Cut the Work Week

[blindpig]

Cut the Work Week

The economic news of the last few weeks has not been encouraging. In Europe, the various national debt crises remain unresolved, with a continued monopoly of banker-friendly austerity programs, and their predictable consequences of rising unemployment and stagnation. Debtor countries are being forced into the same financial orthodoxies that prolonged the depression of the 1920s and 30s, so we shouldn't be surprised at the failures they will bring. More recession may also be the future of the countries enforcing these once-discredited policies, as weak demand across the region represses consumer demand, investor confidence, and government spending.

In the United States the details are different, but the main story is the same. The country is experiencing continuing mass unemployment (25 million Americans remain unemployed or underemployed), further collapse in the housing market and an extremist political movement determined to slash all government spending directed at the people who are most likely to spend: the poor, the unemployed, and the middle classes. The outlook among wealthy countries is for more economic "weakness," a conclusion supported by the plummeting stock markets of recent weeks.

Protecting bankers' and creditors' interests above all else is foolish economic policy. It enriches one group of people at the expense of nearly everyone else. But these days, it's hard to get a hearing for the view that the wealthy countries remain wealthy, that we can solve our economic problems without making most people worse off, and that we can also do it while addressing the much larger challenge we face: climate change and growing ecological devastation.

So what's the alternative to slashing government programs, budget cutting, and more concentrated wealth at the top? The centerpiece of a new approach is to re-structure the labor market by reducing hours of work. That may seem counter-intuitive in a period when the mainstream message is that we are poorer than ever and have to work harder. But the historical record suggests it's a smart move that will create what economists call a triple dividend: three positive outcomes from one policy innovation.

more....

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/political-economy/cut-the-work-week-1168-2.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ml2day-recent+%28Welcome+to+MLToday.com+%7C+Recently+Added+Content+%7C+Please+Subscribe+to+Our+Feed%29

[blindpig]

1. kick

[Travis_0004]

2. How will this be paid for?

Lets say we switch to 32 hour weeks. That means everybody gets a 20% paycut. How does somebody who is struggling to make ends meet get by with 20% less pay.

Or option B: we pay them the same amount, but we now have to hire 20% more people, so the employers payroll goes up 20%. The only way to continue making a profit is to raise prices, so the person who is making the same amount of money can now afford less because everything is more expensive.

[blindpig]

3. How about it comes out of the investor's profits?

Profits are the result of parasitism.

If they don't like it expropriate without compensation.

[el_bryanto]

7. What a great idea. You're brilliant. But what about companies

who don't have shareholders? Or are you saying small business owners are "Investors" and thus deserve to be spit upon? Or, let's not mince words, would you prefer that we just give up on capitalism?

It's kind of sad because your initial idea has a lot of merit.

Bryant

[blindpig]

8. No mince here....

That is surely the beginning of the end game. For the sake of rationality, humanity and survival Capitalism has got to go.

Define small business, what's the size cutoff? Does the owner do productive work? This ain't about the mom&pops, owner operators, ya know.

[el_bryanto]

10. Except that in a capatalist system just expecting companies not to make profit

is akin to saying they should go out of business. What's the point to doing it if it isn't going to make profit?

Bryant

[blindpig]

15. The point of production is to provide for human need.

Profit is robbery.

[el_bryanto]

17. So your theory rests on humans being completely different than they are now

Does your salary exceed what you need strictly to stay alive? Should mine? Should anybodies?

[blindpig]

22. Ah, the 'human nature' angle...

'Human nature', the consciousness of humanity, is not hardwired but is the result of the society which humans inhabit. As society is changed so will 'human nature'.

By "strictly" I am supposing that you are referring to some kind of bread & water libertarian nightmare. Nothing of the sort, Good healthy food, decent shelter, a good job, retirement, education, health care, culture and entertainment, all of these are human rights in a society as productive as ours.

[joeglow3]

91. Entertainment is a human right?

How do you determine who does what job? Does the firefighter running into burning buildings make the same as the cashier running out of the burning building?

[blindpig]

97. In a society which can afford it, yes.

Spectator and participatory sports, artistic performance, are the perks of a modern, productive society.

All work has equal value, though this is not apparent in current society and I admit it will take time and effort to realize this. Society will make it's best effort to place individuals in jobs which they are able to perform and like. Crap jobs which no one wants will be eliminated through mechanization, societal adjustments(mebbe we don't really need to be doing that) or by sharing the burden.

[joeglow3]

98. So people will WANT to increase the chance of death a hundred fold

For the same cash benefit? Would you volunteer for that, or are you claiming that OTHER people would be okay with that?

[blindpig]

102. Surely you know some folks like that.

I do, I call them 'adreniline freaks' and they gravitate towards those kind of jobs because the like them. And there is more to it than the filthy lucre, there is the respect of others, that can be worth more than gold.

If ya ever need someone for venomous snake removal, I'm your guy.

[Dreamer Tatum]

44. Profit is the result of specialization, innovation, risk, and investment. It is inevitable.

You just don't like that it accrues to some and evidently not to you.

To which I say a very hearty TOUGH MOTHERFUCKING SHIT, and you are free to move to any of the relatively nearby locales
with production and distribution models that better fit your philosophy.

Comrade.

[blindpig]

49. Wrong. Profit is derived from stolen labor.

The profits of the capitalist come from the value of labor appropriated. Not only do the rich rob the worker but they use the power that is wealth to perpetuate that arrangement. Billions are immiserated in order that maybe 6 million can live and rule like gods.

Guess we know whose side you're on.

[Dreamer Tatum]

67. Horseshit.

Go peddle muddled Marxism on a streetcorner somewhere.

[quaker bill]

74. In business you exchange labor for payment

The business person sets up the conditions and takes the risk so that you can do so. They are due fair compensation for this effort and risk. This is not an endorsement of the system as it exists. There are however fair wages and fair profits. They just aren't found here.

[kentuck]

78. And what is a "fair share"?

After you get back your initial investment? What would be a fair percentage for ownership? For labor?

[blindpig]

82. Seems to me that labor performed is the metric.

It is labor which produces value.

Just sayin'

[el_bryanto]

88. That's just stupid.

What has more value, digging a ditch or producing a novel or overseeing a shipping company or managing a manufacturing firm?

Bryant

[blindpig]

90. Work is work.

It is the hours of our lives, all we got.

"From each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need."

Would that be such a bad way to live?

[joeglow3]

93. So, I am guessing you will have the cushy job?

While others will have the high risk, high stress, crappy hours (some places HAVE to operate 24/7). There HAS to be differentiation. Some jobs exact a MUCH greater toll than just the "hours of our lives." To claim otherwise is either just plain ignorance and attempts at deception.

[blindpig]

99. How about we redesign the productive system....

in order to make those jobs more humane?

You must remember that the nature of work in our society is dictated by the profit motive. In a rational society dedicated to meeting human need this will be different, decent, humane work is a human need.

[joeglow3]

100. Sounds great in theory

How do you reduce stress for an ER Doctor? How do you reduce risk for constructions workers on sky scrapes (as a world population, we HAVE to live more densely)? How do you make fires less hot for fire fighters? How do you make sewer cleaning more bearable for the employees?

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[el_bryanto]

95. It depends on who decides

And then the mice decided to bell the cat. Who is going to bell this particular cat?

Bryant

[blindpig]

106. Those whom the people democratically choose. n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

110. The people have already democratically chosen, friend.

You just don't like the results.

The next step for you is a violent totalitarian overthrow. That's the only way your preferred leaders can be "democratically" elected.

[blindpig]

113. That is not the case.

What we got here is anything but democratic. Or do you agree with the plutocrats and their suckfish that money=speech? And not only that, the institutions of the Senate and the Electoral College are anything but democratic. And don't forget the Supremes, the entire structure of US government is set up to thwart the one body that is democratic, the House. Unlike those founding fathers I do not fear "the mob", I'm part of it.

[crazyjoe]

117. What's it like living in fantasy land? :-)

[blindpig]

119. What's it like, being reconciled to Hell? n/t

[el_bryanto]

122. I can't really say - I'm not in hell. I have a reasonably good life

I think i'm probably more one of those cold-hearted people resigned to the misery of others. I do play a lot of world of warcraft.

Bryant

[Dreamer Tatum]

109. It would be a horrible way to live. My ability is empirically 2x most people, which is reflected

in my compensation. Who the country fuck are YOU to tell me what I need, and limit me to that, while
the rest of my ability is used to enrich someone else? Screw that bullshit. Tax me at a fair rate, but
deciding who needs what, and dividing up resources accordingly? That's been tried. Those countries either
don't exist anymore or are close to nonexistence.

[blindpig]

115. I bow before your inherent superiority.

BTW, that is exactly what capitalism does, takes a person's ability to enrich someone else, the owner or investor.

[Dreamer Tatum]

121. So become an owner or an investor.

Marxism is the most cynical sack of pigshit philosophy in the universe. People are smart. People are creative. People are
industrious. Except, of course, in the Marxian world, where if you are poor there is NO way out. What a bunch of crap.

Meanwhile, where are you located, again?

[locahungaria]

79. "Profit is the result of specialization, innovation, risk, and investment."...

...will be the topic of this week's corporate motivational training session; attendance is mandatory.

Ugh! :puke:

[amborin]

16. German corporations also agreed to lower profits, during the downturn, to keep workers employed

can't find the link to the thread now...couple yrs old....

thanks to Germany's strong unions and mitbestimmung (codetermination)

[TBF]

32. Right, which is why the "for profit" motive has to go ... nt

[locahungaria]

83. "Does the owner do productive work?"

That is the clearest and best definition of what constitutes a "small business" that I have ever heard.

[blindpig]

86. It's funny and sad that regular folks adopt attitudes which only ....

serve the purpose of the ruling class. Guess it's like the man said, 'The ruling ideas of any age are those of the ruling class'.

[locahungaria]

104. Even sadder is the fact that OP's like this one......

which are issue based, important, and encourage thoughtful response and discussion (as opposed to the usual juvenile snark fest) sink so quickly, yet anything that contains the name "Palin" or other such trivial fluff (Weinergate, anyone??) makes it to the "Greatest Threads".

Tip o' the hat for attempting to provide some much needed nourishment to the starving masses.

[Dreamer Tatum]

111. I think we have uncovered the Jealous Class, actually. nt

[Terry in Austin]

9. "just give up on capitalism?"

Say, I think you might be onto something there!

[TBF]

33. + a million nt

[Scruffy1]

39. Seconded.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. In the last 30 years, worker efficiency has improved while pay has stagnated.

Cutting the work week diverts profits to the workers.

Instead of one person working 60 hours, the work is split between two.

The direct answer to your question "who'll pay for it?" is the same for any question: consumers. The more consumers there are (read: employed) the greater demand.

This economy sucks because there aren't enough people who can afford to buy goods and services - partly because one person is doing the work of two.

[Broderick]

12. As a small business owner

what if there are no profits.... LOL.

2010 - NOT a banner year in the Broderick home. Come to think of it, 2008 and 2009 weren't so good either.

Just sayin.....

[blindpig]

18. Don't think this is about you.

Do you do part of the company's work yourself?

One of the big lies is that small business is exactly the same as big business. Mom&pop businesses, my idea of 'small business', has much more in common with workers than big, investor owned business, which preys upon both groups with equal violence.

[Broderick]

38. 70 to 80 hours a week

to keep things above water. Wife used to work a bunch too, but now she stays home with the kids to cut daycare expenses... We have about 10 employees that we try be competitive with wages and benefits best we can. We have some that have been with us since we started 7 or 8 years ago. Don't think we can absorb anymore expenses. Kind of rough out there trying to keep a business going. Sometimes you don't see a paycheck when things like property taxes, city taxes, insurance premiums, workman's comp, ect ect come up...

[Dreamer Tatum]

46. You mean you weren't able to STEAL as much from WORKERS?

:sarcasm:

[Broderick]

50. LOL

Hard choices were made this last year to lay off two people, but you have to do what you have to do if you want the business to keep the doors open. Luckily, I was able to find employment elsewhere for one of them prior to informing them. The other person was able to find something quickly and I gave a good reference letter to help.

Still doesn't make those decisions easy, losing part of the family. I think people understand quite a bit how difficult it has been on our family, and the sacrifices we have made to ensure that they are paid and those checks don't bounce. Some folks think owning a business means you are rich, and for many of us that is so far from reality. I have folks that make more, much more, than the wife and I have made. 2011 seems to be stable with all the cuts we made and the hard choices so I just hope we can recover and maybe grow a bit in 2012. I know many business owners in the same boat, or worse, or who have even had to close up shop - some after decades of being in business. Sure there are those thriving too.

[Dreamer Tatum]

68. Pfft. Sorry, Kapitalist, but your wealth must be confiscated.

:sarcasm: of course.

[Travis_0004]

13. Seems kind of unfair to investors

There is a reason that companies issue stock. It allows them to grow at a faster rate, which often requires hiring more employees. Companies will gladly pay a dividend, if they can make more than the dividend payment. Companies grow, hire people, investors make money. Everybody wins.

If we took away investors profits, there would be panic selling (afterall, stock prices are based on the future value of the income stream, if there is no income, there is no value). 401ks, and pension plans which invest in stocks would be wiped out. If nobody buys stock, then great ideas don't get off the ground.

What you are proposing could make the current recession look like a minor blip. Taking away all investors profits literally could bring in the next great depression. So surely you were not serious when you said that.

So I'll ask again. How do you pay for the 20% extra labor cost this plan requires?

[blindpig]

23. "Everybody wins", oh boy...

'Everybody' except the workers who are actually productive, who are robbed in every paycheck. What did the investors do to enjoy this windfall? What did they produce? Risk, you say? That ain't work and work is the only thing which deserves reward and respect.

[AngryAmish]

30. well played, sir

[Warren Stupidity]

87. especially as currently almost everyone is losing.

Only the very top is 'winning'. Across the board people are working longer hours for lower pay. Heck, our economic 'growth' when we have grown, over the last 30 years, has been based on one financial speculation bubble after another. We aren't growing good jobs with good pay, we are growing scams run by wall street.

The sad facts are though that reducing the standard work week for what remains of our non-exempt work force would just accelerate the 'race to the bottom' that our lords and masters have tracked us onto.

[blindpig]

89. Not if the paycheck remains the same.

We take it out of their asses, not ours, they've been on the gravy train far too long.

[Warren Stupidity]

103. the global corporations will just continue to move jobs overseas

[girl gone mad]

48. So you won't be able to get as rich by renting your money out to people.

Try doing something useful to society instead.

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. I really don't care about "everybody". I care about workers.

If the workers have disposable income, everything else will take care of itself.

[Blecht]

70. Unfair to investors?

LOL

[hack89]

116. Sure - union pension funds come immediately to mind

shall we cut pension benefits?

[locahungaria]

81. "If nobody buys stock, then great ideas don't get off the ground."...

I dunno, the wheel and fire seem to be pretty great ideas that "got off the ground" without Wall Street.

Just sayin'.....

[Travis_0004]

14. Seems a bit unfair to investors.

There is a reason that companies issue stock. It allows them to grow at a faster rate, which often requires hiring more employees. Companies will gladly pay a dividend, if they can make more than the dividend payment. Companies grow, hire people, investors make money. Everybody wins. Plus, investors typically are portrayed as billionaires, and some certainly are, but investors are also common people, saving in their 401k, union pension funds, non profit groups that rely on investments to fund their operation, etc.

If we took away investors profits, there would be panic selling (afterall, stock prices are based on the future value of the income stream, if there is no income, there is no value). 401ks, and pension plans which invest in stocks would be wiped out. If nobody buys stock, then great ideas don't get off the ground.

What you are proposing could make the current recession look like a minor blip. Taking away all investors profits literally could bring in the next great depression. So surely you were not serious when you said that.

So I'll ask again. How do you pay for the 20% extra labor cost this plan requires?

[Terry in Austin]

4. With money!

A shorter work week is a good idea anyway. It's an aspect of social progress.

All this poor-mouth is artificial, an effect of the rich angling to hog up even more of the wealth.

[fascisthunter]

19. I'm Sure Some Right Wing Think Tank could Figure it Out

and if they can anyone can....

[JackRiddler]

69. Your Option B would pay for it.

What you're forgetting is that in this scenario there is 20 percent more income being made, hence more demand, hence production should rise to meet that. It's good when poor and working people have money in their pockets, they spend it and it goes round and round.

(Is that guaranteed? Nothing is!)

There have been massive productivity rises in the last 30 years even as median incomes have not budged!

[leftyohiolib]

5. germany cut the work week and supplemented with u.i.

kept people working. kept their economy going.

[Better Believe It]

6. We need a shorter workweek and earlier retirement with no cut in pay.

[Rebubula]

21. Plus..

...Maserati for everyone, free healthcare, a pony for every little girl....

[blindpig]

25. Free healthcare, you bet.

If a nation as poor as Cuba can do it than surely richer countries can. The rest of that is bullshit.

[TBF]

35. Free healthcare (or close to it) is already happening in most industrialized countries -

that is why our companies have a hard time competing. Maybe we should join the 21st century and provide it here. Removing the age restriction from Medicare, buy-in mandatory at a sliding scale based on income. It's already a system many are using so it's an easy transition.

[AlabamaLibrul]

58. Beats homeless, no healthcare in the richest nation on earth, and no pony... n/t

[OhioChick]

45. We sure do!

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in our lifetimes.

[TBF]

65. Either a shorter workweek or the ability to actually take vacations

or vacation days without fear of losing one's job. With a retirement age of 60 (or even 55) the older folks could retire and let the young people actually have jobs when they come out of college.

I'm unfortunately the dreaded middle age - all the social security I paid in has been stolen, and at this rate I'll be required to work until 70 and/or live frugally off my own savings while young folks sit around wishing they had jobs. It's crazy.

And for you republicans who are trolling I'll answer the question "who will pay for this" - taxes will pay for this. Billionaires have gotten a free ride (especially on capital gains) for far too long.

[amborin]

11. they did this successfully in the Netherlands; Germany & France, too, i think

[snooper2]

20. Nice website

:rofl:

[blindpig]

24. What's so funny? n/t

[snooper2]

26. Communist party Truthy to POWER!

:rofl:

[blindpig]

27. Thanks for the kick

Your ignorance is showing.

[snooper2]

28. No problem, keep on Marching to destroy that capitalist pig!

and let me know when i get my next loaf of bread please

[Dhalgren]

29. You can work for your bread, like everyone else.

All this shit about letting the rich have whatever they dream of and poor folks just have to suck it up? Capitalism can't end fast enough for me. I don't even care if afterword life is ten times harder than now (it won't be, it can only get better for the majority) - just so long there are no rich, that's enough for me...

K&R

[snooper2]

31. ROFL

Tear those mansions down even if we all have to live like it's 1699 :rofl:

[TBF]

34. I think it would help your attitude tremendously to downsize a notch or two. nt

[snooper2]

36. downsize, no way...

Our house is 1380'...We plan on getting something around 2000' in a few years before the little one starts school. Girls need their own bathroom :)

Of course in this other World we would all be making exactly the same amount of money and all living in government sponsered trailers :rofl:

[TBF]

37. You are living in 1380 sq ft and you are rallying for capitalism?

While billionaires live in mansions the size of small cities? Why do you think you deserve so little?

[snooper2]

40. deserve so little?

I got a really good deal actually, Why would a single guy (at the time) need more than that?

Except being on the low side of the corner of a 4-way intersection, All my neighbors leaves and shit always pile up against my curb lol..that's kind of annoying

I don't despise billionaires for being filthy rich. If they can just pay their fair share of taxes and I'm fine...

[IndyPragmatist]

42. It's jealousy

Some people just want more on the backs of others. Its like dealing with a small child. They can be perfectly content with their lifestyle, until they see another kid with a nicer toy. So now that toy that was perfectly fine before, isn't enough because someone else has something better. And of course, they will just use blanket statements like "they dont deserve it" without having any clue whether or not they did.

I wonder how large Michael Moore's home is?

[blindpig]

43. You have internalized ruling class attitudes well.

Of course they don't deserve it, they didn't work for it, furthermore, they acquired their lucre by stealing from workers.

I, and I'm sure TBF, have no desire or need for the gaudy baubles of the ruling class. Those baubles are the squandered labor of workers. Furthermore, those baubles represent the wealth which is the power which rules over us all. Social power belongs to all.

[Dreamer Tatum]

71. Gaudy baubles of the working class...ROFL.

Like that computer you're reading and posting on, probably with hi-speed wifi isn't a luxury? You could sell that and feed a "worker" for six months.

How much does your cup of fair trade coffee cost?

Squandered labor of workers? You wrote your post during the workday. Why aren't you working for the benefit of your fellow man? Talk about squandered labor.

Phony Marxist bullshit. Wake me when your posts come from one of the world's Marxist regimes.

[blindpig]

75. That's a bunch of assumptions..

which are both inaccurate and beside the point.

One day, should you live so long, you will wake up in a Marxist regime.

[Dreamer Tatum]

76. oooh, I'm trembling nt

[joeglow3]

96. Who deserves what they have?

I don't own a business. However, I earn a good six figure salary and do own a large chunk fo stocks. My investments have grown rapidly because I don't touch them, I live as far below my means as possible and invest as much as I can. Should I feel guilty?

How about the fact that my family was always a month away from living on the street when I was growing up (my mother actually made most of our clothes)? Does it matter that I started working when I was 15 & used that money to pay most of the cost for me to go to a private high school? Does it matter that I worked 40 hours a week during the school year in college and over 100 hours a week through all breaks (Christmas, Spring, Summer, etc.)? Does it matter that I made a decision to not do drugs, not screw a bunch of chicks and have a kid, etc?

Don't get me wrong, I think we need to look out for our fellow human. That said, I could easily see the people around me and, in many cases, the complete apathy and lack of any drive, while I did nothing but work and study. I had ZERO problem doing that, as I knew the end result would be a better life. Now, you are telling me it is not enough for me to pay my taxes, donate 10% to charity and spend hundreds of hours a year volunteering. I need to give a large chunk away to those people who were partying while I was trying study because they "deserve" it?

Sorry, capitalism, when implemented properly, is the best system. It encourages all of us to strive to achieve our most. Sorry to break it to you, but people will NEVER do that just to be good humans.

[blindpig]

101. How wonderful for you.

Capitalism works for you, fine. But it degrades billions of others.

In a society which does not provide adequate support in old age or health care it is only rational to try to provide a nest egg for those things. But tell me, Mr Bootstraps, does the work you do justify the enormous difference in income relative to a person who has put in the same number of hours at necessary manual labor? I say it does not.

[joeglow3]

107. Where is the compensation for the years I gave up?

Between 4 years of high school and 5 years of college, I gave up most of life for 9 years to dedicate to my education. Do I not deserve compensation for that, while others spent their time in a drunken stupor getting girls pregnant?

[blindpig]

108. Education beyond secondary ought be compensated .

I don't have to tell you that it's work. As it stands we have to pay for the training that benefits the employer, another robbery.

[joeglow3]

112. Interesting shift in views

Decades ago, people surveyed said they went to college broaden their knowledge basis. Basically, education was its own reward. Kind of sad that we no longer appear to view it that way.

[joeglow3]

114. Honest question

Well over 50% of business fail. Of the people who are willing to take the risk, the main reason they do it is for the potential big reward. If you remove that reward, what incentive would people have invest their resources and time into said risk, knowing the great chance of failure?

Look at it this way, if people could buy a lottery ticket for $1 and had a 1 in 1.1 million chance of winning a million dollars, MANY people would be willing to take the risk. If that same ticket still cost a dollar but had a 1 in 1.1 million chance of winning $100, very few people would play it. They thrill of the game itself is not enough to generate interest, as the motivating factor is the relation of the cost and benefit.

I agree that there are examples of excess that need to be addressed. However, if you remove th vast majority of benefit, who will take the risks to advance society technologically? Do you really think society as a whole would be altruistic enough to do it just for the betterment of mankind? If so, you have a whole hell of a lot more faith in humans than I do.

[blindpig]

118. All major enterprise should be owned by the state, the people.

For the small stuff 1% loans could be offered by the state.

The risk aspect means nothing to me, if society were properly organized there would be little risk to individuals.

[joeglow3]

120. Who runs the state?

I have yet to see a single government, including our own, that I trust.

[TBF]

54. It's not about jealousy - it's about equality and humanity

why should some live in houses like this: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-05-02/gossip/17898492_1_mukesh-ambani-indian-billionaire-skyscraper (largest home in India)

and some live like this: (slums in Bombay)

[IndyPragmatist]

61. Nice deflection

Another poster said that he lived in a 1300ft home (or apartment, he didnt say). And your response was "While billionaires live in mansions the size of small cities?" He is happy with his situation, but because somebody else has more, you freak out like a small child.

This is not comparing the India slums to the most expensive house in the world. He was talking about his 1300 sq foot home, and you decided that because others had more, he should have more. Pathetic.

[TBF]

62. More personal insults - why am I not surprised.

My point is why should some have so much more than others? You choose to deflect that by trying to make it about personal jealousy. This economic system of capitalism only works for those who are billionaires, and those who choose to carry water for them. If someone personally decides they are happy being a house slave that is fine, but don't expect the rest of us to buy into that brainwashed nonsense.

[IndyPragmatist]

41. You have issues my friend.

I'm not kidding. What the hell is wrong with somebody having something better than you? I don't need a large home. I don't want a large home. Some people do.

Grow up and realize that obsessing over other people is something that most people grow out of by middle school. There are major flaws with our system, but jesus christ, crying over what others have is not the solution. Yes, we should make sure that people don't exploit the system to make massive amounts of wealth, but we shouldn't bring others down out of jealousy. And please, don't give me this crap that you aren't jealous. It is extremely obvious that you are.

"Why do you think you deserve so little?"
Who says 1380 is so little? It's more square footage than I have. It's more than most of my friends have. But here is the difference between us and you, we aren't crying because Bill Gates has more.

[TBF]

56. Right - that is the difference.

I believe that there should be more equality rather than one man owning more wealth than 1/2 of the country put together. That's wrong in my book, and I'm sorry if you can't see why that's wrong.

[TBF]

57. And as for the personal insult -

you can go back to the cave and have a laugh, that's fine with me. Enjoy your stay.

[Dreamer Tatum]

47. What a humanistic and uplifting message: I don't care how poor we are, so long as there are no rich.

No thanks.

[Dhalgren]

60. I am not a "humanist", I am a human.

And if one person is poor, no one should be rich...

[TBF]

63. Amen, brother. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

66. Nice bumpersticker...need a little more than that to convince me, though. nt

[TBF]

72. You need to be convinced that it is not ok for people to be poor while others have billions?

Really? How does one convince someone without a conscience?

[Dreamer Tatum]

73. I need to be convinced that your method of achieving equality makes sense.

Which, since it seems based on hoary old bullshit theories by discredited dead old farts, is not likely.

But the website in the OP is a scream. I will grant you that.

[IndyPragmatist]

84. We should focus on bringing others up, not bringing some down

There will always be the ultra-rich. Maybe some people ignore the fact that it is 2011 and its extremely easy to operate a business from anywhere in the world. If we didn't allow Bill Gates to operate his business and accumulate his wealth in the United States, he would move his operations to somewhere else, say the Cayman Islands, sell his product just as easily as before, make the same amount of money, but instead, provide billions in tax revenue to another nation.

The wealthy may not pay their fair share of taxes, but they still pay the majority of them. Attempts to bring others down only bring down society as a whole. There are methods of achieving equality that don't derive from jealousy and hatred of others. But one thing I've learned on DU, its okay to hate certain groups of people as long as the majority hates them.

[Fla_Democrat]

85. Wow, that's uhm.... wow

You would impose a life ten times harder than now, just to see no more rich people? You would see hardship across the board.. at 10 times what it is now, for there to be no one with more money than you.... Ok.... wow.. I hope you never find that genie in the lamp.


Pssssst...
http://www.wellness.com/find/psychiatrist








:smoke:

[kentuck]

51. The 40-hour work week is out of date.

It should be cut to 30 or 35 hours per week and employees should pressure their employers for pay increases to make up the difference. Good luck on the second part.

[yawnmaster]

52. Lets cut it to near ZERO, then we can have near 100% employment! eom

[Warren Stupidity]

123. Or raise it to 84hrs/wk.

so that we can out-compete asia for cheap labor! Heck let's abolish all workplace regulations: they just cost investors money.

[seaglass]

59. I am pro this idea. I have offered to reduce my hours and take the pay cut and reduction in

percentage of benefits (dental - I do not get health benefits through my company) and it has been refused multiple times.

I work for a small company and many layoffs have happened, I think some of those people if given the option would have reduced hours/taken benefits cuts.

So at least a start would be to let people who are willing to reduce hours do it and whether it prevents layoffs or allows new hiring it would be a win/win/win.

And btw I am not wealthy by any means but I would be willing to make some sacrifices to have some of my time back.

Edited for clarity :-)

[TBF]

64. My husband offered to do the same when there were layoffs at his company -

he was told "our best people will leave if we lower salaries". It is warped.

[Starry Messenger]

77. k&r

[locahungaria]

80. K & R n/t

[graywarrior]

92. My hours have been cut to 12 per week

I can no longer exist like this. Looks like I will have to give up getting my degree....again, and try to find another job with more hours.

[Ganja Ninja]

94. It's an idea that's long overdue.

A lot of companies in retail like Walmart don't employ the bulk of their employees full time anyway. People who work for them have to work 4 hours a days 5 days a week and their days off are scattered throughout the week. That needs to be discouraged. We should not only limit the number of hours a person has to work but also the number of days a week a person has to work.