I'm simply amazed that you can read any such article/essay and not see a single $ sign in the entire thing. It's like asking your child whether we should buy a bigger house. "Yes! That would be great!" Should the government offer more benefits? "Yes! I love the idea!"
Um, we're missing a certain part of the question, don't you think?
The wealth and productivity already exists to enables such a reduction in weekly work hours. It hasn’t been addressed yet because of inertia.
https://www.oecd.org/economy/decoupling-of-wages-from-produc...
Up until very recently, we had a surplus of labor in this country and therefore many jobs were stagnant in wage growth. That's not going to change until the fundamental force of numbers changes, or some other change comes around. (see, pandemic)
You don't get paid more just because you use a piece of equipment that churns through 2x as much. Unless that machine costs a lot of money and requires education to operate it.
We’re almost at $15/hr as a minimum wage due to market forces, which makes it easier to lock it in with statue as it’s proven it’s sustainable at scale. Of course, businesses built on labor costs that are unsustainable for workers are themselves unsustainable. Several countries are trialing 4 day work weeks, and if I recall, Iceland’s trial was so successful they’re moving forward with it permanently. That is data driven labor policy showing it’s feasible.
It sounds like you support a more brutalist, pure capitalist system for labor, but that’s not what exists currently nor what is likely as the US electorate tilts further away from conservatism (older voters are most conservative, and die at a rate of ~1.8 million per year; public policy progress is a function of the death rate).
(politics discussed because public policy is a core component of labor rights, citations below for all of my assertions)
https://apnews.com/article/business-health-coronavirus-pande... ($15 wage becoming a norm as employers struggle to fill jobs)
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/the-republican-party... (The Republican Party Has an Older Voters Problem)
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/the-changing... (The changing composition of the electorate and partisan coalitions)
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57724779 (Four-day week 'an overwhelming success' in Iceland; The trials led unions to renegotiate working patterns, and now 86% of Iceland's workforce have either moved to shorter hours for the same pay, or will gain the right to, the researchers said.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/spain-to-launc... (Spain to launch trial of four-day working week)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-58403... (Scotland to trial a four-day week)
I'm just going to correct your "facts" for other people reading the discussion.
"as it’s [$15/hr] proven it’s sustainable at scale" That's a total guess / assertion in favor of your position, isn't it?
The new wage being offered isn't proven "sustainable" -- it's merely what some employers have had to offer in the face of a pandemic + widespread increased unemployment benefits. And we're seeing record inflation (with some part attributable to this, some due to other important factors of course). So you're hardly justified in saying it's proven sustainable long term. You just want it to be so because it benefits you.
And secondly, and more importantly, your tactics are no better than some corporatists who seek to exploit laws to their advantage whenever they can, just for their side, because they can. "... which makes it easier to lock it in with statue."
If it were so proven to be good and sustainable, why is a statute required? Wouldn't that sustain itself?
Now that you see a moment where $15 has been tried out of necessity due to the temporary (hopefully) situation, you want to "lock it in" with laws and regulation, and distort how the market for labor works by putting in a floor.
I find it equally bad for someone to try to argue for and do this, regardless of whose side it is -- corporations trying to skirt environmental regulations, other public obligations, or labor trying to say that they deserve x/y/z because they got it for a moment.
Don't act as if you're trying to find a solution good for the entire economy, producers, consumers, workers, people. You're an advocate for labor to get more benefits. And using incomplete arguments that favor your position.
And by the way, I don't engage in the practice of downvoting people who I merely disagree with.
Regarding tactics, I take no issue with your statement. I think these issues are imperatives, even if cribbing off the playbook of less decent folks is a requirement. Regarding these policies benefiting me, I am financially independent. These policies would only cause me to pay more for goods and services (and possibly higher capital gains taxes), which I’m happy to do. If someone does not advocate for the disadvantaged, who will?
Finally, I did not downvote any of your comments. HN is not showing downvote arrows to me for any comments in the thread, I assume because a flame war or similar heuristic has been triggered.
At which moment someone inherits their property and starts being interested in protecting it against high taxation or outright confiscation.
I can see social norms such as racism or gay-friendliness moving in one direction only by the older generations dying out, but attitudes towards economic questions tend to move back and forth since the early 1920s at least, often as a correction (or even overcorrection) to the excesses of the previously dominant side.
On the contrary. In real terms, the minimum wage has been declining for a long while (at the federal level). If you mean the median wage, I believe that's been declining over time as well in real terms. Not sure about, say, the low 10% order statistic of wages.
> and ratcheting down the work week.
I don't recall the work week having been officially reduced in the US in the recent past. In fact, not for many decades.
If anything, work hours extend unofficially. Nabisco workers are now striking over workweeks extending into 6 and 7 days workdays with 12-hour or longer shifts and such. And there's the wide-spread phenomenon of having to take on a second part-time job to make ends meet.
So yes you can "we want to work less, but be paid the same or greater".
I understand what your getting at but your statement above just goes against the economic historical reality of the last 250 years.
1. It is clear.
2. All people, not some people.
3. It's nothing like asking your child whether we should buy a bigger house.
If my parents were billionaires, I would definitely assume they could buy a bigger house.
The only $ missing are on your end. You’ve not mentioned that nearly all profit is currently being hoarded by executives and investors. People aren’t blind to this and have correctly come to the decision to work as little as possible since all the gains will be captured by those at the top.
Shut the whole system down. we are going to need to totally rethink this one.