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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It seems like the idea has fairly broad support across the political spectrum. I too would like to see more details though.

    What's the point in being such a wealthy nation and making such huge technological advancements if we only have 2-3 hours a day free?

    Apparently workers in Germany could afford to take every Friday off and still produce as much and earn as much as British workers.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I still have yet to see anyone answer how this whole idea has got any legs at all when it blatantly only operates for a small sector of the workforce.

    It works for directly productive labour - people making things or carrying out some kind of non-time dependent infinite process.

    anything else, or anything time-dependent and this is a nonsense.

    Could it work for accountants, factory workers, sales people - yes. Possibly it could.

    But what about retail, healthcare, almost anything in service industry, catering - it almost certainly won't.

    Like I said, this would never work in a million years for MPs or nurses or doctors or chefs - so what's the point?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    I still have yet to see anyone answer how this whole idea has got any legs at all when it blatantly only operates for a small sector of the workforce.
    In post 7 I outlined why it cannot work in general, but reality is completely irrelevant to left wing fantasists.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    In post 7 I outlined why it cannot work in general, but reality is completely irrelevant to left wing fantasists.
    Given that a fair few on the political right support the idea in principal, it's not exactly an example of left wing fanaticism.

    You've outlined why you don't think it will work and that's fine but you're not the beacon of all knowledge. There are arguments for and against it. I'd like to hear more details about how such a plan could work and how the disadvantaged could be mitigated.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    I still have yet to see anyone answer how this whole idea has got any legs at all when it blatantly only operates for a small sector of the workforce.

    It works for directly productive labour - people making things or carrying out some kind of non-time dependent infinite process.

    anything else, or anything time-dependent and this is a nonsense.

    Could it work for accountants, factory workers, sales people - yes. Possibly it could.

    But what about retail, healthcare, almost anything in service industry, catering - it almost certainly won't.

    Like I said, this would never work in a million years for MPs or nurses or doctors or chefs - so what's the point?
    In Germany workers are far more productive than we are. They could take every Friday odd and still earn and produce as much as we do.

    There is a certain argument that more free time boosts morale and productivity. Its not about the hours you work, it's about the amount you produce.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    In Germany workers are far more productive than we are. They could take every Friday odd and still earn and produce as much as we do.

    There is a certain argument that more free time boosts morale and productivity. Its not about the hours you work, it's about the amount you produce.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Not contesting that.

    I'm telling you that there are large numbers of jobs where reducing hours won't help and that increased productivity is either immeasurable or pointless.

    Take nursing. If nurses become more productive you can either decrease numbers on shift or shorten the shifts. The first would be a very high risk strategy, the second would be hugely expensive for no benefit.

    Take retail work. Shops are either going to keep the same hours or have increased hours due to the apparent increase in leisure time. How does reducing working day for retail workers help anyone?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    There is a certain argument that more free time boosts morale and productivity. Its not about the hours you work, it's about the amount you produce.
    Of course. It's a pity we have a services-based economy, isn't it? But let's have some specific answers to specific questions, rather than aspirational waffle. You tell me how the following could improve productivity:

    An airline pilot, a bus driver, a train driver, a lorry driver - how can the journey be completed in fewer hours? Should we do away with speed limits?

    A financial markets trader - does he not bother with trades after six hours, and leaves his position open to risk?

    A doctor or nurse - how can he/she deliver eight hours of patient care in six?

    A support technician - how can support be given for the full eight hours if the technician knocks off after six hours? Having a second technician for the other hours is not improving productivity.

    Factory machine supervision - how can the factory worker monitor a machine for eight hours if they go home after six hours?

    A teacher or lecturer- do the students in the last two lessons of the day teach themselves?

    A childminder - I suppose the kids are kicked out after six hours, eh?

    The policeman - will we make a pleas for all crime to be committed within certain times of the day?

    The fireman - it's bad luck if your house catches fire at the wrong time, after they have gone home, isn't it?

    The shop assistant - is closing early an increase in productivity?

    The postman - must he walk faster, or be given a sports car instead of a van? Will that speed deliveries up by 25%?

    The road mender - will knocking off after six hours please the motorists left with roadworks to slow their journeys down?

    The cinema projectionist - will cinema-goers have to watch speeded up versions of films?

    The swimming pool lifeguard - won't drownings be more frequent if the pool is unwatched for 25% of the time?

    How does productivity work in these cases, exactly? There are, in fact, relatively few jobs left for which automation could make a 25% difference. The solution is to employ more people, and post 7 described the effects of doing that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Of course. It's a pity we have a services-based economy, isn't it?
    I don't get the whole neo-Marxist thing at all.

    Every bona fide Marxist nation on earth, now or historically is or was a backward nightmare of inefficiency backed up by a ruthless police state.

    Why is it that there is apparently a high-tech workers paradise being envisioned by the hard-left, when the practical reality of this is Cuba?

    Everyone working 6 hours a day for the same miserable pay, be they heart surgeon or security guard - and all that pay is only disposable on a range of mediocre, state-approved products. This is the reality of Marxism in practice. Why do people persist in the fantasy that it will actually be Star Trek?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Its possible that a new society entirely, one neither the left or the right can envisage totally, is going to be brought about by the rapid technological introduction of machines and Artificial Intelligence into our daily lives.

    A few things that I would sincerely like an answer to;

    1.) Regardless of its perceived pro's or con's would everyone actually WANT to work less hours? I for one would love to work less than an 8 hour per week and I strongly believe the 8 hour a day 5/6 days workweek will, in 50 years be looked on similarly to how we now look back at the 14 hour workhouse shifts of yonder years as barbaric and indicative of a society that doesn't know how to treat humans....

    2.) When AI becomes provably better at things like driving/flying/surgical operations etc etc, won't people naturally gravitate to preferring the precision and reliability of robots over the fallibility of humans. ? I personally would still want one human doctor around just in case, but that still means many would lose their jobs.

    3.) If all jobs at the lower end of the career spectrum, e.g fast food workers and warehouse packers, became cheaper to automate due to robots faster production speed and no desire for pay or sleep or breaks....what business person would actually choose a human over the 'better in every way' robot. And most importantly if we passed legislation protecting humans from the advance of technology, are we not simply stopping the advancement of technology because we are totally unwilling to change.

    4.) Are we so scared of change that even the mere thought of a society where people don't have to work that hard is too difficult for us to imagine. I have never thought that humans are/were here to commit to slave labor for 40 years (believe me most people think that is what most jobs are) and then spend old age too ill to actually enjoy the freedom they now have. We could pay them the same money for not working at all (crazy right) and let the robots do it instead.....

    I realize we are possibly talking a small time into the future with some of the above, but one thing all technologists are certain of is that this IS coming, and at an ever faster rate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I imagine plenty of labour voters would be against it as well. The Victorian moralising around work is also embedded in left wing groups.

    Right wing think tanks like the Adam Smith institute would probably be for it if the conditions were right. Or some kind of equivalent. They support a negative income tax for example (basically free money). Most people, left or right scoff at the idea of free money.
    And scrap the entire welfare state.


    I agree with them though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It would have a terrible effect on workers with low productivity, eg. outside London and big cities, or without a degree, with disabilities, etc.

    Sweden has terrible unemployment results for its immigrant population, possibly because they can't find low skilled jobs. Some businesses may benefit from the 6-hour day, but a large part of the population will suffer from it.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Well if you get paid hourly i doubt it'll amuse said people.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    It would have a terrible effect on workers with low productivity, eg. outside London and big cities, or without a degree, with disabilities, etc.

    Sweden has terrible unemployment results for its immigrant population, possibly because they can't find low skilled jobs. Some businesses may benefit from the 6-hour day, but a large part of the population will suffer from it.
    That is why we give them free money.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think this is just lazy. The government shouldn't be able to decide how long someone should work or how long employers should employ people for. Leave us alone!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    Not contesting that.

    I'm telling you that there are large numbers of jobs where reducing hours won't help and that increased productivity is either immeasurable or pointless.

    Take nursing. If nurses become more productive you can either decrease numbers on shift or shorten the shifts. The first would be a very high risk strategy, the second would be hugely expensive for no benefit.

    Take retail work. Shops are either going to keep the same hours or have increased hours due to the apparent increase in leisure time. How does reducing working day for retail workers help anyone?
    Well it doesn't have to be all or nothing does it? If it works in some professions and not in others you only use it in the former.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    On second thoughts I misintepreted. What I believe we should have is the right for this or something like it, to be a lot more common, and for the standard 9-5 to be not so universally applied. That does not mean that I think 6 hours max should be compulsory.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    On second thoughts I misintepreted. What I believe we should have is the right for this or something like it, to be a lot more common, and for the standard 9-5 to be not so universally applied. That does not mean that I think 6 hours max should be compulsory.
    :facepalm:

    That is an entirely different matter, and the vast majority of employers already allow some form of flexible working when it is possible and appropriate.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    The only way this can be done is by coupling it with productivity gains.

    A human being is only so productive. The introduction of machinery increased the productivity of human beings. The next step is the introduction of self propelled machinery i.e. robots. Once robots and AI are introduced into the workforce, one human being will be able to manage a hospital by themselves. This is when you can reduce the working hours because the labour is taken up by machines.

    Corbyn loves to waste political capital on idealistic unthought policies.

    As other people have said, how does a bus driver increase productivity if they work less hours. The answer is they don't. This must be coupled with innovation. Although a work around would be to say that you only work 8 hours 4 days a week. This would still require more staff. There are plenty about on low paid jobs. Train em and get em workin...etc etc.

    If a general principle is applied where lets say people work 32 hours a week i.e. 4 days a week instead of 40 then wages must increase otherwise those people will just work overtime or find a second job. Wage increases are hated by the capitalist class therefore they will find a workaround or sabotage a JC government which tries to implement this.

    Anywho, my take on this is that the work vs social life issue is simple. work = mandatory labour required in order to maintain X standard of living. social time = All other time available. There should be a balance but changing the time allocated to each activity should be based on what society demands.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    people work 32 hours a week i.e. 4 days a week instead of 40 then wages must increase
    The effect, of course, will be to make the overall UK economy less competitive than others, meaning jobs or profits will be exported.
    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?
    In principle I totally agree with what you're saying, but in practice it doesn't work that way.

    If you work for 6 hours you're not going to get paid for doing 8 hours worth of work. How are people who are already barely on the breadline going to be able to carry on paying rent/mortgage and food and bills and have enough money to be able to actually enjoy their extra free time if they're getting paid 25% less?

    I'm rather anti-establishment, but I also enjoy having common sense, and I'm telling you now that it's not feasible to be paid £40 for doing £30s worth of work (in this analogy the minimum wage is a fiver because I'm lazy and can't be bothered to maths).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If this happened we could wave goodbye to all business. It may also lead to malpractice, as an employer would want to squeeze the most out of an employee, perhaps leading to abuse and overworking.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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