The 36-hour work week/3-day weekend

[Andylusion]

You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong.

2 people

person 1 makes 100$ a day
person 2 makes 1,000$ a day

Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.

You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)

That's not true at all. And no, they couldn't be paying their people more, and it's not because of ideology, it's because of MATH.

Let's say that I open a store, and I'm making a mere $50,000 off my store. Meanwhile my employees are earning average wages for that store.

Now I can't pay them more, without paying myself less, which I'm not going to do because I only earn $50,000.

But.... if I take my income, and invest it into opening a second store... the economics, and wages, and income of the second store will be exactly the same, with one exception. I can't be at both stores at the same time, so I have to hire a manager to run the second store.

So I hire a manager for $40,000, and that eats up all but $10,000 of what would be my profit.

Thus my income now is $60,000, and how much less must I pay my employees? No less. They don't have to earn a penny less than when I earned $50,000.

Say I open 50 stores. Now my income is $550,000 a year. How much less must I pay my employee? No less. Their wages do not have to fall at all, for my wages to go up.

Yes, my income is now several times larger than my lowest paid employees, but it's not because I'm working harder, it's because I invested more wisely.

MATH people. Basic math tends to blow away all leftard crap.

"Well if the CEO of Walmart was paid less, they could pay employees more!"

Really?
C. Douglas McMillon CEO of Walmart will earn $25.2 Million.

$25.2 Million divided by 2.2 Million employees is.... $11.45. That's per employee, per year. $11.45. That's one half of a penny per hour.

Yeah, that's going to change those employees lives, right? Oh wait, here in leftard land, where we don't use math, cutting CEO pay really would fix everything, because we leftists are too stupid to use a calculator.

Donald Thompson, CEO of McDonald will earn $9.5 Million.

$9.5 Million divided by 1.8 Million employees is... $5.27. That's per employee, per year. That's 1/4th of a penny per hour.

Again... leftists ideology is based on the inability of people to use a calculator.

But it does not even end there. That $25.2 and $9.5 Million dollar income, isn't even cash. Most of that is stock options.

Do you people understand how compensation through stocks is done? The company doesn't pay you with money. They pay you with stock. You can then sell the stock on the open market. When a company gives stocks to it's CEO, that stock doesn't cost the company anything. That's why they do that. The only one giving the CEO money, is the person on the market who buys the stock from the CEO, should the CEO choose to sell it.

Douglas McMillon got $23 Million all in stocks.
Donald Thompson got $6.5 Million all in stocks.

That doesn't cost the employee anything. The employee is not earning $23 Million, to give to the CEO. Nor could you pay employees with stocks, mainly because they wouldn't want them. Do you want to end up with a paycheck of stocks, which you would then have to hire a stock broker to sell, which might end up being less on the market than how much your cash pay check was supposed to be?

Of course not. So even if we did confiscate the stock compensation of the CEOs, the employees wouldn't want it.

Douglas McMillon got $2 Million in cash.
Donald Thompson got $3 Million in cash.

$2 Million divided by 2.2 Million Walmart employees is 90¢ per employee per year.
$3 Million divided by 1.8 Million McDonalds employees is $1.60 per employee per year.

The moment a leftist learns how to use a calculator, he'll grow out of being a moronic leftist.

 

[Smilebong]

We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.

Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.

We were made to work 6 days and rest one.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Americans work too hard for mere scraps. 13 hour days are hell. I used to work that shift.

 

[Andylusion]

Americans work too hard for mere scraps. 13 hour days are hell. I used to work that shift.

But I know people who love that shift. Literally, they specifically picked the job they had, because of that shift.

See here's the problem. We are not Communist Chinese. You can pick whatever job you want.

Why is it, that people today think it's their job to determine how everyone else works?

I had a job I hated (couple actually), and the solution wasn't to complain, or demand new labor laws, or start voting for some idiot that says he'll stop the evil greedy companies.

No... the solution was.... I quit. Found another job. We have freedom here. If you don't like a 13 hour shift, move on. But who are you to say other people shouldn't work 13 hours straight? Maybe they like that shift? I know a girl right now, that works 14 hour shifts. She loves it. Works 3 days on, 4 days off.

Why should she be denied a job she likes, because you don't?

 

[dblack]

Americans work too hard for mere scraps. 13 hour days are hell. I used to work that shift.

But I know people who love that shit. Literally, they specifically picked the job they had, because of that shift.

See here's the problem. We are not Communist Chinese. You can pick whatever job you want. ...

Oh gawd. You're not one of those "freeeedom" nitwits, are you?

 

[Andylusion]

Americans work too hard for mere scraps. 13 hour days are hell. I used to work that shift.

But I know people who love that shift. Literally, they specifically picked the job they had, because of that shift.

See here's the problem. ...

Oh gawd. You're not one of those "freeeedom" nitwits, are you?

I know.... the horrors of promoting freedom.

 

[dblack]

But I know people who love that shift. Literally, they specifically picked the job they had, because of that shift.

See here's the problem. ...

Oh gawd. You're not one of those "freeeedom" nitwits, are you?

I know.... the horrors of promoting freedom.

It's so twentieth century.

 

[beagle9]

You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)

The daughter went into Little Caesars Pizza, and she encountered a bad employee that she figured either didn't want to be there or her corp was just hiring the cheapest person they could find to work that counter is what she figured might be the case. Anyway this person caused the franchise to lose a customer, and no telling how many others were lost as well. Next my wife went there to get the grand daughter a pizza, and she encountered this same person working. The same attitude was present, and the same result came afterwards where as the wife or daughter will not go back there until this person is gone from there.

I can't help but wonder though, if the worker is there because she is cheap help (not a part of the team), and so the corp figures that they can get by with her (or) if she is just bad and they haven't figured her out yet. We are going to report her, so we shall see what happens next. Then the truth will or might be known if they keep her around or not.

I have that issue with almost every government employee I come in contact with, however, I have no choice but to work with them as they are a monopoly and most the workers are there to collect a paycheck, nothing else.

There's a lot of this stuff going on today, but whose fault is it really ?

 

[beagle9]

Americans work too hard for mere scraps. 13 hour days are hell. I used to work that shift.

But I know people who love that shift. Literally, they specifically picked the job they had, because of that shift.

See here's the problem. We are not Communist Chinese. You can pick whatever job you want.

Why is it, that people today think it's their job to determine how everyone else works?

I had a job I hated (couple actually), and the solution wasn't to complain, or demand new labor laws, or start voting for some idiot that says he'll stop the evil greedy companies.

No... the solution was.... I quit. Found another job. We have freedom here. If you don't like a 13 hour shift, move on. But who are you to say other people shouldn't work 13 hours straight? Maybe they like that shift? I know a girl right now, that works 14 hour shifts. She loves it. Works 3 days on, 4 days off.

Why should she be denied a job she likes, because you don't?

You try and suggest here that people would prefer a 13 hour shift as opposed to an 8 hour shift, and this where as they could make the same money in 8 hours if the company would set it up this way, but they would choose the 13 hour shift instead ? Now the three days on and 4 days off sounds cool enough, and I bet the company found that it worked better than other methods of working people, so they used it and it worked.. Nothing wrong with trying to make everyone happier if can, so good for your friend who is happy.

 

[beagle9]

We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.

Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.

We were made to work 6 days and rest one.

Your interpretation, but thank God you don't speak for everyone. Work may not mean working for the other man, but it may include other things like working at your home or charity work etc. He wasn't specific as to where you would be working in life, just as long as you take a day to rest no matter what you do in life.

 

[Papageorgio]

The daughter went into Little Caesars Pizza, and she encountered a bad employee that she figured either didn't want to be there or her corp was just hiring the cheapest person they could find to work that counter is what she figured might be the case. Anyway this person caused the franchise to lose a customer, and no telling how many others were lost as well. Next my wife went there to get the grand daughter a pizza, and she encountered this same person working. The same attitude was present, and the same result came afterwards where as the wife or daughter will not go back there until this person is gone from there.

I can't help but wonder though, if the worker is there because she is cheap help (not a part of the team), and so the corp figures that they can get by with her (or) if she is just bad and they haven't figured her out yet. We are going to report her, so we shall see what happens next. Then the truth will or might be known if they keep her around or not.

I have that issue with almost every government employee I come in contact with, however, I have no choice but to work with them as they are a monopoly and most the workers are there to collect a paycheck, nothing else.

There's a lot of this stuff going on today, but whose fault is it really ?

Can't help but wonder if the government employee is overpaid and if he really had to work to keep his job, maybe we would get better service for our tax dollars.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[AntiParty]

You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong.

2 people

person 1 makes 100$ a day
person 2 makes 1,000$ a day

Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.

You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)

The daughter went into Little Caesars Pizza, and she encountered a bad employee that she figured either didn't want to be there or her corp was just hiring the cheapest person they could find to work that counter is what she figured might be the case. Anyway this person caused the franchise to lose a customer, and no telling how many others were lost as well. Next my wife went there to get the grand daughter a pizza, and she encountered this same person working. The same attitude was present, and the same result came afterwards where as the wife or daughter will not go back there until this person is gone from there.

I can't help but wonder though, if the worker is there because she is cheap help (not a part of the team), and so the corp figures that they can get by with her (or) if she is just bad and they haven't figured her out yet. We are going to report her, so we shall see what happens next. Then the truth will or might be known if they keep her around or not.

I understand your confusion. You wonder if Large Corporations with massive profits employ terrible workers by accident or on purpose.

THE MESSAGE.

They fire or lose anyone that becomes efficient because they Eventually start to know their own self worth. And when people LEARN and become aware of self worth, it's bad for certain industries. It's why there is an attack on education.

 

[Andylusion]

The daughter went into Little Caesars Pizza, and she encountered a bad employee that she figured either didn't want to be there or her corp was just hiring the cheapest person they could find to work that counter is what she figured might be the case. Anyway this person caused the franchise to lose a customer, and no telling how many others were lost as well. Next my wife went there to get the grand daughter a pizza, and she encountered this same person working. The same attitude was present, and the same result came afterwards where as the wife or daughter will not go back there until this person is gone from there.

I can't help but wonder though, if the worker is there because she is cheap help (not a part of the team), and so the corp figures that they can get by with her (or) if she is just bad and they haven't figured her out yet. We are going to report her, so we shall see what happens next. Then the truth will or might be known if they keep her around or not.

I have that issue with almost every government employee I come in contact with, however, I have no choice but to work with them as they are a monopoly and most the workers are there to collect a paycheck, nothing else.

There's a lot of this stuff going on today, but whose fault is it really ?

Leftards.

 

[Andylusion]

Americans work too hard for mere scraps. 13 hour days are hell. I used to work that shift.

But I know people who love that shift. Literally, they specifically picked the job they had, because of that shift.

See here's the problem. We are not Communist Chinese. You can pick whatever job you want.

Why is it, that people today think it's their job to determine how everyone else works?

I had a job I hated (couple actually), and the solution wasn't to complain, or demand new labor laws, or start voting for some idiot that says he'll stop the evil greedy companies.

No... the solution was.... I quit. Found another job. We have freedom here. If you don't like a 13 hour shift, move on. But who are you to say other people shouldn't work 13 hours straight? Maybe they like that shift? I know a girl right now, that works 14 hour shifts. She loves it. Works 3 days on, 4 days off.

Why should she be denied a job she likes, because you don't?

You try and suggest here that people would prefer a 13 hour shift as opposed to an 8 hour shift, and this where as they could make the same money in 8 hours if the company would set it up this way, but they would choose the 13 hour shift instead ? Now the three days on and 4 days off sounds cool enough, and I bet the company found that it worked better than other methods of working people, so they used it and it worked.. Nothing wrong with trying to make everyone happier if can, so good for your friend who is happy.

I'm suggesting that maybe the person with the job, knows more about what they want, than some mindless leftist in government, or an Ivory tower somewhere.

 

[Andylusion]

You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)

The daughter went into Little Caesars Pizza, and she encountered a bad employee that she figured either didn't want to be there or her corp was just hiring the cheapest person they could find to work that counter is what she figured might be the case. Anyway this person caused the franchise to lose a customer, and no telling how many others were lost as well. Next my wife went there to get the grand daughter a pizza, and she encountered this same person working. The same attitude was present, and the same result came afterwards where as the wife or daughter will not go back there until this person is gone from there.

I can't help but wonder though, if the worker is there because she is cheap help (not a part of the team), and so the corp figures that they can get by with her (or) if she is just bad and they haven't figured her out yet. We are going to report her, so we shall see what happens next. Then the truth will or might be known if they keep her around or not.

I understand your confusion. You wonder if Large Corporations with massive profits employ terrible workers by accident or on purpose.

THE MESSAGE.

They fire or lose anyone that becomes efficient because they Eventually start to know their own self worth. And when people LEARN and become aware of self worth, it's bad for certain industries. It's why there is an attack on education.

Both of these two prior comments, are the absolute most stupid comments I've read for a while now.

The only fact we have right now, is that a Cici's Pizza hired a bad employee.

From that, 'large corporations' must intentionally hire lousy employees.

What the heck is wrong with leftists? How people can say stuff like this, and not hurt themselves getting out of bed in the morning, is beyond me.

Listen up sparky..... Most chain stores, are Franchises. The bad employee at Cici's, was never interviewed by a Corporate employee. He was likely interviewed and hired by either the owner of the Franchise, or the manager the owner put in charge of the franchise. And sometimes even that manager delegates hiring to a shift manager.

"Large Corporations", many times offer free training to become managers. Walmart even offers management training that is accredited, and qualify as college credit towards a business degree.

Does that sound like they are trying to prevent people from being aware of self-worth?

When I worked at the parts store, there was a guy there who went through the management training, and was working as Assistant Store Manager. Today he runs his own store. Good thing they prevented him from being aware of his self worth.

You people are a joke. You have no idea what you are talking about. The left claims to be against prejudice, and yet you do it all the time from a position of complete and total ignorance.

You do know that out of all McDonald's Franchises, 75% are owned and operated by people who started off as minimum wage crew members? Boy, McDonald's better step up their efforts of keeping employees from being aware of their self worth, because that's an awful lot of 6 Figure Incomes for people they wanted held down.

The dumbest things said on this forum sometimes. You need to sit down before you break something.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Interesting thread and good conversation all around. To make this thread even better.......thoughts on basic income or a negative income tax?

 

[Andylusion]

Interesting thread and good conversation all around. To make this thread even better.......thoughts on basic income or a negative income tax?

Milton Friedman - The Negative Income Tax - YouTube

The problem with all such programs is that it would not end up being a replacement, but an addition.

Such programs can only work, if there is an economic motive. The Friedman plan will in fact work, *IF* it replaces all the other welfare programs.

That would be great. But we all know how these things go. Everyone would be in favor of it, until they got to the "and now we cut welfare", and then everyone would start screaming about how we can't just throw single mothers and children out on the street to instantly die of starvation.

So a politically viable compromise would happen, where this program, and welfare, and food stamps, and subsidized housing, and it would end up being just another government handout in addition to all the other handouts.

To me it's the same problem as the national sales tax, or value added tax. If that tax were to actually replace other taxes, that would be good. But from history, we know that every country that either tried, or even succeeded in replacing income tax with VAT, the result has always been that they all ended up with both the income tax, and the VAT.

This is why I am against both.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Interesting thread and good conversation all around. To make this thread even better.......thoughts on basic income or a negative income tax?

Milton Friedman - The Negative Income Tax - YouTube

The problem with all such programs is that it would not end up being a replacement, but an addition.

Such programs can only work, if there is an economic motive. The Friedman plan will in fact work, *IF* it replaces all the other welfare programs.

That would be great. But we all know how these things go. Everyone would be in favor of it, until they got to the "and now we cut welfare", and then everyone would start screaming about how we can't just throw single mothers and children out on the street to instantly die of starvation.

So a politically viable compromise would happen, where this program, and welfare, and food stamps, and subsidized housing, and it would end up being just another government handout in addition to all the other handouts.

To me it's the same problem as the national sales tax, or value added tax. If that tax were to actually replace other taxes, that would be good. But from history, we know that every country that either tried, or even succeeded in replacing income tax with VAT, the result has always been that they all ended up with both the income tax, and the VAT.

This is why I am against both.

Well the point is remove all welfare programs and spend the dollars on the negative income tax instead, i could be issued weekly to cut down on waste by those that cant handle their money. Those deemed mentally unstable, the money could go to payment at a group home. I don't understand why it would be an addition if the most costly existing welfare bureaucracies are eliminated to pay for this basic plan. It could save money eliminating extra govt. jobs. The states can also have their own plans to supplement or not if not needed, and their is also charity that will continue of course.


I see your point and admit that would be an issue if everyone voted for more spending. Perhaps it could be set at a steady rate that isn't easy to change somehow. States could have their own programs or not. Do you get to easily vote for social security to increase?

To me this is a win/win. Less govt. and those in need get assistance without spending a penny more than what is already. Also, everyone would get the same allotment-rich or poor.

 

[beagle9]

The daughter went into Little Caesars Pizza, and she encountered a bad employee that she figured either didn't want to be there or her corp was just hiring the cheapest person they could find to work that counter is what she figured might be the case. Anyway this person caused the franchise to lose a customer, and no telling how many others were lost as well. Next my wife went there to get the grand daughter a pizza, and she encountered this same person working. The same attitude was present, and the same result came afterwards where as the wife or daughter will not go back there until this person is gone from there.

I can't help but wonder though, if the worker is there because she is cheap help (not a part of the team), and so the corp figures that they can get by with her (or) if she is just bad and they haven't figured her out yet. We are going to report her, so we shall see what happens next. Then the truth will or might be known if they keep her around or not.

I understand your confusion. You wonder if Large Corporations with massive profits employ terrible workers by accident or on purpose.

THE MESSAGE.

They fire or lose anyone that becomes efficient because they Eventually start to know their own self worth. And when people LEARN and become aware of self worth, it's bad for certain industries. It's why there is an attack on education.

Both of these two prior comments, are the absolute most stupid comments I've read for a while now.

The only fact we have right now, is that a Cici's Pizza hired a bad employee.

From that, 'large corporations' must intentionally hire lousy employees.

What the heck is wrong with leftists? How people can say stuff like this, and not hurt themselves getting out of bed in the morning, is beyond me.

Listen up sparky..... Most chain stores, are Franchises. The bad employee at Cici's, was never interviewed by a Corporate employee. He was likely interviewed and hired by either the owner of the Franchise, or the manager the owner put in charge of the franchise. And sometimes even that manager delegates hiring to a shift manager.

"Large Corporations", many times offer free training to become managers. Walmart even offers management training that is accredited, and qualify as college credit towards a business degree.

Does that sound like they are trying to prevent people from being aware of self-worth?

When I worked at the parts store, there was a guy there who went through the management training, and was working as Assistant Store Manager. Today he runs his own store. Good thing they prevented him from being aware of his self worth.

You people are a joke. You have no idea what you are talking about. The left claims to be against prejudice, and yet you do it all the time from a position of complete and total ignorance.

You do know that out of all McDonald's Franchises, 75% are owned and operated by people who started off as minimum wage crew members? Boy, McDonald's better step up their efforts of keeping employees from being aware of their self worth, because that's an awful lot of 6 Figure Incomes for people they wanted held down.

The dumbest things said on this forum sometimes. You need to sit down before you break something.

How can anyone take you serious when you mix comments and issues together in which don't go together, and then you take things in and out of context just to make a point that you create by constantly moving the goal post ? Then you fail at making your point stick because people can see right through such bull crap when you do this type stuff in which you do. I just shake my head when reading your post or responses, because I can see the game, your defenses, your biases, and your leanings that your have running all of the time.

Oh and it's Little Cesar's, and not Cici's Pizza that had the bad employee.

 

[dblack]

Americans work too hard for mere scraps. 13 hour days are hell. I used to work that shift.

But I know people who love that shift. Literally, they specifically picked the job they had, because of that shift.

See here's the problem. We are not Communist Chinese. You can pick whatever job you want.

Why is it, that people today think it's their job to determine how everyone else works?

I had a job I hated (couple actually), and the solution wasn't to complain, or demand new labor laws, or start voting for some idiot that says he'll stop the evil greedy companies.

No... the solution was.... I quit. Found another job. We have freedom here. If you don't like a 13 hour shift, move on. But who are you to say other people shouldn't work 13 hours straight? Maybe they like that shift? I know a girl right now, that works 14 hour shifts. She loves it. Works 3 days on, 4 days off.

Why should she be denied a job she likes, because you don't?

You try and suggest here that people would prefer a 13 hour shift as opposed to an 8 hour shift, and this where as they could make the same money in 8 hours if the company would set it up this way, but they would choose the 13 hour shift instead ? Now the three days on and 4 days off sounds cool enough, and I bet the company found that it worked better than other methods of working people, so they used it and it worked.. Nothing wrong with trying to make everyone happier if can, so good for your friend who is happy.

I think the point is, do we really need consensus rule on something like this?