TXAGBQ76 said:

---

I was about to post the same thing?
What does that do to benefits, which are traditionally based on 40 hours?

I know a number of folks who did four tens and loved it.

---

Benefits are generally based on 30 or more hours a week, not 40. I am sure there are some companies are 40 or more hours, but in my experience it has been 30 or more hours.

MelvinUdall said:

---

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

I was about to post the same thing?
What does that do to benefits, which are traditionally based on 40 hours?

I know a number of folks who did four tens and loved it.

---

Benefits are generally based on 30 or more hours a week, not 40. I am sure there are some companies are 40 or more hours, but in my experience it has been 30 or more hours.

---

ACA made the requirement 30 hours per week, 130 hours per month.

fka ftc said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

I was about to post the same thing?
What does that do to benefits, which are traditionally based on 40 hours?

I know a number of folks who did four tens and loved it.

---

Benefits are generally based on 30 or more hours a week, not 40. I am sure there are some companies are 40 or more hours, but in my experience it has been 30 or more hours.

---

ACA made the requirement 30 hours per week, 130 hours per month.

---

Yes, but a lot of companies had already made that change prior to the ACA.

MelvinUdall said:

---

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

I was about to post the same thing?
What does that do to benefits, which are traditionally based on 40 hours?

I know a number of folks who did four tens and loved it.

---

Benefits are generally based on 30 or more hours a week, not 40. I am sure there are some companies are 40 or more hours, but in my experience it has been 30 or more hours.

---

The law may require you to give full benefits to employees working 30 hours or more but the benefit package provided is based on an economic model. If reducing hours reduces output, there will most likely need to be cost reductions elsewhere.

Those reductions could be in labor costs, benefits, materials, design or anywhere the executives believe a viable business model exists.

I know it is difficult for some to believe but the executives
will give absolutely no consideration to worker circumstances during the 1950s, or the stone age for that matter.

DamnGood86 said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

I was about to post the same thing?
What does that do to benefits, which are traditionally based on 40 hours?

I know a number of folks who did four tens and loved it.

---

Benefits are generally based on 30 or more hours a week, not 40. I am sure there are some companies are 40 or more hours, but in my experience it has been 30 or more hours.

---

The law may require you to give full benefits to employees working 30 hours or more but the benefit package provided is based on an economic model. If reducing hours reduces output, there will most likely need to be cost reductions elsewhere.

Those reductions could be in labor costs, benefits, materials, design or anywhere the executives believe a viable business model exists.

I know it is difficult for some to believe but the executives
will give absolutely no consideration to worker circumstances during the 1950s, or the stone age for that matter.

---

I consider it my job as an employer / business owner to pay an employee the least amount possible for them to be a happy, at least content, productive worker.

The employee needs to ensure they are compensated at a level that results in them being a happy, at least content, productive worker.

Notice I did NOT say that I must pay the least amount possible. Nor should an employee expect to extract max possible compensation from an employer. There should be a meeting of the minds for it to be a beneficial relationship.

When that meeting of the minds gets out of whack, issues will arise.

That is a very simple take on what can be a complex issue, but the general principle holds true.

The your point that I bolded, the executive / employer does not care about an employee who claims they are not paid enough because of their claim they are 2x / 4x more productive than an employee from 1950 and are not being paid along the same multiple.

I'm assuming you are referring to medical benefits? If so, I agree.
What about profit sharing/401K + matching, vacation, etc.

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

I'm assuming you are referring to medical benefits? If so, I agree.
What about profit sharing/401K + matching, vacation, etc.

---

At 32 hours / week you should absolutely NOT be entitled to anytime off with pay. Sick time and vacation time should be unpaid.

Make American companies even less competitive, brilliant!

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

It's really not. Unless you want to redefine the word productivity to mean something it's never meant.

The machine pays for itself with the increased productivity in a certain time period. The employer can then lay off three people and their associated benefits, and they pocket the difference. So yes, the person that remains gets to perform the work of 4 people, while getting paid effectively less compared to his output.

And the comment about something's being cheaper is laughable. Purchasing power has absolutely decreased.

---

Want to back that up? Is your contention that a family in the 1950s could purchase more things and live at a higher standard than a family in 2020's?

---

Comparatively? Absolutely. Look at the graph I have repeatedly posted. Jobs required way less education, training, and provided more benefits. The dollar is also worth less than 1/12th it did in 1950.

---

Are more people in the US living in poverty today than in 1950?

Now you are conflating education, training, benes and the value of the USD with worker productivity and wages.

I don't think you understand how people lived in the 1950s.

---

I do understand the definition of productivity though.

---

No, actually you don't.

samurai_science said:

---

Make American companies even less competitive, brilliant!

---

missy

All of my cooks, with the exception of the college kid, work 65-75 hour weeks between two different kitchens. And they work their ass off.

When they learn I really like something at the other restaurant, they will bring me some.

Cheddar Bay Biscuits
Texas Roadhouse Bread
A mango-avocado-vanilla smoothie.

People can demand 32 hour weeks, all it is going to do is raise prices even more. Last cases of avocado were over 70 dollars each.

Stupid, stupid idea. Especially in a non office job setting.

Sorry but I just cannot seem to stop banging my head against the wall.

You guys are conflating worker productivity with sector or societal productivity.

Let's take agriculture, specifically grain farming as an example. A little over 100 years ago we were still using horses, mules and oxen to pull rudimentary implements. There waa virtually no use of fertilizers, chemicals or improved plant varieties. Farms employed large labor forces to scratch out a very meager yield.

Today, grain yields are immeasurably higher due to ag research and development. Reliable, self-driving equipment; large, precise implements; advanced fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc.; GMO varieties; precision irrigation; and countless other developments.

We produce so much more with so much less. These advancements have virtually eliminated the need for farm labor. Instead of two workers for 40 acres, it's two owner/operators on 4,000 acres.

How clouded must your mind be to try and argue the tremendous increase in agricultural output is due to the increased productivity of a farm worker? To claim the worker is getting cheated? To ignore the cost to research, develop, produce, deliver, use and maintain the real drivers of increased production.

Back in the day, the farmer's primary driver/cost was labor so all his revenue went toward labor. Today labor is a tiny cost so why would he devote anything but a tiny amount to that part of his equation.

Just because some worker is operating a $1.3-million cotton picker, harvesting three bales to the acre, it does not mean he is worth more than $30 per hour. Who cares if his counterpart from 100 years ago hand-picked 1/4 bale per acre cotton. He does not deserve a cut of the crop. He took no risk. He holds no capital. Hell, he is not even operating the picker, he is just a rider who can shut it down if the GPS fails.

This same example is applicable to all sectors whether the field hands want to admit it or not. If you don't want to be paid like a field hand, quit your job and become an owner, since they have it so great. ......That's what I did.

RGLAG85 said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

It's really not. Unless you want to redefine the word productivity to mean something it's never meant.

The machine pays for itself with the increased productivity in a certain time period. The employer can then lay off three people and their associated benefits, and they pocket the difference. So yes, the person that remains gets to perform the work of 4 people, while getting paid effectively less compared to his output.

And the comment about something's being cheaper is laughable. Purchasing power has absolutely decreased.

---

Want to back that up? Is your contention that a family in the 1950s could purchase more things and live at a higher standard than a family in 2020's?

---

Comparatively? Absolutely. Look at the graph I have repeatedly posted. Jobs required way less education, training, and provided more benefits. The dollar is also worth less than 1/12th it did in 1950.

---

Are more people in the US living in poverty today than in 1950?

Now you are conflating education, training, benes and the value of the USD with worker productivity and wages.

I don't think you understand how people lived in the 1950s.

---

I do understand the definition of productivity though.

---

No, actually you don't.

---

Do you need it defined to you as well? Per the chart I originally posted that started FKA with his derail, it's total income in the economy per hour of work.

FKA is making the Obama argument that the workers didn't build that. The equipment is bought and paid for by the business owner, so the worker making him more money shouldn't matter in regards to what he pays his workers. He's then repeatedly ignoring the fact that if you are going to measure the productivity solely by the value the workers input, then the value of the payment and benefits that come with the position must be considered, and those have fallen drastically as well. He's then taking this proof, and shifting the argument from us discussing productivity and value to you young people just like to complain over and over.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Do you need it defined to you as well? Per the chart I originally posted that started FKA with his derail, it's total income in the economy per hour of work.

FKA is making the Obama argument that the workers didn't build that. The equipment is bought and paid for by the business owner, so the worker making him more money shouldn't matter in regards to what he pays his workers. He's then repeatedly ignoring the fact that if you are going to measure the productivity solely by the value the workers input, then the value of the payment and benefits that come with the position must be considered, and those have fallen drastically as well.

---

Me not agreeing with you is a derail. That's funny and seems to be misused much like "strawman" when people cannot counter the counter argument.

But congrats on that Kamala worth word salad.

Everything that workers want is bad

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Do you need it defined to you as well? Per the chart I originally posted that started FKA with his derail, it's total income in the economy per hour of work.

FKA is making the Obama argument that the workers didn't build that. The equipment is bought and paid for by the business owner, so the worker making him more money shouldn't matter in regards to what he pays his workers. He's then repeatedly ignoring the fact that if you are going to measure the productivity solely by the value the workers input, then the value of the payment and benefits that come with the position must be considered, and those have fallen drastically as well.

---

Me not agreeing with you is a derail. That's funny and seems to be misused much like "strawman" when people cannot counter the counter argument.

But congrats on that Kamala worth word salad.

---

You aren't disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with the Economic Policy Forum's data by redefining what the word productivity means. And then saying anyone who disagrees with you is just whining.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Do you need it defined to you as well? Per the chart I originally posted that started FKA with his derail, it's total income in the economy per hour of work.

FKA is making the Obama argument that the workers didn't build that. The equipment is bought and paid for by the business owner, so the worker making him more money shouldn't matter in regards to what he pays his workers. He's then repeatedly ignoring the fact that if you are going to measure the productivity solely by the value the workers input, then the value of the payment and benefits that come with the position must be considered, and those have fallen drastically as well.

---

Me not agreeing with you is a derail. That's funny and seems to be misused much like "strawman" when people cannot counter the counter argument.

But congrats on that Kamala worth word salad.

---

You aren't disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with the Economic Policy Forum's data by redefining what the word productivity means. And then saying anyone who disagrees with you is just whining.

---

I do not think I need to accept anyone elses definition of productivity over my own. You will find this is a common pattern with me. I deal in concepts and actual meanings in which care as I and others have pointed out that someone merely thinking that AI and a laptop make them 2x / 4x more productive but they are not paid for that additional productivity is asinine and ignores so much else as to be a completely useless anecdote.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

TommyBrady said:

---

32 hour work week but getting paid for 40…what could go wrong???

---

TBF, you and I are both 2-4x as productive as an employee from the 50's. Yet we make drastically less when accounting for inflation.

---

You are NOT 2x / 4x more productive than an employee from the 1950s.

---

What are you talking about? Of course you are. Take your laptop, phone, and calculator away. Replace email with written memos. No phone lines directly to anyone. See how much work you actually get done across a business quarter.

Now go try to place an order. Anywhere. For anything. Try to dictate what is being worked on and why. Try to change what is being worked on by responding to a market need or failure.

There's a reason NASA doesn't have a pool anymore of very smart but slightly under educated people whose sole job is to solve second order differential equations. (hint: its because we all have computers).

---

Anecdotals aside, measuring productivity is a fun game people play not unlike political polling and measuring global warming / climate change.

CAD and improvements in construction definitely made the act of building a home more productive / efficient. But then that productivity "gain" was consumed in more complex product and methods. Both result in a place to rest your head at night, and yes the current home may be nicer, have more features, but the overall function to society remains the same.

Overall point, its an way overly simplistic assertion and then tying that to a discussion on compensation overlooks a ton of things.

---

Clearly, you're not interested in actually discussing the topic and just want to waive your hands and say it can't be calculated or can't point to any meaning.

Lets just go back to our day jobs we're currently being 4x more unproductive at than a 1950s worker.

---

Yeah, I tried pointing out that he changed what his argument was and he replied with "what's your point?"

He's what we like to call "dug in".

See my post above.

You guys go around and demand shorter work weeks, higher salaries and more time off cause you use AI and a laptop to run circles around everyone else.

fka ftc said:

---

See my post above.

You guys go around and demand shorter work weeks, higher salaries and more time off cause you use AI and a laptop to run circles around everyone else.

---

Look, you clearly run a small business and pat yourself on the back for providing your employees Glassdoor average salaries instead of minimum.

You can't even see the whys lurking beneath this push for 4 days. For someone who has accused me multiple of just using anecdotal evidence you certainly like leaning on the fact that your handful of employees have a compensation that is probably 10% more than you want to pay but do and call it goodwill.

This is about the changing landscape of careers, employment, work, and productivity that is reactionary to 50+ years of corporate America squeezing the middle class. Every single career path is more cutthroat, higher costs to enter, has a lower ROI than when you entered the workforce, against a backdrop of increased expense for everything.

You're probably 55+, have seen your house appreciate 10x, had a wife stay at home with your kids when they were young, and you've recently struck out on your own within the last 10 years after a severance package, and just can't understand why nobody wants to work nowadays.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

See my post above.

You guys go around and demand shorter work weeks, higher salaries and more time off cause you use AI and a laptop to run circles around everyone else.

---

Look, you clearly run a small business and pat yourself on the back for providing your employees Glassdoor average salaries instead of minimum.

You can't even see the whys lurking beneath this push for 4 days. For someone who has accused me multiple of just using anecdotal evidence you certainly like leaning on the fact that your handful of employees have a compensation that is probably 10% more than you want to pay but do and call it goodwill.

This is about the changing landscape of careers, employment, work, and productivity that is reactionary to 50+ years of corporate America squeezing the middle class. Every single career path is more cutthroat, higher costs to enter, has a lower ROI than when you entered the workforce, against a backdrop of increased expense for everything.

You're probably 55+, have seen your house appreciate 10x, had a wife stay at home with your kids when they were young, and you've recently struck out on your own within the last 10 years after a severance package, and just can't understand why nobody wants to work nowadays.

---

You really fall apart when you make assumptions. We pay our field managers about 50% higher than out competitors and much higher than the broader market.

Now why would fka ftc do that? Because in the business we are in much is asked. I pay my team for the time we have to work 7 days a week and for the times we may have to work 15-18 hour days and sleep at our office. 80% of my employees have worked for me over 10+ years because we reached and maintained that agreed upon give and take of work and compensation.

The bolded part is simply not true. Heck, you could start a plumbing business today with minimal investment and be a millionaire in 3 years. Instead, some guy that immigrated to this country 20 years ago and became a citizen is doing that. I have my own business now I spent my time in corp america.

Corporate america provides the ability for a true middle class to exist. Want to be low class, live off the government. Want to be upper class, word harder, move up, be a doctor / lawyer / pilot and put in the time, start your own business or simply get elected to congress.

BTW, I am 46. Struck out on my own with a newborn and 6 weeks pay from the old job. That was 14 years ago. Nice swings and misses, remind be of the stros these days.

Regarding

Don't bore me with anecdotes.

It's a complex issue.

And you're too young to not understand even the critiques of what corporations have done to hollow out the middle class.

And it seems I was mostly on the mark. You have a stay at home wife, and your house has probably seen 4x appreciation. Living the boomer lite dream.

Congrats on paying your 5 field managers 50% more. Really offsetting the broad, multi generational concerns underpinning this conversation.

If I wanted to work 7 days a week I could easily be making 300-400k for that opportunity. And it's funny you bring up owning a trade. Eventually someone's got to do the work, and it once again becomes a game of - why doesn't anyone want to destroy their knees and back while I take phone calls and shake hands?

Again, your compensation package is the opposite of corporate America. Work hard, eat what you kill. Your model exists partially as a success because that's not how corporate America works, and upside has been continually ratcheted down and down and down in corporate America. And that's why people who don't see a path upwards just say F if, give me 4 days a week and let me enjoy my lower middle class lifestyle in peace.

fka ftc said:

---

See my post above.

You guys go around and demand shorter work weeks, higher salaries and more time off cause you use AI and a laptop to run circles around everyone else.

---

I never made that demand, or even support that.

It seems as though when you were wrong about something (the productivity of the average worker compared to 50+ years ago), so you've deflected to other arguments.

Which is fine. That doesn't mean your comment wasn't incorrect.

Proposition Joe said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

See my post above.

You guys go around and demand shorter work weeks, higher salaries and more time off cause you use AI and a laptop to run circles around everyone else.

---

I never made that demand, or even support that.

It seems as though when you were wrong about something (the productivity of the average worker compared to 50+ years ago), so you've deflected to other arguments.

Which is fine. That doesn't mean your comment wasn't incorrect.

---

Nuh uh. Was too correct.

That's the level of discussion there.

If we want a better discussion on productivity, it helps to not stick to one particular nuanced definition based on a graph. Thanks.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Don't bore me with anecdotes.

It's a complex issue.

And you're too young to not understand even the critiques of what corporations have done to hollow out the middle class.

And it seems I was mostly on the mark. You have a stay at home wife, and your house has probably seen 4x appreciation. Living the boomer lite dream.

Congrats on paying your 5 field managers 50% more. Really offsetting the broad, multi generational concerns underpinning this conversation.

If I wanted to work 7 days a week I could easily be making 300-400k for that opportunity. And it's funny you bring up owning a trade. Eventually someone's got to do the work, and it once again becomes a game of - why doesn't anyone want to destroy their knees and back while I take phone calls and shake hands?

Again, your compensation package is the opposite of corporate America. Work hard, eat what you kill. Your model exists partially as a success because that's not how corporate America works, and upside has been continually ratcheted down and down and down in corporate America. And that's why people who don't see a path upwards just say F if, give me 4 days a week and let me enjoy my lower middle class lifestyle in peace.

---

Every single small to medium trade I have come across was owned by someone who started working. You think the owner of xyz local plumber shakes hands? But they make money these days.

You seem miserable in your corporate job. Your name is not Michael Bolton is it? Do you work for Initech?

fka ftc said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

See my post above.

You guys go around and demand shorter work weeks, higher salaries and more time off cause you use AI and a laptop to run circles around everyone else.

---

I never made that demand, or even support that.

It seems as though when you were wrong about something (the productivity of the average worker compared to 50+ years ago), so you've deflected to other arguments.

Which is fine. That doesn't mean your comment wasn't incorrect.

---

Nuh uh. Was too correct.

That's the level of discussion there.

If we want a better discussion on productivity, it helps to not stick to one particular nuanced definition based on a graph. Thanks.

---

I think I can get a good idea of your grasp of productivity simply by watching how bogged down you get in trying to be right about something absolutely trivial but that you just need that last word... and.... cue...

Quote:

---

If an employee can do the same amount of work in 32 hours, then they were slacking, were they not?

---

They can't. They don't. They are lying.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

...... And that's why people who don't see a path upwards just say F if, give me 4 days a week and let me enjoy my lower middle class lifestyle in peace.

---

You perfectly align with America's obesity problem. You want to sit on your couch, eat junk food and bad mouth the system because you are not fit and healthy.

Sure you could go to the gym, run, eat good food, and take care of yourself but who wants to do that. That's way too much effort. All those guys in 1950 did not have to work out and they were slim and trim.

You deserve to be skinny. Corporate America has robbed you of your beautiful physique and they need to fix it.

Wait, what's that you say? You want to spend more time on the couch and eat more junk food but expect corporate to make you even more healthy?
Sounds fair, those greedy *******s.

The 40 hour workweek was introduced in a society where:

• The overwhelming majority of people got married.
• The man was the household breadwinner.
• Meanwhile, the woman would take care of the household.
• Thus, the man could come home to a clean house, with dinner already made, and just relax after work.

But that's changed. Now a man has to put in 8 hours at the office and cook his own dinner. So maybe we should question that expectation.

Under no circumstance does stating, 'technology has led to productivity gains and corporations are using it to erode the middle class' have anything to do with obesity.

Y'all are absolutely, mouth frothing, insane.

4 10 hour days. I'll allow it.