Building support for a change that would revolutionize the world economy

Does this explanation make sense and should the world use this system?

  • It doesn't make sense. The issues it mentions aren't important.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It makes sense, but the issues it mentions aren't important.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It doesn't make sense, but the issues it mentions do need to be solved.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It makes sense and the issues it solves are ones we should care about.

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • Total voters
    1

Misaki

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2011
159
30
46
The greatest barrier to change in the world is people's desire to stay within the herd. This is especially true when it comes to decisions that affect other people. This message is meant to let people show how they feel about this issue, so that someone who fully supports it doesn't feel as alone. After reading this, please vote in the poll whether this makes sense and whether the issues it solves are important.

This is about fixing unemployment, including people not being able to work as much as they'd like, and all the problems that result from a lack of jobs or competition for the right to sell things in a particular market with no extra taxes or restrictions. This is not a politically divisive issue that only some people would support. If there are more jobs, poor people and people who are discriminated against can find work, which some political parties see as a priority; but welfare spending and taxes on the rich to support that welfare spending would decrease, which other political parties see as a priority.

The basic idea can be easily summarized: pay people a higher rate when they work less time. For example, 1.2x their normal pay rate for the first 24 hours of work each week, and 0.7x their normal pay rate for all hours after that, including hours beyond 40.

Understanding why this system creates jobs requires a bit of explanation. Businesses hire people because there is work that the business needs done that's worth paying someone to do. Sometimes the value an employee supplies is a little less than what they're paid, sometimes it's a little more, but usually it's about the same. If the employee left the company for whatever reason, the business would still want that work to be done if it could hire someone who demands less than the value of the work they do. This is true for skilled and highly-paid employees as well as low-paid ones. If some employees can't do work if another one is absent, this only increases the incentive to replace lost workers.

The same is true when someone works less. More workers are hired because the demand for the company's products remains the same. Whether the employees in question are paid $500,000 or $20,000, the company will on average pay the same amount to get the same amount of work.

But the real benefit is in how people spend their money when they earn less and have more time to spend it. It may seem natural to think that everything would be better if everyone had more money. First, it's never been that everyone has more money. Some people can buy private islands while others are homeless and forced to try to find a spot of land they can sleep on without being kicked off of it because it's owned by someone else. Second, people often spend their money on conveniences that make everyone worse off, like plastic that they'll throw away, instead of on things like brilliantly and expensively designed products that are easy to recycle. Even if there were no environmental problems or inequality, we still need to prepare for when the world has no more fossil fuels, which still provide 85% of the world's energy consumption. If we act poor and reduce things like hour-long drives to get to work each day, we'll be more prepared for the day when we are poor.

When people work less, their altered spending has additional economic benefits beyond just creating jobs at the same company. Highly-paid workers would be more likely than low-paid workers to work less if they were offered the chance and understood that doing so would help society. This means lower prices for everything that rich people buy. Lower college tuition, lower rent prices in cities with large numbers of financial or technology workers, even more affordable medical care.

And people don't buy the same things when they work less. They buy the 'standard' version of a good instead of the 'deluxe' version. This is important because for two similar items, the more expensive one is likely to be more profitable and made by people with a higher total income.

This might be too much explanation, but as a generalization, there will always be counter-examples that make seeing the trend more difficult. Companies that sell expensive physical goods, like 'smartphones' or brand-name shoes, like to make their products using as cheap labour as possible. They may even be better at finding cheap labour, and securing good business deals that give very little money to the companies that hire people who do the actual work, than their competitors who sell less expensive and less-valued products. But lower wages for workers assembling a 'smartphone' means higher corporate profits, which illustrates the general principle: buying the more expensive product makes your money go to rich people, while buying the cheaper product makes your money go to poor people.

If poor people and rich people spent money the same way this would not matter. But they don't. Poor people are more likely to spend money that they earn (the highest quintile of households in the US, by income, don't spend a third of their income, while the lowest quintile spend more than they earn) and are also more likely to buy cheap things, causing that money to go to other poor people.

All of this results in more job creation, and just as importantly, it sets a social standard for the 'stylish' or acceptable thing to do. Instead of showing off on social media that you have some expensive product or jewelry, you could demonstrate that you actually care about what world people will be living in a hundred years from now. The more people do something, the more socially acceptable it becomes.

The basic system, remember, is to pay people 1.2x their normal pay rate for the first 24 hours of work each week, and 0.7x their normal pay rate for all hours after that, including hours beyond 40. So if someone worked 24 hours in one week, they'd be getting paid for 28.8 hours of work. This doesn't mean the business has to be losing out. This person could be doing the equivalent of 28.8 hours of work in just 24 hours, or they could be doing even more than 28.8 hours of work in 24 hours. When society wins, it doesn't mean that companies that use this system have to lose.

There are a lot of problems that would be solved by this beyond just unemployment. But this message is about showing there's enough support for this idea for people to have the courage to take the first step.

Please vote in the poll!
 
I worry about whether this paragraph is confusing:
The same is true when someone works less. More workers are hired because the demand for the company's products remains the same. Whether the employees in question are paid $500,000 or $20,000, the company will on average pay the same amount to get the same amount of work.
Should it be revised?
 
Are you requiring all workers to work 40 hours at the adjusted hourly rates? Or could workers work just 24 hours a week, maximizing their hourly compensation and perhaps freeing up enough time to get a second job that they could also work just 24 hours a week at the higher pay rate?
 
Usually whenever government manipulates the economy, it only leads to bad things.

Just saying. :dunno:
 
The greatest barrier to change in the world is people's desire to stay within the herd. This is especially true when it comes to decisions that affect other people. This message is meant to let people show how they feel about this issue, so that someone who fully supports it doesn't feel as alone. After reading this, please vote in the poll whether this makes sense and whether the issues it solves are important.

This is about fixing unemployment, including people not being able to work as much as they'd like, and all the problems that result from a lack of jobs or competition for the right to sell things in a particular market with no extra taxes or restrictions. This is not a politically divisive issue that only some people would support. If there are more jobs, poor people and people who are discriminated against can find work, which some political parties see as a priority; but welfare spending and taxes on the rich to support that welfare spending would decrease, which other political parties see as a priority.

The basic idea can be easily summarized: pay people a higher rate when they work less time. For example, 1.2x their normal pay rate for the first 24 hours of work each week, and 0.7x their normal pay rate for all hours after that, including hours beyond 40.

Understanding why this system creates jobs requires a bit of explanation. Businesses hire people because there is work that the business needs done that's worth paying someone to do. Sometimes the value an employee supplies is a little less than what they're paid, sometimes it's a little more, but usually it's about the same. If the employee left the company for whatever reason, the business would still want that work to be done if it could hire someone who demands less than the value of the work they do. This is true for skilled and highly-paid employees as well as low-paid ones. If some employees can't do work if another one is absent, this only increases the incentive to replace lost workers.

The same is true when someone works less. More workers are hired because the demand for the company's products remains the same. Whether the employees in question are paid $500,000 or $20,000, the company will on average pay the same amount to get the same amount of work.

But the real benefit is in how people spend their money when they earn less and have more time to spend it. It may seem natural to think that everything would be better if everyone had more money. First, it's never been that everyone has more money. Some people can buy private islands while others are homeless and forced to try to find a spot of land they can sleep on without being kicked off of it because it's owned by someone else. Second, people often spend their money on conveniences that make everyone worse off, like plastic that they'll throw away, instead of on things like brilliantly and expensively designed products that are easy to recycle. Even if there were no environmental problems or inequality, we still need to prepare for when the world has no more fossil fuels, which still provide 85% of the world's energy consumption. If we act poor and reduce things like hour-long drives to get to work each day, we'll be more prepared for the day when we are poor.

When people work less, their altered spending has additional economic benefits beyond just creating jobs at the same company. Highly-paid workers would be more likely than low-paid workers to work less if they were offered the chance and understood that doing so would help society. This means lower prices for everything that rich people buy. Lower college tuition, lower rent prices in cities with large numbers of financial or technology workers, even more affordable medical care.

And people don't buy the same things when they work less. They buy the 'standard' version of a good instead of the 'deluxe' version. This is important because for two similar items, the more expensive one is likely to be more profitable and made by people with a higher total income.

This might be too much explanation, but as a generalization, there will always be counter-examples that make seeing the trend more difficult. Companies that sell expensive physical goods, like 'smartphones' or brand-name shoes, like to make their products using as cheap labour as possible. They may even be better at finding cheap labour, and securing good business deals that give very little money to the companies that hire people who do the actual work, than their competitors who sell less expensive and less-valued products. But lower wages for workers assembling a 'smartphone' means higher corporate profits, which illustrates the general principle: buying the more expensive product makes your money go to rich people, while buying the cheaper product makes your money go to poor people.

If poor people and rich people spent money the same way this would not matter. But they don't. Poor people are more likely to spend money that they earn (the highest quintile of households in the US, by income, don't spend a third of their income, while the lowest quintile spend more than they earn) and are also more likely to buy cheap things, causing that money to go to other poor people.

All of this results in more job creation, and just as importantly, it sets a social standard for the 'stylish' or acceptable thing to do. Instead of showing off on social media that you have some expensive product or jewelry, you could demonstrate that you actually care about what world people will be living in a hundred years from now. The more people do something, the more socially acceptable it becomes.

The basic system, remember, is to pay people 1.2x their normal pay rate for the first 24 hours of work each week, and 0.7x their normal pay rate for all hours after that, including hours beyond 40. So if someone worked 24 hours in one week, they'd be getting paid for 28.8 hours of work. This doesn't mean the business has to be losing out. This person could be doing the equivalent of 28.8 hours of work in just 24 hours, or they could be doing even more than 28.8 hours of work in 24 hours. When society wins, it doesn't mean that companies that use this system have to lose.

There are a lot of problems that would be solved by this beyond just unemployment. But this message is about showing there's enough support for this idea for people to have the courage to take the first step.

Please vote in the poll!
People can work as much as they like now, but if you don't work, you don't get paid. What am I missing?
 
I support frequent change...

35456and8-Depend_Fitted_Brief-I-35458-CN-BI-01_1400x.jpg
 
The greatest barrier to change in the world is people's desire to stay within the herd. This is especially true when it comes to decisions that affect other people. This message is meant to let people show how they feel about this issue, so that someone who fully supports it doesn't feel as alone. After reading this, please vote in the poll whether this makes sense and whether the issues it solves are important.

This is about fixing unemployment, including people not being able to work as much as they'd like, and all the problems that result from a lack of jobs or competition for the right to sell things in a particular market with no extra taxes or restrictions. This is not a politically divisive issue that only some people would support. If there are more jobs, poor people and people who are discriminated against can find work, which some political parties see as a priority; but welfare spending and taxes on the rich to support that welfare spending would decrease, which other political parties see as a priority.

The basic idea can be easily summarized: pay people a higher rate when they work less time. For example, 1.2x their normal pay rate for the first 24 hours of work each week, and 0.7x their normal pay rate for all hours after that, including hours beyond 40.

Understanding why this system creates jobs requires a bit of explanation. Businesses hire people because there is work that the business needs done that's worth paying someone to do. Sometimes the value an employee supplies is a little less than what they're paid, sometimes it's a little more, but usually it's about the same. If the employee left the company for whatever reason, the business would still want that work to be done if it could hire someone who demands less than the value of the work they do. This is true for skilled and highly-paid employees as well as low-paid ones. If some employees can't do work if another one is absent, this only increases the incentive to replace lost workers.

The same is true when someone works less. More workers are hired because the demand for the company's products remains the same. Whether the employees in question are paid $500,000 or $20,000, the company will on average pay the same amount to get the same amount of work.

But the real benefit is in how people spend their money when they earn less and have more time to spend it. It may seem natural to think that everything would be better if everyone had more money. First, it's never been that everyone has more money. Some people can buy private islands while others are homeless and forced to try to find a spot of land they can sleep on without being kicked off of it because it's owned by someone else. Second, people often spend their money on conveniences that make everyone worse off, like plastic that they'll throw away, instead of on things like brilliantly and expensively designed products that are easy to recycle. Even if there were no environmental problems or inequality, we still need to prepare for when the world has no more fossil fuels, which still provide 85% of the world's energy consumption. If we act poor and reduce things like hour-long drives to get to work each day, we'll be more prepared for the day when we are poor.

When people work less, their altered spending has additional economic benefits beyond just creating jobs at the same company. Highly-paid workers would be more likely than low-paid workers to work less if they were offered the chance and understood that doing so would help society. This means lower prices for everything that rich people buy. Lower college tuition, lower rent prices in cities with large numbers of financial or technology workers, even more affordable medical care.

And people don't buy the same things when they work less. They buy the 'standard' version of a good instead of the 'deluxe' version. This is important because for two similar items, the more expensive one is likely to be more profitable and made by people with a higher total income.

This might be too much explanation, but as a generalization, there will always be counter-examples that make seeing the trend more difficult. Companies that sell expensive physical goods, like 'smartphones' or brand-name shoes, like to make their products using as cheap labour as possible. They may even be better at finding cheap labour, and securing good business deals that give very little money to the companies that hire people who do the actual work, than their competitors who sell less expensive and less-valued products. But lower wages for workers assembling a 'smartphone' means higher corporate profits, which illustrates the general principle: buying the more expensive product makes your money go to rich people, while buying the cheaper product makes your money go to poor people.

If poor people and rich people spent money the same way this would not matter. But they don't. Poor people are more likely to spend money that they earn (the highest quintile of households in the US, by income, don't spend a third of their income, while the lowest quintile spend more than they earn) and are also more likely to buy cheap things, causing that money to go to other poor people.

All of this results in more job creation, and just as importantly, it sets a social standard for the 'stylish' or acceptable thing to do. Instead of showing off on social media that you have some expensive product or jewelry, you could demonstrate that you actually care about what world people will be living in a hundred years from now. The more people do something, the more socially acceptable it becomes.

The basic system, remember, is to pay people 1.2x their normal pay rate for the first 24 hours of work each week, and 0.7x their normal pay rate for all hours after that, including hours beyond 40. So if someone worked 24 hours in one week, they'd be getting paid for 28.8 hours of work. This doesn't mean the business has to be losing out. This person could be doing the equivalent of 28.8 hours of work in just 24 hours, or they could be doing even more than 28.8 hours of work in 24 hours. When society wins, it doesn't mean that companies that use this system have to lose.

There are a lot of problems that would be solved by this beyond just unemployment. But this message is about showing there's enough support for this idea for people to have the courage to take the first step.

Please vote in the poll!
So, this system would need to be directed by government I assume?
Or are you hoping that businesses and employees could be convinced that it's a good idea?
 
The greatest barrier to change in the world is people's desire to stay within the herd. This is especially true when it comes to decisions that affect other people. This message is meant to let people show how they feel about this issue, so that someone who fully supports it doesn't feel as alone. After reading this, please vote in the poll whether this makes sense and whether the issues it solves are important.

This is about fixing unemployment, including people not being able to work as much as they'd like, and all the problems that result from a lack of jobs or competition for the right to sell things in a particular market with no extra taxes or restrictions. This is not a politically divisive issue that only some people would support. If there are more jobs, poor people and people who are discriminated against can find work, which some political parties see as a priority; but welfare spending and taxes on the rich to support that welfare spending would decrease, which other political parties see as a priority.

The basic idea can be easily summarized: pay people a higher rate when they work less time. For example, 1.2x their normal pay rate for the first 24 hours of work each week, and 0.7x their normal pay rate for all hours after that, including hours beyond 40.

Understanding why this system creates jobs requires a bit of explanation. Businesses hire people because there is work that the business needs done that's worth paying someone to do. Sometimes the value an employee supplies is a little less than what they're paid, sometimes it's a little more, but usually it's about the same. If the employee left the company for whatever reason, the business would still want that work to be done if it could hire someone who demands less than the value of the work they do. This is true for skilled and highly-paid employees as well as low-paid ones. If some employees can't do work if another one is absent, this only increases the incentive to replace lost workers.

The same is true when someone works less. More workers are hired because the demand for the company's products remains the same. Whether the employees in question are paid $500,000 or $20,000, the company will on average pay the same amount to get the same amount of work.

But the real benefit is in how people spend their money when they earn less and have more time to spend it. It may seem natural to think that everything would be better if everyone had more money. First, it's never been that everyone has more money. Some people can buy private islands while others are homeless and forced to try to find a spot of land they can sleep on without being kicked off of it because it's owned by someone else. Second, people often spend their money on conveniences that make everyone worse off, like plastic that they'll throw away, instead of on things like brilliantly and expensively designed products that are easy to recycle. Even if there were no environmental problems or inequality, we still need to prepare for when the world has no more fossil fuels, which still provide 85% of the world's energy consumption. If we act poor and reduce things like hour-long drives to get to work each day, we'll be more prepared for the day when we are poor.

When people work less, their altered spending has additional economic benefits beyond just creating jobs at the same company. Highly-paid workers would be more likely than low-paid workers to work less if they were offered the chance and understood that doing so would help society. This means lower prices for everything that rich people buy. Lower college tuition, lower rent prices in cities with large numbers of financial or technology workers, even more affordable medical care.

And people don't buy the same things when they work less. They buy the 'standard' version of a good instead of the 'deluxe' version. This is important because for two similar items, the more expensive one is likely to be more profitable and made by people with a higher total income.

This might be too much explanation, but as a generalization, there will always be counter-examples that make seeing the trend more difficult. Companies that sell expensive physical goods, like 'smartphones' or brand-name shoes, like to make their products using as cheap labour as possible. They may even be better at finding cheap labour, and securing good business deals that give very little money to the companies that hire people who do the actual work, than their competitors who sell less expensive and less-valued products. But lower wages for workers assembling a 'smartphone' means higher corporate profits, which illustrates the general principle: buying the more expensive product makes your money go to rich people, while buying the cheaper product makes your money go to poor people.

If poor people and rich people spent money the same way this would not matter. But they don't. Poor people are more likely to spend money that they earn (the highest quintile of households in the US, by income, don't spend a third of their income, while the lowest quintile spend more than they earn) and are also more likely to buy cheap things, causing that money to go to other poor people.

All of this results in more job creation, and just as importantly, it sets a social standard for the 'stylish' or acceptable thing to do. Instead of showing off on social media that you have some expensive product or jewelry, you could demonstrate that you actually care about what world people will be living in a hundred years from now. The more people do something, the more socially acceptable it becomes.

The basic system, remember, is to pay people 1.2x their normal pay rate for the first 24 hours of work each week, and 0.7x their normal pay rate for all hours after that, including hours beyond 40. So if someone worked 24 hours in one week, they'd be getting paid for 28.8 hours of work. This doesn't mean the business has to be losing out. This person could be doing the equivalent of 28.8 hours of work in just 24 hours, or they could be doing even more than 28.8 hours of work in 24 hours. When society wins, it doesn't mean that companies that use this system have to lose.

There are a lot of problems that would be solved by this beyond just unemployment. But this message is about showing there's enough support for this idea for people to have the courage to take the first step.

Please vote in the poll!

The basic idea can be easily summarized: pay people a higher rate when they work less time. For example, 1.2x their normal pay rate for the first 24 hours of work each week, and 0.7x their normal pay rate for all hours after that, including hours beyond 40.

Previously, I had 3 workers at 40 hours a week, now I must have 5 workers at 24 hours a week.

All for a 20% increase in payroll expenses. More, when insurance is added. Where do I sign up?
 
th


Not going to be told to work overtime by the boss and pick up everybody else's slack for 0.7X normal pay or be fired.

*****SMILE*****



:)

Where is that? Maybe in the sixties-sure not now-they work .7 of each hour.Maybe...

th


Did you read the OP??? His proposal 1.2 X normal pay during the first forty hours and 0.7 X normal pay after forty hours.

I expect time and a half to double time after forty hours of work a week. If the boss can't keep his favorites working during that those forty normal hours and wants someone to finish up that's going to be on the company dime because I have a life too and expect to be paid well if the boss wants to cut into it. I'm not going to be left to finish up after forty hours for about only half the pay while the boss and his/her favorites go drinking. Because if that's what they expect...

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

...and the stuff that wasn't done this week can be done next week.
 
Last edited:
th


Not going to be told to work overtime by the boss and pick up everybody else's slack for 0.7X normal pay or be fired.

*****SMILE*****



:)

Where is that? Maybe in the sixties-sure not now-they work .7 of each hour.Maybe...

th


Did you read the OP??? His proposal 1.2 X normal pay during the first forty hours and 0.7 X normal pay after forty hours.

I expect time and a half to double time after forty hours of work a week. If the boss can't keep his favorites working during that those forty normal hours and wants someone to finish up that's going to be on the company dime because I have a life too and expect to be paid well if the boss wants to cut into it. I'm not going to be left to finish up after forty hours for about only half the pay while the boss and his/her favorites go drinking. Because if that's what they expect...

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

...and the stuff that wasn't done this week can be done next week.

Just get a different job if you are not appreciated- I left a job after 22 years.
 
th


Not going to be told to work overtime by the boss and pick up everybody else's slack for 0.7X normal pay or be fired.

*****SMILE*****



:)

Where is that? Maybe in the sixties-sure not now-they work .7 of each hour.Maybe...

th


Did you read the OP??? His proposal 1.2 X normal pay during the first forty hours and 0.7 X normal pay after forty hours.

I expect time and a half to double time after forty hours of work a week. If the boss can't keep his favorites working during that those forty normal hours and wants someone to finish up that's going to be on the company dime because I have a life too and expect to be paid well if the boss wants to cut into it. I'm not going to be left to finish up after forty hours for about only half the pay while the boss and his/her favorites go drinking. Because if that's what they expect...

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

...and the stuff that wasn't done this week can be done next week.

Just get a different job if you are not appreciated- I left a job after 22 years.



th


What makes you think I don't find other employment?

But I'll tell you right now I won't work for the OP if that's how he/she thinks things should be run. The only incentive to get things done in the normal forty hours is to say everyone stays after forty hours.

*****SMILE*****



:)
 
th


Not going to be told to work overtime by the boss and pick up everybody else's slack for 0.7X normal pay or be fired.

*****SMILE*****



:)

Where is that? Maybe in the sixties-sure not now-they work .7 of each hour.Maybe...

th


Did you read the OP??? His proposal 1.2 X normal pay during the first forty hours and 0.7 X normal pay after forty hours.

I expect time and a half to double time after forty hours of work a week. If the boss can't keep his favorites working during that those forty normal hours and wants someone to finish up that's going to be on the company dime because I have a life too and expect to be paid well if the boss wants to cut into it. I'm not going to be left to finish up after forty hours for about only half the pay while the boss and his/her favorites go drinking. Because if that's what they expect...

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

...and the stuff that wasn't done this week can be done next week.

Just get a different job if you are not appreciated- I left a job after 22 years.



th


What makes you think I don't find other employment?

But I'll tell you right now I won't work for the OP if that's how he/she thinks things should be run. The only incentive to get things done in the normal forty hours is to say everyone stays after forty hours.

*****SMILE*****



:)

Get another job-you sound too bitter to stay where you are.
 
Are you requiring all workers to work 40 hours at the adjusted hourly rates? Or could workers work just 24 hours a week, maximizing their hourly compensation and perhaps freeing up enough time to get a second job that they could also work just 24 hours a week at the higher pay rate?
What if someone's boss says they can leave early if they finish all their work? (A lot of the time, people with salaries are discouraged from doing this.) Would they assume they'll always finish early and will always be able to reach their second job in time?

The argument also does not talk about efficiency losses from working long hours, especially for jobs that require complex thought or creativity. The poll has only one response as it is, and a longer argument would only further discourage participation. If someone works two jobs, it can affect their performance in both. Their bosses would notice this and they wouldn't get performance-based raises, cancelling out the 1.2x multiplier in the long term.
 
Usually whenever government manipulates the economy, it only leads to bad things.

Just saying. :dunno:
What do you think about overtime laws? They don't work with this system, and using this system might even be illegal based on overtime laws. Should the current government interference remain as it is?
 
th


Not going to be told to work overtime by the boss and pick up everybody else's slack for 0.7X normal pay or be fired.

*****SMILE*****



:)

Where is that? Maybe in the sixties-sure not now-they work .7 of each hour.Maybe...

th


Did you read the OP??? His proposal 1.2 X normal pay during the first forty hours and 0.7 X normal pay after forty hours.

I expect time and a half to double time after forty hours of work a week. If the boss can't keep his favorites working during that those forty normal hours and wants someone to finish up that's going to be on the company dime because I have a life too and expect to be paid well if the boss wants to cut into it. I'm not going to be left to finish up after forty hours for about only half the pay while the boss and his/her favorites go drinking. Because if that's what they expect...

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

...and the stuff that wasn't done this week can be done next week.

Just get a different job if you are not appreciated- I left a job after 22 years.



th


What makes you think I don't find other employment?

But I'll tell you right now I won't work for the OP if that's how he/she thinks things should be run. The only incentive to get things done in the normal forty hours is to say everyone stays after forty hours.

*****SMILE*****



:)

Get another job-you sound too bitter to stay where you are.


th


And you're free to go work at a job like the one he/she is describing. Let me know how it feels when you're doing eighty, of more, hour weeks while the boss and his/her favorites take off after the normal forty. Especially after the boss gives you all the collateral duties, that "need to be done", on top of your normal work instead of doling them out evenly amongst all the employees.

I'll stick with a job that guarantees time and a half to double time after forty.

*****SMILE*****



:)
 
Where is that? Maybe in the sixties-sure not now-they work .7 of each hour.Maybe...
th


Did you read the OP??? His proposal 1.2 X normal pay during the first forty hours and 0.7 X normal pay after forty hours.

I expect time and a half to double time after forty hours of work a week. If the boss can't keep his favorites working during that those forty normal hours and wants someone to finish up that's going to be on the company dime because I have a life too and expect to be paid well if the boss wants to cut into it. I'm not going to be left to finish up after forty hours for about only half the pay while the boss and his/her favorites go drinking. Because if that's what they expect...

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

...and the stuff that wasn't done this week can be done next week.

Just get a different job if you are not appreciated- I left a job after 22 years.



th


What makes you think I don't find other employment?

But I'll tell you right now I won't work for the OP if that's how he/she thinks things should be run. The only incentive to get things done in the normal forty hours is to say everyone stays after forty hours.

*****SMILE*****



:)

Get another job-you sound too bitter to stay where you are.


th


And you're free to go work at a job like the one he/she is describing. Let me know how it feels when you're doing eighty, of more, hour weeks while the boss and his/her favorites take off after the normal forty. Especially after the boss gives you all the collateral duties, that "need to be done", on top of your normal work instead of doling them out evenly amongst all the employees.

I'll stick with a job that guarantees time and a half to double time after forty.

*****SMILE*****



:)

I left a job when I did not like the situation anymore-it beats complaining about it.
 
People can work as much as they like now, but if you don't work, you don't get paid. What am I missing?
People who don't work DO get paid. Foodstamps and stuff like free housing, because we say it's not their fault that they can't work. And lots of people who want to work more can't, like 18% of the work force in Greece. The US isn't in a trade war with Greece, but it is (I think? maybe it's changed recently) in a trade war with China, and it wouldn't be if everyone in China could get a good job, instead of having to resort to being an illegal street vendor or something.

And a lot of the migrants from Central America who joined 'caravans' and tried to illegally enter the US said they just wanted a job, because there weren't enough jobs in their home countries (which contributes to gang violence, which also pushes people to leave).
 
th


Did you read the OP??? His proposal 1.2 X normal pay during the first forty hours and 0.7 X normal pay after forty hours.

I expect time and a half to double time after forty hours of work a week. If the boss can't keep his favorites working during that those forty normal hours and wants someone to finish up that's going to be on the company dime because I have a life too and expect to be paid well if the boss wants to cut into it. I'm not going to be left to finish up after forty hours for about only half the pay while the boss and his/her favorites go drinking. Because if that's what they expect...

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

...and the stuff that wasn't done this week can be done next week.

Just get a different job if you are not appreciated- I left a job after 22 years.



th


What makes you think I don't find other employment?

But I'll tell you right now I won't work for the OP if that's how he/she thinks things should be run. The only incentive to get things done in the normal forty hours is to say everyone stays after forty hours.

*****SMILE*****



:)

Get another job-you sound too bitter to stay where you are.


th


And you're free to go work at a job like the one he/she is describing. Let me know how it feels when you're doing eighty, of more, hour weeks while the boss and his/her favorites take off after the normal forty. Especially after the boss gives you all the collateral duties, that "need to be done", on top of your normal work instead of doling them out evenly amongst all the employees.

I'll stick with a job that guarantees time and a half to double time after forty.

*****SMILE*****



:)

I left a job when I did not like the situation anymore-it beats complaining about it.

th


What makes you think I work for anyone but myself now?

NOTE: I'll never work a salary job again and I sure as hell wouldn't work for only about half the pay after the first forty hours. Bosses don't know how to estimate how long a job will take or how it should cost them that's their problem.

*****SMILE*****



:)
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top