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

Cut working week to 21 hours, urges think tank Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by puddlejumper)
    A single person on benefits gets less than £100 per week and manages to live. They may not have the best things in life but they still have a life.
    Yeah. And how will we pay for the benefits when people's working hours are halved?

    Besides, people tend to aspire to a greater quality of life than scraping by on government handouts. I certainly do. :lolwut:

    There shouldn't be any political interference in how long people can choose work; as Teaddict pointed out.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Yeah. And how will we pay for the benefits when people's working hours are halved?

    Besides, people tend to aspire to a greater quality of life than scraping by on government handouts. I certainly do. :lolwut:

    There shouldn't be any political interference in how long people can choose work; as Teaddict pointed out.
    You can aspire to a greater quality of life by doing less hours. Greater quality of life does not necessarily equate to working long hours to gain lots of money and material wealth.

    There are other things.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    In this country, and in my experience, there is a strange view that leisure and having plenty of time to oneself must be frowned upon. The ancient Greeks would be horrified with this.

    All the creative advances in human culture and civilisation were undertaken because the people had leisure time. Whereas when people were subjected to large projects resulting in labour the creativity dried up, and the people became unhappy and they rebelled against their rulers.

    The Greeks had an abundance of health; they thought that health was divine. In this country we look down on that. We are so degenerate!
    I work 23 hours a week, am full time at uni (doing about 40 hours a week, currently), moderate on here and spend time with my partner, and I still get to have time doing things I want. I don't see what the problem is...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Clown cuckoo land....
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    You can aspire to a greater quality of life by doing less hours. Greater quality of life does not necessarily equate to working long hours to gain lots of money and material wealth.

    There are other things.
    Yeah, but back in the real world... Nice food, nice clothes, being able to go on holiday, having a car that works rather than a banger, gym membership, being able to go out to cinemas, bars, clubs etc. being able to not worry about how you're going to pay the bills... it all requires money.

    Personally, being able to not worry about meeting my financial obligations every month, and having money left over to spend on doing things I want equates to a greater quality of life than arbitrarily being forced to stay at home, scrimping and saving until giro day, while eating my Tesco Value beans on toast in front of Jeremy Kyle, every day.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    I work 23 hours a week, am full time at uni (doing about 40 hours a week, currently), moderate on here and spend time with my partner, and I still get to have time doing things I want. I don't see what the problem is...
    I myself prefer the 20-25 horus per working week. It allows me to do what I want without burning out, and that is very easy for me becauseI do a lot of sports (gym, martial arts). If I did 50-60 hours a week I would probably not have the energy nor the time to do what I want. I want to be good at martial arts and I want to trim down and gain muscle. That is my goal. I can't achieve that goal if I work 60 hours pwk. Of course, if I am sat at a desk for 60 hours I would be hugely depressed. Similarly, if I was hauling crates up flights of stairs for 60 hours I would probably be exhausted. I can wave my gym goals goodbye.

    In this country health is deeply frowned upon and the push to gain material wealth is seen as a good thing to do. I think that common view is a disease; it is a mental disorder. My brother, coincidentally, works long hours in a distrubution centre for computer parts. He works all those hours but there is nothing else going on; he looks depressed and he has gained massive amounts of weight. He's also irritable and has a bad temper. When I worked as a cleaner in an office in Liverpool, there were people working there for long hours just like my brother. It seems that this disease is quite rife in the office world.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with working less than at the moment, I know so many people who work themselves half to death and have no time for anything else. But 21 hours - that's barely anything. A compromise between that and current working hours would be best.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Yeah. And how will we pay for the benefits when people's working hours are halved?

    Besides, people tend to aspire to a greater quality of life than scraping by on government handouts. I certainly do. :lolwut:

    There shouldn't be any political interference in how long people can choose work; as Teaddict pointed out.
    You are still missing the point.

    If everyone only worked 21 hours per week there would still be some differential in wages as some occupations pay more than others but in general all other costs would need to be brought down in proportion.

    It wouldn't simply be that everything else stays the same and only wages/working hours change. Don't be so narrow-minded and see the wider picture that it's a radical change in how society works.

    And as we would still need the same number of working hours that we currently have, then those people who are not working would have to be brought into the labour pool. So that would mean improving education and training standards so that there are sufficient qualified people to do those jobs.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    21 hours a week would not be enough to sustain a family though. Ok its fine if you are single or part of a couple with no kids, but add kids to the eqaution and theres no way you would be able to survive financially, even if both parents worked the said 21 hours there would still be childcare to pay for and working 21 hours a week certainly wouldnt even cover it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Yeah, but back in the real world... Nice food, nice clothes, being able to go on holiday, having a car that works rather than a banger, gym membership, being able to go out to cinemas, bars, clubs etc. being able to not worry about how you're going to pay the bills... it all requires money.

    Personally, being able to not worry about meeting my financial obligations every month, and having money left over to spend on doing things I want equates to a greater quality of life than arbitrarily being forced to stay at home, scrimping and saving until giro day, while eating my Tesco Value beans on toast in front of Jeremy Kyle, every day.
    Indeed, you work more hours and so you have more money (depending upon what bills or debts you have, of course) to spend on things like clothes. But can you not get clothes whilst working less hours? I'm sure you can. Can't you save to go on holiday? Can't you jog outside (or look for a cheaper gym) instead of buying an expensive gym membership?

    This is a common misconception! I can survive on benefits; although I would not be able to afford holidays or anything (unless I save over a long period of time). I can afford a gym membership because the gym that I use has a good offer of £40 per year membership. I can get good food (like chicken and even steak) because the local CO-OP always has offers on food. I have the internet and can afford that because I don't pay for the phone line (fibre-optic broadband is cheaper).

    There is so much more to enjoy in life if only you could realise that you don't have to slave away and store-up material things to live a fulfilled and active life. I know a few people who are like me and can survive on very little money. Granted I have no partner nor any children to keep. I like it that way.

    But being on the dole waiting for your next giro is not so bad; you could be sculpting a physique on £40 a year whilst waiting for the giro...or you could be studying on the internet (I enjoy studying!) with your cheap fibre-optic broadband. You could save for clothes; it ins't that difficult. I know clothes are expensive, but if you go to Primark or something you can get pretty much what you need.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I know of a few people - about two of them are Polish - and they have two jobs. one job is in the range of 15 hours a week and the other is about 45 hours. I was working in a kitchen as a kitchen porter at the time and the Polish guys told me that they took two jobs to bump up their hours and get more money.

    But there are people out there with no job at all; isn't a bit selfish to take another job when you've already got one? Some people would say "it's every man for himself". Some people would say "it is selfish to take two jobs when others have none...and want a job".

    If the former is the reality, then that must also extend to those not wanting to work and being on the dole, and even to those who can survive on the dole and enjoy what life has to offer albeit without the material things that come with having lots of money.

    By reducing an employees hours, could the employer take on another worker? Wouldn't that improve other people's ability to find work?

    If everyone did around 30 hours per week instead of 60, the employer could employ another worker. Wouldn't that improve people's prospects and improve the economy?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    If you spent the extra free time providing for yourself (i.e. growing food!) then it could be possible.

    21 sounds too litle though, would probably be better to have an extra day or two off per week.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by puddlejumper)
    You are still missing the point.

    If everyone only worked 21 hours per week there would still be some differential in wages as some occupations pay more than others but in general all other costs would need to be brought down in proportion.
    Somewhat enormous disconnect from reality here. In order to exist, goods and services must first be produced. If we all work only half as much, the amount available will reduce. In other words, costs will stay the same, our salaries will go down, and we will experience the greatest regression in living standards since the Civil War.

    And as we would still need the same number of working hours that we currently have, then those people who are not working would have to be brought into the labour pool. So that would mean improving education and training standards so that there are sufficient qualified people to do those jobs.
    Why would they? The unemployed are not just a cross section of the employed populace, they are the least skilled, intelligent and motivated. They are not capable of simply replacing the workforce in proportion. They can only do low productivity jobs that cannot offer wages that are sufficiently competitive with benefits anyway.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    People should be allowed to work however much or as little as they want.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    It's a matter of allowing the people to dictate how the system should work. But this is not the case at the moment. It is the system that dictates how people should live. That is unfortunate.

    The system must not take control of the people; that is called slavery in a way. People who do 60 hours a week often say they need to do that to survive. What a terrible situation!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    It's a matter of allowing the people to dictate how the system should work. But this is not the case at the moment. It is the system that dictates how people should live. That is unfortunate.

    The system must not take control of the people; that is called slavery in a way. People who do 60 hours a week often say they need to do that to survive. What a terrible situation!!
    What? Anyone now who wants to work 20 hours a week can get a part-time job. What is being proposed is to make this mandatory even for people who don't want to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It does make sense in terms of unemployment, but not for the individual.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    What? Anyone now who wants to work 20 hours a week can get a part-time job. What is being proposed is to make this mandatory even for people who don't want to.
    I see. They could do this by creating a law; that all jobs must not excede 20 hours per week. This may also force employees to employ more people; more people get jobs; less people attending the dole queue.

    Or is my view flawed or something?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    I see. They could do this by creating a law; that all jobs must not excede 20 hours per week. This may also force employees to employ more people; more people get jobs; less people attending the dole queue.

    Or is my view flawed or something?
    I'm not sure what this has to do with what I wrote.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    I'm not sure what this has to do with what I wrote.
    Your uncertainty would be correct.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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

    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.