Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You contradict yourself, Sir.
    No I don't. You can do less work in 6 hours than in 8 whilst being more productive.
    Don't you understand basic Mathematics?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    A tangent? I think not. I merely pointed out how the policy fails even a cursory sanity test. You appear to believe that:

    (a) the currently unemployed 1.5 million unemployed people could fill the gaps if everyone worked for just six hours.

    (b) a surgeon, for instance, could operate on just as many people in six hours as he currently does in eight, and that a train driver could get his train there 25% quicker.

    I suggest you think it through a bit more, and encourage Corbyn to do the same, lest he puts the electorate off him by making people think he doesn't understand basic practicalities and logic.
    I'm talking from rational first principles. We formed our economy around working hours. We can do it again. Do you genuinely believe all demand in our economy is rigidly, inherently favoured to an exact time of 8-9 hours a day, rather than the economy shaping itself around the hours we choose? This is a very strange belief.
    Why are you putting those moot points to me? Could a Surgeon operate on as many people in 8 hours, no, probably not, but his productivity could be higher(read other post)
    Demand, and how supply meets it, is not fixed. It would be much better achieved by controlling the numbers of people in this country, and better and more accurately allocating resources . Your argument is frankly, stubborn, reactionary, and leaden. The worst aspect of British reflexive empiricism in full effect.
    It's this type of thing that gives us cycle lanes drawn out on pavements, and *****y train services, put to shame in France.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gora The Xplorer)
    Corbyn is onto something here, anyone who has worked in an actual job, retail aside will tell you that there is a huge amount of down time and general dossing around, but you're still tied to your desk and forced to just procrastinate on the internet. Might has well work harder for 6 hours then go home.
    Well this presumes a factory production line type of work; but entirely fails with large numbers of fairly common jobs.

    Take the simplest of jobs - driving a bus. The driver will be on a timetable. No matter how hard or smart he or she works, the job cannot be made more productive as the bus route and timings are fixed. Say the driver usually does an 8 hour shift - repeating the same route 4 times. What exactly is the point in cutting that shift to 6 hours and repeating the route only 3 times? Passengers will still be there for the times outside the new shift. All that's happened is the cost of labour as an overhead has increased (in this case 25%) and will inevitably be borne by either the passenger or taxpayer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gora The Xplorer)
    Corbyn is onto something here, anyone who has worked in an actual job, retail aside will tell you that there is a huge amount of down time and general dossing around, but you're still tied to your desk and forced to just procrastinate on the internet. Might has well work harder for 6 hours then go home.
    It involves things the British don't like.

    Rationalism, and the abstract, over Empiricism.
    Change. Deeply curmudgeonly instincts against it is the default setting.
    Any sign of being a 'socialist, leftist ****' and not loving serfdom enough.

    We can get into the deeper logic, but they won't like it.
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Yes, I expect the usual reactionary shitstorm, and snide comments.
    But actually
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presenteeism
    is real, and there is evidence of greater productivity with less hours.
    Why make peoples lives a treadmill, where the balance of leisure and recharge to work isn't right, they can't spend enough time with their families,and productivity is lower. It makes no sense beyond the usual government insecurity causing policies,of the powerful not wanting anyone to have any time to question anything about the treadmill system
    I think this is a highly civilized, genuine progressive move.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7177661.html
    My respect for Corbyn increases all the time.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    Well this presumes a factory production line type of work; but entirely fails with large numbers of fairly common jobs.

    Take the simplest of jobs - driving a bus. The driver will be on a timetable. No matter how hard or smart he or she works, the job cannot be made more productive as the bus route and timings are fixed. Say the driver usually does an 8 hour shift - repeating the same route 4 times. What exactly is the point in cutting that shift to 6 hours and repeating the route only 3 times? Passengers will still be there for the times outside the new shift. All that's happened is the cost of labour as an overhead has increased (in this case 25%) and will inevitably be borne by either the passenger or taxpayer
    In 4 years time there will be commercially available automated cars, bus drivers won't exist for much longer

    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    It involves things the British don't like.

    Rationalism, and the abstract, over Empiricism.
    Change. Deeply curmudgeonly instincts against it is the default setting.
    Any sign of being a 'socialist, leftist ****' and not loving serfdom enough.

    We can get into the deeper logic, but they won't like it.
    Brits are closed minded you're right.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Yes, I expect the usual reactionary shitstorm, and snide comments.
    But actually
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presenteeism
    is real, and there is evidence of greater productivity with less hours.
    Why make peoples lives a treadmill, where the balance of leisure and recharge to work isn't right, they can't spend enough time with their families,and productivity is lower. It makes no sense beyond the usual government insecurity causing policies,of the powerful not wanting anyone to have any time to question anything about the treadmill system
    I think this is a highly civilized, genuine progressive move.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7177661.html
    As long as there is evidence to back it then large trials can be done also per hour workers can't be affected


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gora The Xplorer)
    Corbyn is onto something here, anyone who has worked in an actual job, retail aside will tell you that there is a huge amount of down time and general dossing around, but you're still tied to your desk and forced to just procrastinate on the internet. Might has well work harder for 6 hours then go home.
    Agreed. Done that. Been there. But I put that down to poor management having low expectations of their staff or a general inability to allocate sufficient work to fill an 8 hour day.

    It has nothing to do with politics or ideology.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Agreed. Done that. Been there. But I put that down to poor management having low expectations of their staff or a general inability to allocate sufficient work to fill an 8 hour day.

    It has nothing to do with politics or ideology.
    In many cases there isn't sufficient work and you could at the very least leave half an hour early and nothing would change, but people have a strong aversion to giving someone something for nothing, so they force them to waste their time with busy non-work to make it look like they're not doing nothing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    This bothers me as a reaction. It points to something wider.

    It's not about doing more in 6 than in 8. No-ones saying that. It's about more productivity per hour, and more time off, to be a mentally well, functioning human that sees your family. Who ever determined the amount of hours per day and week to be carved in stone? Why is this essential or right? Why are people so relentlessly pro-establishment,and easily manipulated into loving and voting for virtual serfdom?
    I wouldn't say that it would fit everyone per hour workers and workers in shops, builders and doctors for example wouldn't fit this model as for the serfdom bit well I don't see it like that.

    I think reducing hours if the output is the same is great but it must be the same output or we become even less competitive internationally and therefore poorer


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Didn't see that bit, you were too late with the edit

    I agree with that both in practice and in theory, but machines can't be used to replace every line of work, at least not at the current state of advancement (nor are we, as a country, in a financially viable situation enough to be able to fund such a transition. Because surely if we were, some of that money would've gone towards eradicating homelessness or poverty in general instead of building robots).
    "
    If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality. "

    ~ Hawking

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0dbb8000d9f15

    Machines don't have to replace every line of work. It's about making sure the benefits of machines doing more and more work are shared out.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)

    It has nothing to do with politics or ideology.
    Its everything to do with politics. A socialist is concerned with what goes on in the economic sphere.

    Your insistence it has nothing to do with politics is actually a political view. It is a conservative view that nothing needs to change, "stop looking at capitalism please, it's fine how it is".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I wouldn't say that it would fit everyone per hour workers and workers in shops, builders and doctors for example wouldn't fit this model as for the serfdom bit well I don't see it like that.

    I think reducing hours if the output is the same is great but it must be the same output or we become even less competitive internationally and therefore poorer


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    We shouldn't just measure competitiveness on GDP because population and maybe working hours affects that. We should focus on how we take people in, the size of the public/vs private sector, the composition of our economy, our trade with the world, inflation and the prices on our shelves, how much space we which to preserve. We would be at least as competitive in GDP per capita if we did all of this, and certainly more productive, with a better quality of life. I don't think we should rely on too many one dimensional assessments of an economy or priorities anyhow though, because as with the referendum, I don't think life can be reduced by bean counters or utilitarians down to some numbers. I think politics is incredibly narrow if it focuses on that. The other problem is I don't trust such studies to be free of political bias an interference, we know how much elites love us to be insecure, on a treadmill, just smart enough, just dumb enough, etc(as George Carlin said) serving the powerful's interests.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gora The Xplorer)
    In 4 years time there will be commercially available automated cars, bus drivers won't exist for much longer.
    That's not the point.

    Firstly it was an illustration of how very simple jobs are difficult to reconcile with these shortened work day theories. How would nursing move from a 3 shift day to a four shift day?

    Second, we've had the tech for automated trains for decades. But we still have drivers and any suggestion of removing them would almost certainly lead to widespread industrial action from the militant train unions.

    This is the paradox. The jobs most at risk from technology are the ones that will stay because of the unions. The unions are a key part of militant labour. Ergo there can't be modernisation.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    This would fail in almost every sector. It's very hard to think of too many jobs it would work for.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gora The Xplorer)
    In many cases there isn't sufficient work and you could at the very least leave half an hour early and nothing would change, but people have a strong aversion to giving someone something for nothing, so they force them to waste their time with busy non-work to make it look like they're not doing nothing.
    True. But if you give an inch they take a mile. So you let those who have nothing to do go early. What do you tell thosè who remain because they are still busy?

    I would compromise as far as suggesting companies should formally recognise the overtime their employees put in. Either in pay our time in lieu. In my experience, overtime is generally a one way street in favour of the company.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)

    Firstly it was an illustration of how very simple jobs are difficult to reconcile with these shortened work day theories. How would nursing move from a 3 shift day to a four shift day?
    Hire more nurses.



    (Original post by Trinculo)
    Second, we've had the tech for automated trains for decades. But we still have drivers and any suggestion of removing them would almost certainly lead to widespread industrial action from the militant train unions.
    It's only these past few years it's become financially viable to put automation into practice.

    (Original post by Trinculo)
    This is the paradox. The jobs most at risk from technology are the ones that will stay because of the unions. The unions are a key part of militant labour. Ergo there can't be modernisation.
    Which is why the mentality needs to change. The very notion that you should work for a living or that it's good to engage in some sort of drudgery needs to be abolished.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Its everything to do with politics. A socialist is concerned with what goes on in the economic sphere.

    Your insistence it has nothing to do with politics is actually a political view. It is a conservative view that nothing needs to change, "stop looking at capitalism please, it's fine how it is".
    Yes, people have been browbeaten for long enough with this. When I look back on the constant smears, the kind of intimidation towards questioning a thing about it when I was younger, I see how it worked. It must have been it's advocates were so vituperative because it was so corrupt, failing and people or institutions that wanted to hang onto it's power by closing down all debate or objective scrutiny.

    But this is the problem, it's what happened with the EU. You smear the opposition, you try and shout down objective scrutiny -it's the same thing...the hallmarks of a indoctrination and a totalitarian world view, power and establishment, the corrupt and self-satisfied and narrow minded trying to close down debate- this is why establishment structures and notions are crumbling- they have sent people in the opposite direction by looking weaker and less objectively viable, by refusing all rational debate.

    I for one, don't trust any ideologies unquestioned place if it's proponents behave in such a fashion.

    Do you know what I mean?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    No, I disagree with any proposal that limits the number of hours employers are legally allowed to give their staff as part of mutual contract.

    The issue with added governmental regulation on industry is that it creates red-tape which inhibits the ability for businesses to maximise their productivity and deliver profits for its shareholders. Albeit this mightn't be as big as an issue with large multinational corporations, with medium and small sized entities the introduction of further restrictions regarding an employee's contract of employment can incur notable economic burdens on business efficiency and overall profit margins. France is well known for having a 35-hour working week yet their economy over the last few years has been one of the worst performing in the G7, as a result of the Socialist Party's incessant wanting to regulate business freedom and impose ludicrous tax policies on its affluent classes. As a result, although this hasn't had an impact on the transnational corporations which already reside on French soil, the French economy has become a no-go area for investment and start-up initiatives. The City of London and the UK has become a goldmine for economic success in Europe which is why Chinese and other investment into the city has never been higher as a result of the Conservatives' pro-business stances including cutting capital gains and corporation tax. The second we impose regulation on business, it opens a gateway for further entitlements which will detract investment and weaken Britain's economy.

    The other issue you brought up was productivity, but from the evidence you provided you don't seem to understand what productivity is a measure of. Yes, I will agree, there is evidence that those who work shorter hours are more productive during their working day. Indeed I work ten hours on some days and I'm at my most productive during the early hours of my shift. Productivity is a measure of economic output per hour in the workplace, which means although a French employee may be more productive than a British employee with their shorter hours, the gross productivity in a working day is less than a Briton who works longer hours because of simple mathematics. According to OECD data, French workers - who albeit are more productive - will yield $1,582,462 in an aggregate working hour whereas British workers - who albeit are less productive - will yield $1,782,136, not to mention the differential in overall employment. Just because French workers are more productive during their time at work, this is mitigated and superseded by the fact they work - on average - less hours.

    A contract of employment should be a mutual agreement between the employer and the employee, with limited government regulation dictating proceedings. The moment you impose stifling red-tape on a business's flexibility the ability for them to grow and prosper is evermore limited by the invisible hand dictating terms neither party has agreed on. Moreover, if you make it a law that employees - if they choose - can work more than six hours a day then an employer will not hire anyone who chooses not to. Jeremy Corbyn and his mob need to wake up to the fact that their ludicrous economic policies will not resonate with voters and that they don't stand up to substantiated analytical scrutiny. I'd love to work six hours a day, speaking as someone who has to get up at 3:30 am each morning to work ten hours a day stacking shelves, but the introduction of government regulation is catastrophic for business investment and the failings of France are evidence that modern-day socialist economic principles should be ignored and abandoned.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Not gonna be good for people who's commutes are long or costly if it means reduced pay... YUUUGE gamble
    I like your profile picture
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.