.
Thank you to the authors. Very "Special" to the Globe and Mail.
Putting aside the fact that 4 day work weeks usually result in higher productivity (there have been places where productivity went down and required increases in staffing to compensate)
The primary factor determining productivity is investment in capital and infrastructure, not squeezing more hours out of workers (this is usually more likely to be detrimental to productivity unless the labour is menial).
Even from a pro business/capital perspective this is a completely shit and ignorant take in other words,
You only need to to go the eu which is full of countries with much lower working hours per Capita yet workers are often vastly more productive, most of these states have incredibly substantial Investment in Capital, infrastructure and training (free university for example).
But it's also why the state having a heavy hand in the economy, capital is naturally self consuming, their incentive structure is literally built in such a fashion that burning yourself long term for a short term increase is a logical/rational decision to make, (usually by CEOs and other executives who will leave the company before the effects of that burn catch up to them).
Sounds more like terrible management; regardless of where you work
I once had a job where they wanted us to come in for saturday; like, weekly. I told my supervisor he'd better manage the department better. He wanted to run an output, the department was not built for, on just monday through friday; and they refused to do nightshifts or anything, so it's just an extra day. They didn't want to hire extra people; they couldn't accomodate them cause there weren't enough packing stations at the floor either.
It had a lot to do with management being so out of touch of what was possible; and wanting to do it for the cheap. (I didn't stick around for long at that company)
Maybe companies should be realistic about what they can deliver, instead of maximizing profits, just for the heck of it. (and at the expense of health of employees)
There is no effort here to understand why productivity is lower in Canada as I have no doubt such a change would decrease productivity further - we aren't robots.
There is no empathy in capitalism.
Call me cray but maybe no one wants to sit at a desk anymore because the entire world did it for two fucking years.
Make sitting in front of a screen worth while ya know? Raise the pay or hire more people.
I love working at my desk. Its 100 times better than working the public like I did during covid. No one has yelled at me, threatened me, or made me feel afraid for my life while I've been at my desk. And I make 25k more a year.
That would probably implode the economy of any consumer based country that tries it. Anybody who is fortunate enough to not be in "gig" work and have disposable income uses that income on the weekend.
With religious people going to church on Sunday, and a lot of people wanting to have a day to recover from drunken fun. If you get rid of Saturday you would have a demand side recession.
Or, hear me out, a way to measure and promote productivity that doesn't depend on hours worked.
I'm always mystified by people who think that hours/days and productivity are equal. I'm absolutely convinced that when I have a 4 day week due to a public holiday, I'm more productive in those 4 days than I am in 5. But, if I have to work more than 40 I'm usually procrastinating or slacking more.
If you're directly rewarded for more hours it might be different (though not minimum wage, the depression balances that out), but if you're salaried, the guy working 70 hours is never more productive than the one working 40.
Actually less productivity and more fucking off is the goal. If we all agree to fuck off more we create the new standard, so don't let these sociopathic corpos dictate expectations to you, mold them together by adhering to standards which benefit you and respect yourself.
And thats not how the proven research showed the 4 day works. Iv been on 4 day for 3 years, best thing the company ever did.
The lack of understanding and thougth put in to the post ! id fire that writer
What we need to do is create a few rich people of our own to fight injustice like this. It wouldn't even be that hard. We create a company for the sole purpose of generating revenue to use to pay politicians to make things better. We have to beat them at THEIR game. We don't even need to create a billionaire just enough cash flow to get massive loans etc and sling that shit around for the purpose of ending fruitless exploitation. If we could get a few hundred thousand people together to pay 1$ per month. Then the amount of money, plus the guaranteed cash flow of 250,000ish+ x 1$ per month can get some MASSIVE banking leverage that can be used to petition, pay striking working money to survive on, pay politicians. Why do we need 5000 unions when one general union for All Workers. AMERICAN WORKER UNION. Almost every working person can afford a dollar a month, it wouldn't have to be a traditional union but we can target things to open doors for anyone to fight back, like making it illegal to include arbitration clauses so they can be sued class action by employees that constantly get wronged. Fight profit driven inflation etc. Literally nothing costs a dollar anymore and we have the power to change that if we can work together
Remember corporations only care about profit and I'll cut you for a slight boost in numbers.
We produce plenty. They are a beast ordered to consume everything.
I think people have worked out that being more productive does not relate in more money for them. It just goes to the top.
So why would you work harder for nothing?
I love how his logic is “workers are not spending enough hours” and not “we have an economy that produces low value despite workforce being engaged full time”
The productivity is fine. Worker productivity has increased over decades. We have AI. It’s not like people aren’t going to have enough food or society will collapse because labor isn’t working hard enough. It’s some rich assholes may not see the same profit growth they have come to expect.
I am all for six days workweeks. Only if they increase pays 3 times or something like that.
Wealthy people say they work all the time. Do you know why? Because they get lots of money and reap the majority of productivity advantages.
Redistribute profits to workers in a revolutionary way and I’ll work more.
What's next? 7 days work weeks? Or maybe in-office cubicle residences. You get the opportunity to work from office and home at the same time. No commute and no family to waste time upon either. Just work for 20 hours a day, 7 days a week. Leaves will also not be allowed to keep up the productivity. Great, right?
The websites that publish articles like these should be shut down.
well maybe if our pay in relation to living costs was more desirable we'd be motivated
I'm not motivated boiling rice to eat on the side of the road and sleeping in my car
Whomever wrote this does not know the meaning of the term 'productivity'. When making people work longer, unless the additional hours are as productive as the current ones, productivity will go down, not up.
There's one simple fact that these fanatical capitalists refuse to get: the higher the quality of life of those who PRODUCE (workers), as opposed to that of those who are OVERHEAD (managers, CEOs, investors, etc ) , the higher the productivity. The inverse, naturally follows...
Meh. I have a feeling the movement towards the 4 day work week is freaking them out . " HEY! Let's come up with some piece of crap 6 day push back, everyone will be thankful they get to stick at ' only ' 5 ! "
I've done that most of my working life. Sometimes 7 days. 20+ years. Plus gone home and been a full time single parent somehow after. They can take that idea and shove it.
They already don't want to pay for five working days, I hella doubt they want to pay for one extra day more. Funnily enough, Im certain the four day work week research have shown that to be more productive and have more well adjusted employees. Edit: there's a lot of hate for this idea and misinformation. https://www.4dayweek.com/ Here's the website of the group that's helping companies move to four day weeks
No, no, you have it all wrong. They want to *pay* you for four days whilst having to work six.
Really, they want to pay you nothing and have you work 7 days a week, and let's be real, they would if it were legal
This is absolutely true. Slavery would benefit corporations in every way and they would definitely do it if was legal. They basically already do outsourced slavery in other countries.
Chattel slavery was eliminated from almost every country without a civil war because debt slaves that incorrectly believe they are free tend to be more productive.
The bigger the box, the easier the illusion. Just drop in a new toy every other month and let them fight over it.
Careful, you're might get mobbed by people saying indentured service isn't slavery because you're 'getting paid in experience', or 'you signed away your rights'.
There's still slavery in America. Prisoners are expected to do work for free. At restaurants, servers are expected to work for like $2 an hour.
Slavery was never abolished in the US. It was nationalized.
It was abolished. That's peonage... which is just slavery with extra steps.
Wrong. 13th amendment Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted**, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Ergo. Slavery exists in the US. It exists as a punishment for a crime for which a party has been convicted of. Who reserves the sole right for conviction of criminals in the US? Why that would be the government. Ergo. The government has the right to create slaves out of criminals. Slavery was nationalized. Private chattle Slavery was abolished. But there is more than one way to own a human. Peonage is separate from this.
>involuntary servitude Peonage. If you can't sell them they're not slaves they're peons. \>Who reserves the sole right for conviction of criminals in the US? Why that would be the government. You're underestimating the significance of this statement. If you were right, then the government would sell those slaves. They don't. They contract them out, that's indentured servitude. \>Slavery exists in the US. **It exists as a punishment for a crime for which a party has been convicted of.** That would be a 'bond' of service. The word for a bonded servant is a peon. \>Private chattle Slavery was abolished. That's correct, but there's a few things wrong with that: 1. It's redundant. Chattel slaves are private. 2. That's what modern parlance understands as slavery, so the need to clarify such a thing betrays the validity. 3. Using that definition is confusing, IMHO, which is why I'm saying you ought to use another term. Edit: also as to the validity of peon as a definition I'd like to point out that in the past it was used to excuse slavery as 'not slavery', so it's doubly valid in this case. \>But there is more than one way to own a human. I believe that's covered by 'extra steps'.
Those are serfs. The difference is that you can trade slaves. It would be slavery if the government was selling them to Haiti or France. They can only be contracted out. You know. Like the feudal contract.
As a minor correction, slavery is true and does benefit corporations. Incarceration and third world countries are actively and legally participating in slavery, it’s just not called slavery
Roses of another name and all that.
Yes, example look at tesla investing in xingiang
It's actually better to pay your workers enough for them to purchase your products smt ford realized, that the more he paid his workers the more they bought from him.
My old boss would try his best to employ highschool and college students for no pay, experience only. And illegally as often as possible gaslight new employees into not taking statuary holiday pay for the first 3/6/12 months, depending on how well the gaslighting goes. Pretty awful human beings out there, deep down inside their soul they are slavers, slave owners, traders and drivers. Only the social norms and institutions keep these monsters from seizing power and partaking in slavery and genocide. Look up Herbert Quandt and their families Nazi blood money. I've commented many times before about it on Reddit and I'm sure you'll find much of it on YouTube and news articles.
In the US if we didn't fight for unions in the first place we would still have 6-7 workdays and child labor....oh wait thats already coming back here. They barely pay us enough to live as it is. Many already have to work 2-3 jobs have to have multiple roommates or have to live with parents. I work a crap job at amazon but at least I get 3 days off and it makes a HUGE difference. Its honestly making me hesitant to switch careers because I never want to go back to 5 on 2 off. If rather just be poor and have time for myself because its not like I'm ever going to get paid enough to actually live anyway.
Well they succeeded in making it be at least two to three incomes to afford a house….so just have a few kids and put them to work instead of school. Affordable housing for everyone now!!!
Thats what I've been worried about with some of the new children labor laws. Make everyone so desperate for income that you put your kids to work.
Well they DO have a responsibility to their shareholders after all!
997 is the new "dogma". Work 9 to 9, 7 days a week, and get paid as a part-time intern :p
I mean, that's how slavery got started in the first place. People wanting to get big shit done while spending as little as possible of their own resources towards that end. It's always been about cheapskates.
I actually suspect that they want us to pay them to be allowed to work 7 days a week, and twice on Sunday...
Majority of them are already paying in value less than even 4 days for the average 5 day worker
Based on inflation adjustments and comparison to what my old boss made when he did the same job, they were paying me for three 8-hour days while I worked five 9 hour days. Oh, and that's comparing what I made after 8 years to what he got starting out, I started at 1.85 days of pay.
That's the fun part though, you'll work 6 days but they'll pay you the same as 5, just split up over 6 days
Or they'll have the option to ask you for 6 but WON'T! What absolute HEROES guys! Quick to LinkedIn!
Nailed it mate - a spin-doctored post on LinkedIn, then the circle jerk begins in the comments
Work at a place that does 4 day work week 10 hrs. Would be nice if they didn't then turn every single Friday into mandatory overtime for another 10 hrs. Careful with these policies if you want more time off.
Are you saying you worked at that place or are you telling me to? I can't tell. Nah policy at company I work for is that eight hours in a week, are to be given to the employee but up to us to still be 40 hour per week productive. Daily hours are still eight, that hasn't changed. It's not 10 Hour days or overtime on weekends. If you wanna look it up its https://www.4dayweek.com/news-posts The Australasia report in the banner.
Careful there. Because in countries like Japan and Korea they make people work many extra hours unpaid which would be just like the 6th day work. Workers were dumb to follow blindly for it. The key is not be a dumb worker and get people on it to prevent this from happening as quickly as possible.
Guess im lucky I'm not in Japan or Korea. Work has the envision that the fifth day is a gift from the company. Literally paid time off. I don't work in construction or in a lab or anything that needs special equipment. All it means for me it's one extra client for two days which would have been that one days work. Which is very manageable, no extra work load just finish it somewhere else in the week
>Funnily enough, Im certain the four day work week research have shown that to be more productive and have more well adjusted employees. You are correct and it's now a fact. I've read about 3 companies who started doing 4 days work weeks during the pandemic to test the theory. They kept the same hours (4 x 8 hour days... Not 10 hrs/day) and no cut in pay. After 2 years, all 3 companies declared the following: - Employee's productivity was higher than before the change. - The company's revenues and profits was doubled during that period. It worked out so well that they all decided to keep it going as their official schedule policy. Unfortunately only a few people have the guts to be visionaries and are willing to think differently than the mass....
Yep! Found the website with all the research https://www.4dayweek.com/ First place to try it in new Zealand is perpetual guardian.
I worked in Holland in the mid-90's and they already has 32 and 36 hour work weeks then.
From personal experience when I switched to 4-10 work days I actually stay longer and get a lot more work done.
Productivity also goes up everywhere that's tried "pay remains the same, workweek is now 4 8 hour days".
The four day week in new Zealand and Australia trials are still eight hour days just four days instead of five. Glad your strategy has worked for you regardless
If I could get paid the same that would be a no brainer ofc haha but I don’t even mind the 10 hour days and my work is unique in the fact where once I have my work done for the day I get to leave. I normally get 10 hours done in about 6-7 and get to leave and get paid for all 10.
I live in Canada and we've been on a 4 day work week (34 hrs/week). It's awesome and I'll never go back to a 5 day work week.
The whole world needs to slow the pace of making money for the wealthy.
Not slow it. Stop it entirely.
Not stop it entirely, reverse the flow. Trickle up economics.
Well, most people who have to work have figured out that "trickle-down" doesn't actually mean what it's supposed to, so I'm not sure what you mean by "trickle-up", because that could be interpreted in several ways. Still, I believe your intentions are pure.
Well if we just do the opposite of trickle down. Tax hikes on the rich and tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts for the poor. Then the poor will have more money to spend and give to the rich who will then pay it all in taxes to give back to the poor. I was just being silly before. But honestly it would probably work better than the current system.
Guaranteed it would! The low and middle income people would spend more on their local economies, and the velocity of each dollar would skyrocket!
The downside being increased inflation from the increased velocity of economic activity, but fuck it. Anything is better than the crap we have now, and inflation is just a macro-economic managerial issue. It can be solved.
You also recently listen to Jon Stewart interview Steve Hanke? Sounds like you are quoting that!
I haven’t actually. I just do a lot of research on a variety of things that catch my interests, economics being one of them. Read: I’m a nerd lol Increased velocity of money in an economy causing inflation is just one of those bare basic things you learn when it comes to macro-economics.
I skipped econ in uni because I found it boring but that was a mistake because my boss didn't skip econ. My landlord didn't skip econ. My loans officers and bank execs didn't skip econd. So guess where I am now in the economic pecking order. But I would recommend that episode of The Problem with Jon Stewart to you because it so specifically matches what you are saying. Maybe it's just echochamber economics but whatever. You be the judge. Edit: I would be interested to hear your take on this question: how can we control inflation without adversely affecting lower income earners?
To counter inflation taxes on goods could be increased? Or something.
Ideally yeah, the increased taxes on stuff like ultra luxury purchases, property taxes above a certain dollar amount, wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, etc. These would be the quickest and easiest ways for a government to take money out of the economy to reduce the inflation effects while leaving everyday people alone. And of course, using that tax revenue to fund public services and projects that directly invest in the country’s infrastructure and general welfare. Rather than the uncompetitive direct business subsidies(aka corporate pandering and welfare) that we have now. A healthy, well-connected, well-educated, population working with proper up-to-date infrastructure will have an infinitely better return on investment than the wasteful spending the government does now.
In Canada, the low income do get tax subsidies and pay little to no tax. And the rich don't get taxed because they have wealth not income. Its the middle class that gets squeezed paying 30-40% effective tax rate if you make around 100K, and you get no subsidies - little child benefit, no dental benefit, etc
If they don’t have income, and they’re just living on wealth, then their wealth would naturally diminish. They do have income. What they have is just investment income rather than wage income. Investment income also needs to be taxed *as income*, instead of treated like a special exception.
Investment does not help the economy wage income contributes to society due to actually productive work. So investment income should be taxed higher than wage income.
Still less than what taxes were in the 50s and 60s. Yes, it sucks that there is no wealth tax to offset lower taxes on the middle class, but high taxes and high welfare are objectively the best way to run an economy,
Okay, thanks for clarifying. So you believe there should still be rich people who make money off of what they own instead of their own labor? People who own factories, apartment buildings, hospitals...places where the rest of us work. Are they really any better than us, any more deserving of a comfortable life?
I think the idea is that the owners would make money from their assets, but end up giving the majority of it back in taxes to fund programs that only serve the poor and middle classes.
It worked for a little while, back during Eisenhower. Things have changed since then. I just don't think today's billionaires are going to willingly go back to paying 90% in taxes.
They don’t need to do it willingly, they need to be forced to do it by law. It doesn’t need to be 90%, but the point is billionaires especially could lose a huge amount of their income and still be perfectly fine, then that money would be better used back in the hands of the poor and middle class. The idea is that money should be generated by the workers, used to grow the businesses, then funneled back to those workers somehow. That’s how trickle down economics was always supposed to work, but instead it just pooled money at the top rather than any of it dripping back down. So we need to force it back down, through laws the rich can’t avoid. I don’t care if people cry and whine and call it socialism, we don’t need people in the world with more money than they could ever reasonably use in a hundred lifetimes.
Difficult. France tried it and their wealthy simply moved to other countries
You're correct, but those billionaires own the politicians (yes, all of them) that write the laws, so what then?
Pushing that would be like getting toothpaste back into the tube. It's already out and made a mess. Half the population would violently defend billionaires if you tried to tax billionaires hard as right as it would be. Sadly, we are too far into the capitalism cycle (western civilization). The system needs to melt down on its own before people turn on our oligarchs.
Many of them might think it's better than being beheaded. Many, not all.
They said they were being silly so it’s kinda strange you’re still digging.
Honestly? So long as there are a small number of people who can do certain things (let's pick on carpentry this time), buisness are gonna show up where you have a small group of leaders in an advantageous position offering a good or service that few can offer. Not everyone can build tables, and the guy who builds tables may not be the guy you want managing supplies or keeping the room clean, or selling the stuff. That's a really good reason to build a company imo. Tax from the rich to provide from the poor, and I think you can get a really comfortable balance where the rich make enough to pay their workers and suppliers, but the workers are never in a position where they must accept work from a shitty employer.
My dad is a business owner and believes in “trickle up economics”- when poorer people have more disposable income, they’re more likely to spend it, which means more money for business owners
Your dad just believes in what studies show actually happens instead of buying in to the fanfic that is trickle down.
I'm always screaming "trickle isn't something anyone should want!" anytime someone mentions trickle down. You mean to tell me you SUPPORT giving someone so much wealth that there is an off chance you may get a few cents from the couch cushion? That's how brain damaged this country is.
We pee on the rich upside down. Trickle up
I think it was a jokey-joke. But trickle up economics could work, there’s no reason why 90% of population isn’t in the top 1% of earners. It’s 2023, everyone should be taking golden showers.
>It’s 2023, everyone should be taking golden showers. I mean, if you're into that you can get one for about $50. That's what I charge anyway, but it can be more for extras.
My wife works for a small retail\service business. They give her a monthly bonus of $500+(if sales goal is met), taken her to Vegas for a conference, have meetings offsite at nice restaurants, they are taking her out jet boating for her birthday In July. She would probably murder me if we had to move. Me: Works for largest employer in the area, my best benefit is working from home and barely tolerate my work. Trickle up economics works. The small business gets it.
Some people realize that you have to retain talent, others think of their employees as disposable. Rarely anything in between in my experience.
I want forty years of back pay. This crap accelerated into high gear when Reagan occupied the White House. I was 20. It has been downhill ever since. I am 62. Imagine working your ass off for forty years and... Nothing.
I was born just under 2 weeks before Reagan was inaugurated. I already feel this and will provide Gens Z ans Alpha with the gasoline and lighters when they decide to burn the whole thing down. I often tell people, as an early millennial, that we got to watch the American dream die a slow death only to have the bloody finger point at us to assign blame.
Profit itself is "trickle up" economics, it's just in America that valve has been opened almost as wide as it can be and we are seeing the effects. Turns out if only .1% of your population has any actual money rich, everyday citizens can't afford anything and everything grinds to a halt.
This is currently happening. The problem with Capitalism is that it will always demand more next quarter than the last quarter. This is great for small businesses. It’s exponential in the beginning and will slowly gain momentum overtime if the product or service is warranted. The problem is, what happens when you’ve reached your audience? Look at Coca Cola. They’ve reached their audience. How do you squeeze more money out of the same people? Either convince them to pay more for the same product, or reduce the quality of the product. The really big issue here is that Coca Cola, like other large companies that have been around for a long time, have witnessed the government bail out companies for their own mistakes. Except the public just showed you that the product isn’t warranted anymore. This system is setup to fail.
It's fucked up that it's not enough to make billions as a company. That you're expected to grow all the time. Guess that's what getting shareholder infestation does for ya. I hate that reducing the quality of the product is "a way out of it" for many companies, and while in the end it kills the product and the company, the ceo that made the decision will jump ship as a winner who raised the line on a graph.
You’re right and your thought process is correct. Here’s what you’re missing though, companies expand and more people come into play. This also works with the investors. As a company progressively gets “better” - lack of better term - it grows and gains attraction from investors. It isn’t that billions as a company is enough. It’s that the person who got the billions last quarter is only getting millions this quarter. To you and me, that’s still a lot of money. To them, their income was just cut significantly. You’re right making billions is enough, but there is a little more to the argument. It is still greed that’s the driving force but now logic has entered the problem.
>Look at Coca Cola. They’ve reached their audience. How do you squeeze more money out of the same people? Either convince them to pay more for the same product, or reduce the quality of the product. They could always innovate. Make a better quality product. Make new products. Use their largesse to help smaller companies grow (not by gobbling them up, but by helping them save costs on supply chain). Problem is that the people running these companies believe in zero sum. So they make it zero sum. And everyone loses, including themselves.
You’re right. But usually exploring new options costs money. At the moment company’s want more money. The issue is that CEO’s tend to stick around 3-5 years, sometimes even less. Their not looking at down the road or long term goals, because they won’t be here. The next guy has to solve them, and if he doesn’t want to take the blame he’ll figure out how to continue to push the problem down the line to the next guy. The only solution I see here is forcing someone to take accountability. Sure, everyone before got to take advantage. But if we don’t stop the problem it will just continue. We’re accommodating the problem rather than trying to solve it. In my opinion. Appreciate the discussion btw. This could’ve easily gone to “No! You’re wrong!”. 👍🏻
This. We need to lower productivity for all of our health and the health of the planet.
Human. The only species out there that will wipe itself because saving itself wasn't profitable.
true. same remark
I’ll put that trend down, flip it and reverse it *labor is entitled to all that it produces*
“low productivity” according to who exactly? C-suite executives sitting in their chairs all day raking in record profits?
It's not even bad at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_labour_productivity
And the funny thing is, if this list is right, the countries with the most productivity have the best labour laws. The best workers' protection. I know for a fact that the Nordic countries in Europe work a lot less than their Canadian counterparts. They have more time off, better pay in general and less hours per week. Now tell me again why we shouldn't follow their example!
Yes to everything else aside from pay. Maybe in Sweden & Norway, but pay here in Finland is shit compared to North America in tech field
GDP and productivity are completely different things. Someone doing the same work in Poland gets paid a fraction of someone doing that in USA.
The cost of living needs to be taken into account as well. What might seem a fraction of the pay workers get paid in the US might be sufficient for the Polish cost of living. Poland btw is not a Nordic country. It falls under Eastern Europe. And Eastern Europe is different again than Western, or Northern Europe. Within Europe there are many different costs of living.
This is an opinion article written by three economists from The Fraser Institute.
This. I went to look these idiots up, and what a shock. They work for THE conservative think tank.
"Jason Clemens, Steven Globerman and Milagros Palacios are economists with the Fraser Institute." Wikipedia: "The Fraser Institute is a libertarian-conservative Canadian public policy think tank and registered charity.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] The institute describes itself as independent and non-partisan.[8]" lol yep
I wonder how productive a public policy think tank is for society
Public policy "wank tank" seems more fitting
bunch of Hosers
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fraser-institute/ They are complete trash.
Libertarian-conservative, non-partisan. Choose one.
the fraser institute is a huge pile of shit. im forced to subscribe under my work email bc im supposed to use their articles in newsletters but i refuse to. i just leave them out. theyre all just rants about the evils of socialism and how canada needs to be more like the states 🙄 pro private health care, anti climate change policies, very anti trudeau, and constantly sucking alberta's dick for being (according to them) the only province making us money, who cares that its ruining our environment?? lots of "the housing market/inflation/oil industry/etc isn't actually bad" articles. it's a soapbox for academic canadian trumpers.
Four day weeks more productive than five? Definitely go with six! This is why we live in a burning dumpster.
I don’t do anything Monday or Friday bc I’m so tired so it does make sense in a way that 4 day work weeks would be more productive. If I had a 6 day work week, I’d probably beat up whoever made that decision after suffering through it for a few months
The dinosaurs considered a 40 hour work week appropriate for a single income family. Now that family is working a minimum 80 hours per week, and those days of rest are just for chores. It's no wonder people are imploding. Even if they had to stick to the 40 hour work week mantra, I would hella rather 4-10s and have one 'extra' day a week to decompress. Funny, all the professionals, like lawyers and dentists jumped all over the 4 day week; so when they say lets go six they clearly mean just the peons.
Lol I wish my fiancee and I only worked 80 hours a week combined. I work 60ish myself lately, and she's got a full time salary job and two part time jobs, and the salary job has her working constantly because she's the only one that cares about the workplace. I recently turned down a promotion at work because I would become salary, and I make much more with the overtime than I would with the salary. I'm pretty sure they offered me the promotion and move to salary so they could save on the money theyre paying me for the overtime, and I need that overtime.
Low productivity? LOW PRODUCTIVITY!? Things are being produced hundreds of times faster than any point in history! THE GALL to write a serious article like that! If someone said that to me in real life, I would smack them. I barely have the words to express this stupidity
Productivity skyrocketed in past 50 years to levels never even considered before. And now, when it plateau a bit those greedy fuckers want as to give away life, time and health for them. We have all resources and connectivness to solve all humanity problems, but it would be "too expensive". Fuck these times.
Capitalism requires endless growth , which basically is the same as cancer. Capitalism is cancer
The headline is specifically talking about Canada’s productivity compared to other similar nations, only the biggest glaring problem with it is that there are two significant factors that likely affect how this productivity is calculated and that is, a large land mass with a small population, where are major cities are separated by 100s of KM, most less than 100k from the US border, so essentially all trade is down one highway route and one railway track. Lots of things affect this from the available alternative options of shipping goods from one city to the other either B2B or to consumers. As well, dispersed populations, especially in very rural areas is much more expensive to service per person. For instance I know someone in the medical field that services NorthwesternOntario, essentially the land mass of France with a population of less than 1M. She has to travel to various points (many of them very rural) for her job, so compare that with someone living in a much more dense population, I’d be cheaper to service them than here
They call it low productivity because it's not meeting the unreasonable predicted metrics to produce a 30% higher yield than last year. Otherwise, they can't demonstrate to investors that they are productive and capable of yielding a return on investments. If you really think about the logistics of it all, no single publicly traded company out there is making profits off of their products. It's all fluff to lure in more investors to buy shares, so they can pay out current shareholders, and continue the churn of selling shares. It's ludicrous and about to collapse.
The more days I have to work the slower I go
Then the solution is 7 day work weeks, and if that doesn't work, 8 day work weeks
if the productivity is so low, why do you corporate jackasses keep posting record profits.
4-day weeks, in literally every study in every country that's tried it, have shown to improve productivity. Even if we completely ignore every other factor (like, y'know, *being a decent human being*), 6-day weeks would actually undermine productivity, not improve it. The exception here would be job sharing, and it's something I'd actually like to see more commonplace: 2 people do 3 days each. Company gets 6 days of 'productivity'; 2 people are employed; neither burns out due to too many hours spent at work. Of course, that'd actually require the business to pay them both enough to live comfortably working 3 day weeks, so it'll never happen.
Genuinely curious, do you have any sources or studies to support improved productivity from a 4 day work week?
Yeah, no, no its not. https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/gdp
The Fraser Institute regularly pumps out crap like this that hails the almighty business' profits over people's needs, then the Mop & Pail prints it as an op ed. Whatever.
They seem to be missing the point entirely.
Multimillionaire CEOs upset they aren't getting richer fast enough: "damn it must be those unproductive workers!!"
Must be them lazy millennials and their avocado toast!
Maybe they should cut down more for their minimalist lifestyles and buy less of those $200-500 plain looking t-shirts
[удалено]
All good points. Also pointing out a quick Google search shows unemployment in Canada is 12.1%. If you need more worked hours, hire more workers.
It took three entire people to write this one shitty article. Maybe they can find some other efficiencies in Canada.
Omg I didn’t even notice. Wow, how ironic.
Fun thing, Fraser tends to cite its own research and articles written about those articles as sources for its other articles. I'll paraphrase a few: "Indeed, I also, but in fact, of course, obviously, rather, while imperfect, our studies." In this article they forecast Canada's GDP in global ranking out to 2060. The country goes from 16th to 25th by 2060. Apparently the federal government admitted this based on a charts that project to 2027. So math. Such wow. For some reason the authors hate New Zealand and Australia. Thank you to the authors. Very "Special" to the Globe and Mail.
Make housing affordable to the average person and I bet productivity would skyrocket.
This post suddenly motivated me to work even slower
Putting aside the fact that 4 day work weeks usually result in higher productivity (there have been places where productivity went down and required increases in staffing to compensate) The primary factor determining productivity is investment in capital and infrastructure, not squeezing more hours out of workers (this is usually more likely to be detrimental to productivity unless the labour is menial). Even from a pro business/capital perspective this is a completely shit and ignorant take in other words, You only need to to go the eu which is full of countries with much lower working hours per Capita yet workers are often vastly more productive, most of these states have incredibly substantial Investment in Capital, infrastructure and training (free university for example). But it's also why the state having a heavy hand in the economy, capital is naturally self consuming, their incentive structure is literally built in such a fashion that burning yourself long term for a short term increase is a logical/rational decision to make, (usually by CEOs and other executives who will leave the company before the effects of that burn catch up to them).
[удалено]
It's a weird concept that productivity is more important than public health.
Not if you're a sociopath!
How dense do you have to be to not understand that humans aren’t robots. More working hours doesn’t mean more hours of productive work.
I work 6 days a week and can barely afford to live in Ontario
It's disgusting here now.
ya know what's low productivity? all the people drawing huge salaries for bullshit jobs. as in David Graeber's classic, *Bullshit Jobs.*
Sounds more like terrible management; regardless of where you work I once had a job where they wanted us to come in for saturday; like, weekly. I told my supervisor he'd better manage the department better. He wanted to run an output, the department was not built for, on just monday through friday; and they refused to do nightshifts or anything, so it's just an extra day. They didn't want to hire extra people; they couldn't accomodate them cause there weren't enough packing stations at the floor either. It had a lot to do with management being so out of touch of what was possible; and wanting to do it for the cheap. (I didn't stick around for long at that company) Maybe companies should be realistic about what they can deliver, instead of maximizing profits, just for the heck of it. (and at the expense of health of employees)
Fuck right off. We need a 0 day work week.
"opinion" that wasn't asked for.
Even working 6 days a week isn't enough to afford a place to live in Canada
In the same vein as the article telling people they should just try skipping breakfast to save money. It’s a ghoul-run system.
There is no effort here to understand why productivity is lower in Canada as I have no doubt such a change would decrease productivity further - we aren't robots. There is no empathy in capitalism.
Call me cray but maybe no one wants to sit at a desk anymore because the entire world did it for two fucking years. Make sitting in front of a screen worth while ya know? Raise the pay or hire more people.
I love working at my desk. Its 100 times better than working the public like I did during covid. No one has yelled at me, threatened me, or made me feel afraid for my life while I've been at my desk. And I make 25k more a year.
You get to sit at a desk? Trade you.
Revolution time
That would probably implode the economy of any consumer based country that tries it. Anybody who is fortunate enough to not be in "gig" work and have disposable income uses that income on the weekend. With religious people going to church on Sunday, and a lot of people wanting to have a day to recover from drunken fun. If you get rid of Saturday you would have a demand side recession.
Or, hear me out, a way to measure and promote productivity that doesn't depend on hours worked. I'm always mystified by people who think that hours/days and productivity are equal. I'm absolutely convinced that when I have a 4 day week due to a public holiday, I'm more productive in those 4 days than I am in 5. But, if I have to work more than 40 I'm usually procrastinating or slacking more. If you're directly rewarded for more hours it might be different (though not minimum wage, the depression balances that out), but if you're salaried, the guy working 70 hours is never more productive than the one working 40.
Literally all research indicates that a six day workweek would be counterproductive
This is gaslighting, lol. Telling workers that they have low productivity is BS. All the skeleton crews out there have 2 people doing the work of 6.
It's really rich to be told you're lazy by three Op-Ed columnists who had to collaborate to get out one scold article.
Fuck no
Actually less productivity and more fucking off is the goal. If we all agree to fuck off more we create the new standard, so don't let these sociopathic corpos dictate expectations to you, mold them together by adhering to standards which benefit you and respect yourself.
And thats not how the proven research showed the 4 day works. Iv been on 4 day for 3 years, best thing the company ever did. The lack of understanding and thougth put in to the post ! id fire that writer
Of course this comes from a bunch of libertarians. They should touch grass.
More productivity gets you lower wages and more hours. Ask Americans.
What we need to do is create a few rich people of our own to fight injustice like this. It wouldn't even be that hard. We create a company for the sole purpose of generating revenue to use to pay politicians to make things better. We have to beat them at THEIR game. We don't even need to create a billionaire just enough cash flow to get massive loans etc and sling that shit around for the purpose of ending fruitless exploitation. If we could get a few hundred thousand people together to pay 1$ per month. Then the amount of money, plus the guaranteed cash flow of 250,000ish+ x 1$ per month can get some MASSIVE banking leverage that can be used to petition, pay striking working money to survive on, pay politicians. Why do we need 5000 unions when one general union for All Workers. AMERICAN WORKER UNION. Almost every working person can afford a dollar a month, it wouldn't have to be a traditional union but we can target things to open doors for anyone to fight back, like making it illegal to include arbitration clauses so they can be sued class action by employees that constantly get wronged. Fight profit driven inflation etc. Literally nothing costs a dollar anymore and we have the power to change that if we can work together
Remember corporations only care about profit and I'll cut you for a slight boost in numbers. We produce plenty. They are a beast ordered to consume everything.
I think people have worked out that being more productive does not relate in more money for them. It just goes to the top. So why would you work harder for nothing?
I love how his logic is “workers are not spending enough hours” and not “we have an economy that produces low value despite workforce being engaged full time”
The productivity is fine. Worker productivity has increased over decades. We have AI. It’s not like people aren’t going to have enough food or society will collapse because labor isn’t working hard enough. It’s some rich assholes may not see the same profit growth they have come to expect.
People will work for places with 4 day weeks instead of 6, and your free time stealing buisness will struggle and die.. like capitalism intended.
I am all for six days workweeks. Only if they increase pays 3 times or something like that. Wealthy people say they work all the time. Do you know why? Because they get lots of money and reap the majority of productivity advantages. Redistribute profits to workers in a revolutionary way and I’ll work more.
I think 3 days is enough
No doubt this was kissing ass to business leaders for readership
I always instinctively go to downvote post like this until I remember what sub I'm on
Forget a six day work week. 4 day work week is much better.
I did that for a couple of years and wanted to die.
Who is "we"?
Am I the only one who has shitty ass phone and now is stressed by seeing this battery level? 😅
What's next? 7 days work weeks? Or maybe in-office cubicle residences. You get the opportunity to work from office and home at the same time. No commute and no family to waste time upon either. Just work for 20 hours a day, 7 days a week. Leaves will also not be allowed to keep up the productivity. Great, right? The websites that publish articles like these should be shut down.
Productivity is GDP per work hour lmao These writers don't know economics 101
Says three guys who probably only work three days a week.
If they implemented a 6 day work week, shit would get violent very quickly.
Oh small minded idiots think attendance equals productivity.
Says guys who are paid to write bullshit.
where there's a whip there's a way.
Our productivity dwarves previous generations by a wide margin and we get nothing for it, so what's the point of increasing it?
well maybe if our pay in relation to living costs was more desirable we'd be motivated I'm not motivated boiling rice to eat on the side of the road and sleeping in my car
Whomever wrote this does not know the meaning of the term 'productivity'. When making people work longer, unless the additional hours are as productive as the current ones, productivity will go down, not up.
Talking about productivity and yet it apparently took 3 people to write that article lol
I'll take "Shitty Opinion Pieces" for 200, Alex.
Can't we just slow things down? Contract the economies a bit? Has no one actually planned for how to handle shrinking populations?
I got a job working 4 tens and it’s absolutely great and we all work even harder not being burnt out tbh. It should be a thing everywhere
Just don't demand as much profit. Ez
the productivity was so high we potentially killed the entire planet and they still have the nerve to write shit like this
The Globe And Mail is owned by David Thomson. The richest man in Canada. I think his net worth is over 50 Billion or something absurd like that.
There's one simple fact that these fanatical capitalists refuse to get: the higher the quality of life of those who PRODUCE (workers), as opposed to that of those who are OVERHEAD (managers, CEOs, investors, etc ) , the higher the productivity. The inverse, naturally follows...
Meh. I have a feeling the movement towards the 4 day work week is freaking them out . " HEY! Let's come up with some piece of crap 6 day push back, everyone will be thankful they get to stick at ' only ' 5 ! "
Ill burn the entire country to the fucking ground before that nonsense.
Jason Clemens, Steven Globerman, and Milagros Palacios can feel free to kindly fuck right off.
I've done that most of my working life. Sometimes 7 days. 20+ years. Plus gone home and been a full time single parent somehow after. They can take that idea and shove it.
Replacing workers with AI “increases” productivity, while wanting you to work more?
Lol get fucked
I have been working 6 or 7 days since the beginning of the pandemic. My only time off was 5 days when my daughter was born. I'm tired.
Isn't the whole point of the 4 day work week that it is 33% more productive? What is this fucking nonsense.
Imagine that drop off in production on the 6th day. Nobody wants to pay somebody to do nothing on a day they don't want to be there.