If you don't support this...................

[Misaki]

(from OWS)

First, I should say that effective people will not go to any great lengths to convince people they aren't stupid.

THE IDEA:

The US has plenty of wealth, which is why wage levels are high enough that the cost of living prevents the unemployed from competing with workers in foreign countries on the basis of price, such as Bangladesh where many workers make less than $50 per month (http://www.bbs.gov.bd/webtestapplic...l Accounts Reports/OTHER_REPORT/Wage Rate.pdf). That would not be enough for a US worker to even afford food, much less housing or health care.

Companies can encourage people to work less to create jobs by paying them a higher rate when they do so. For example, the first 24 hours of work in a week are paid at 1.2x an employee's normal rate, and after that at a 0.7x rate so that someone who works 40 hours per week is paid the same amount.

People with reputations in economics and politics fall into two groups for why they won't support this: 1) They don't listen to people without credentials, or 2) I said they wouldn't.

Paul Krugman, with 900k Twitter followers, falls into the second group as do many other people. They are not going to support this idea... again, because I said they wouldn't. That might sound ridiculous to someone who doesn't know much about the situation but it's true.

Yoko Ono, however (3 million Twitter followers and is following the second highest number of people in the world), has not supported it because she prefers change to happen as a general movement, not through someone with a reputation in the current system. This is because she wants to be able to think that people are not stupid, and that the world does not depend on her being able to survive.

This is quite possibly the most important event in history, at least for intelligent people who care about things like violence, terrorism, and suicides (and not just their favorite TV show). The list of problems it would fix:

• A small chance [you], or people [you] know, will be killed
• Mass shootings like the ones at Aurora and Sandy Hook
• Unemployment and associated problems, including wasteful government spending
• War and its effects like someone you know joining the military and being killed
• [Rapes](Open to Change: The Economy has been Fixed)
• Unexpected events in general that cause harm and could have been avoided if people were smarter
• Occupations that appear to be unethical having a 'wage premium', including the sex industry and finance
• Nonviolent crime, like computer viruses and scams
• Unwanted climate change like global warming
• Smart people being unhappy because they feel more responsible for problems
• The fact that the human race is getting stupider as time goes on due to genetic selection
• Biased feedback for games like WoW or Aion that lead to people wasting time on things that do not have the intended result
• Starvation in Africa
• Friends or relatives committing suicide because of relationship problems or depression
• High cost of college in the US and the inaccuracy of attendance at an 'elite' institution as a signal of ability despite that many people perceive it to be accurate
• 'Nice' people going to prison or being accused of crimes, such as Aaron Swartz who committed suicide
• Economic sanctions against nations such as North Korea that are seen as unethical
• Intellectual property law that causes obvious inefficiencies, such as the patenting of round corners on electronic devices
• Government corruption in places like China
• Female persons, or even male persons, not being able to attain important positions in society because of a lack of time

If you support this, just say so in this thread. More details, as well as other random stuff, at Open to Change. Proof that the rich aren't "evil" and that the only reason problems exist is because people let them:



If Yoko Ono were to try to get people to use this idea and was unsuccessful, I would expect that she would then allow herself to die. So if you don't support this idea, you are also saying that it's fine for that to happen.

If people reply to this thread, the next step might be a petition or something. With enough signatures, it would get media attention just like various petitions to the White House have gotten media attention. Unlike petitions to build a Death Star though this would actually work so media attention would lead to change.

 

[PaulS1950]

People who are currently working full time jobs - most with some overtime are living from one paycheck to the next. Creating jobs by having them work fewer hours would only serve to backrupt everyone.
Your logic is flawed even more than your "plan".

The amount of money one has has little bearing on their state of happiness but having a safe home, and being able to provide for one's self and family have a great influence on their self esteem. Could you live on half your present income while spending the same amount to get to and from work?
Think about it.

 

[uscitizen]

Death Star? Yoko Ono?
I am beginning to class this poster with the 30 yr old virgin one.

 

[Misaki]

People who are currently working full time jobs - most with some overtime are living from one paycheck to the next. Creating jobs by having them work fewer hours would only serve to backrupt everyone.

Actually, people with plenty of money are the ones who tend to work overtime.

If everyone was paid the same wage you would expect this, because working more should obviously lead to a higher income. But people with more education also work more, and tend to be paid a higher rate (~1.6x higher for having a college degree on average) so not being able to work less is not why people work so much.

Or do you really think that someone who makes $200k/year can't afford to work less?

 

[Freewill]

Yoko, has she ever worked for a living?

From your OP: Companies can encourage people to work less to create jobs by paying them a higher rate when they do so. For example, the first 24 hours of work in a week are paid at 1.2x an employee's normal rate, and after that at a 0.7x rate so that someone who works 40 hours per week is paid the same amount.

Does the writer realize that if you pay someone 1.2 X what they are making now that then becomes their base pay? If companies can pay more for less work then why don't they just do it? Hire more people and pay them all less? Wages attract the kind of people a company needs to be successful.

 

[uscitizen]

if this scheme was followed the cost for goods and services would rise 20-30%.

 

[Misaki]

Yoko, has she ever worked for a living?

Her family was rich, so I'm not sure.

The point is that most rich people work, and the economy would be better off if they worked less, because they already have more money than they can spend. Getting people jobs is more important than a slightly improved iPhone to sell to China when that money will probably just cause inflation if it goes to rich people who already have plenty.

Does the writer realize that if you pay someone 1.2 X what they are making now that then becomes their base pay? If companies can pay more for less work then why don't they just do it? Hire more people and pay them all less? Wages attract the kind of people a company needs to be successful.

The reason they don't is because people don't choose to work less.

(It's not clear whether you have an issue with this, but companies can not only afford to pay people more for less work due to the record $1.6 trillion corporate profits, but it would also help with productivity: Bring back the 40-hour work week - Salon.com)

 

[Misaki]

if this scheme was followed the cost for goods and services would rise 20-30%.

Only if wages went up proportionally.

Current prices already include a significant markup that goes directly to corporate profits. Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low - Business Insider

This is because people with lots of money, such as the middle class and rich, buy these products like iPhones with a huge profit margin. If more people have jobs while those with high incomes work less, then companies will be forced to lower their prices to retain the same volume of sales (and if they don't, people will just buy from competitors with a less popular brand).

With college tuition and health care inflation, you can't say that inequality isn't negatively affecting the prices of goods and services already.

 

[Charles_Main]

What an ignorant ass you are. Most of us are already not getting enough work, and barley able to get by week to week, and your plan is for us to work less so more people can work?

You need to get out in the real world, and stop living in Dream Land.

 

[Misaki]

What an ignorant ass you are. Most of us are already not getting enough work, and barley able to get by week to week, and your plan is for us to work less so more people can work?

You need to get out in the real world, and stop living in Dream Land.

Most people are doing fine. That's why think they are happier than the rich.

 

[Freewill]

Yoko, has she ever worked for a living?

Her family was rich, so I'm not sure.

The point is that most rich people work, and the economy would be better off if they worked less, because they already have more money than they can spend. Getting people jobs is more important than a slightly improved iPhone to sell to China when that money will probably just cause inflation if it goes to rich people who already have plenty.

Does the writer realize that if you pay someone 1.2 X what they are making now that then becomes their base pay? If companies can pay more for less work then why don't they just do it? Hire more people and pay them all less? Wages attract the kind of people a company needs to be successful.

The reason they don't is because people don't choose to work less.

(It's not clear whether you have an issue with this, but companies can not only afford to pay people more for less work due to the record $1.6 trillion corporate profits, but it would also help with productivity: Bring back the 40-hour work week - Salon.com)

If I read your scenerio correctly it says that the company will pay people more per hour so that the cut back in hours will not be seen as a drop in wages. I am thinking that companies do not hire people to do nothing, or work them overtime to do nothing. So if you work one person less then to complete the work another person must be hired. So unless the company has an endless supply of money they are going to pay more effecting the bottom line. Of course the difference in overtime vs straight time might off set the difference but that would be made up by people getting paid the same for working less.

 

[Oldguy]

Yoko Ono. Now there's an economic genius we can all get behind, huh?

 

[editec]

Increasing wages seldom cause real inflation because the inflation is generally already in place (thanks to inflating money supplies) when workers incomes rise

Workers are the last people to get ahold of that new money.

We've had enomous inflation in the last 40 years and workers incomes were NOT responsible for it.

In fact working people have been losing the race against inflation for the last 40 years.

 

[dblack]

Increasing wages seldom cause real inflation because the inflation is generally already in place (thanks to inflating money supplies) when workers incomes rise

What? Are you saying it would cause inflation, but because there already is some, then it doesn't? How does that work? Wouldn't it just add to the existing inflation, thus making it worse?