What's your take on annual leave?

[McLovin]

I don't see this as a very big problem. How often do you need a plumber, how much does it cost, and how overpriced are contractors in Australia anyway?

The plumber was just an example. In a service based economy, if the cost of labour remains the same then the purchasing power of a dollar is unlikely to change much but your ability to earn dollars will have halved.

That of course assumes that everyone is happy to work only 20 hours/week. I would envisage a thriving black market for labour.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Well I just can't help but disagree. I don't take credit for the idea either, I believes Kaynes does. It was also the conclusion of a very recent study by a UK think tank. They said it will improve both productivity and people's lives.

 

[McLovin]

Well I just can't help but disagree. I don't take credit for the idea either, I believes Kaynes does.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Do you have some source for that? I'd be interested to read it.

ETA: I found this article...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/08/cut-working-week-urges-thinktank

It all seems a bit pipe dreamy. If people want to work 60 hours/week, I don't see why the government should tell them they can't. Unless we want to head down the road of collective farming and 5 year plans.

The EU imposes a 48 hour working time directive to member nations. First day at my first job in London, I signed a Working Directive Waiver which meant I agreed to work over 48 hours. Didn't bother me one bit. I liked my work. And I was well remunerated for it.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

The EU imposes a 48 hour working time directive to member nations. First day at my first job in London, I signed a Working Directive Waiver which meant I agreed to work over 48 hours. Didn't bother me one bit. I liked my work. And I was well remunerated for it.

That's simply because it's the current paradigm and you like many others have gotten used to it.

Imagine all the same....but working only 20 hours a week. Who would be against it? That would be crazy.

 

[McLovin]

Imagine all the same....but working only 20 hours a week. Who would be against it? That would be crazy.

I would be. It would get pretty boring pretty quickly. A lot of people actually enjoy what they do. I doubt I'm alone. If someone came along and said you will now earn 50% less than you did, I don't think you'd get many takers.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

I would be. It would get pretty boring pretty quickly. A lot of people actually enjoy what they do. I doubt I'm alone. If someone came along and said you will now earn 50% less than you did, I don't think you'd get many takers.

No, but you need to put it in perspective...again if everyone earned 50% less it would make no difference at all - it would be a pointless condition.

How can it get boring? The world is pretty big and there are infinite things to do out there, more than you can do in a hundred lifetimes.

There's also nothing to say that you can't do what you like in the comfort of your house in the precise way that you want - without having to have your employer telling you the how, when and where, etc.

 

[McLovin]

No, but you need to put it in perspective...again if everyone earned 50% less it would make no difference at all - it would be a pointless condition.

That's not true. Under your scenario, the cost of labour doesn't fall, you just cap the amount of time people can work. You won't create cheaper goods. Have a look at what drives costs in businesses, very few of them would be lower in your scenario. Maybe you could give me an example of what inputs would fall?

How can it get boring? The world is pretty big and there are infinite things to do out there, more than you can do in a hundred lifetimes.

Sure, but if you're working 20 hours/week you still need to be around for 20 hours/week. You'll also be earning significantly less so international travel will be relatively more expensive.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

That's not true. Under your scenario, the cost of labour doesn't fall

Really, the cost of labour has fallen dramatically in the last 100 years. How many workers does it take to run a big farm compared to back then? My point is that simply speaking the workers themselves have not reaped the benefits of these productivity increases that have occurred.

Everything is becoming more mechanised and computerised - the amount of labour being required for everything is less and less. It only makes sense then to have people work less and less to keep up - otherwise more and more would become unemployed.

you just cap the amount of time people can work. You won't create cheaper goods. Have a look at what drives costs in businesses, very few of them would be lower in your scenario. Maybe you could give me an example of what inputs would fall?

That really depends on the type of business. I am not suggesting that everything about how businesses operate will be identical. But it is possible for this to happen and for the economy to adjust itself.

Sure, but if you're working 20 hours/week you still need to be around for 20 hours/week. You'll also be earning significantly less so international travel will be relatively more expensive.

I don't see why? The demand and supply will be exactly the same so the costs will simply adjust to match it. That is what I am suggesting - the costs of everything will go down the same as everyone's salary, so the end result is little change for consumers.

 

[McLovin]

I don't see why? The demand and supply will be exactly the same so the costs will simply adjust to match it. That is what I am suggesting - the costs of everything will go down the same as everyone's salary, so the end result is little change for consumers.

OK, I'll run through this one more time.

Assume I run a hairdressing salon.

I charge $10 for a haircut and the average hairdresser can do 2 haircuts/hour. They generate $20/hour in revenue (and I take $10, which I need to pay for overheads etc). For arguments sake, they earn $10/hour and work 40 hours/week, earning $400/week. Now assume that they are limited to working 20 hours/week. Their wage remains unchanged at $10/hour. I now need to employ two units of labour to do the work of one only because of legislation not because of a loss in productivity. In total they still earn $400/week, but now that is split between the two of them. The cost to me (the employer) has not changed. I can't lower my prices (my expenses haven't changed). So whereas a haircut used to cost $15/$400 = 3.75% of a hairdressers wage, it now costs 7.5% of the their weekly wage. Repeat that across the economy.

I don't know how else to explain it. Your conclusion is incorrect. If hourly wages fell by half then, perhaps, the price of goods and services would too. The actual cost of selling a product is not in the manufacture it's in all the services required to get it from factory to consumer.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

The cost to me (the employer) has not changed.

Why not? The cost of what will not change?

This theory will see that rent, electricity and tax all drop by the same amount.

 

[McLovin]

Why not? The cost of what will not change?

The cost of providing a hair cut.

This theory will see that rent, electricity and tax all drop by the same amount.

Why would it? You're assuming that only the demand side drives prices.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

The cost of providing a hair cut.

Well we don't really know that do we, perhaps the haircutter will be happier because they only need to work 20 hours and do haircuts quicker?

Additionally, it's quite probably the the cost of labour and the price of a haircut will converse to enable the business to maintain it's margin.

Why would it? You're assuming that only the demand side drives prices.

Well I don't suspect people working half the amount of time will devour rental space or reduce the temperatures at which coal burns...

 

[McLovin]

Well we don't really know that do we, perhaps the haircutter will be happier because they only need to work 20 hours and do haircuts quicker?

Additionally, it's quite probably the the cost of labour and the price of a haircut will converse to enable the business to maintain it's margin.



Well I don't suspect people working half the amount of time will devour rental space or reduce the temperatures at which coal burns...

I give up. This is like arguing that the sky isn't blue.

 

[RandR]

I don't see this as a very big problem. How often do you need a plumber, how much does it cost, and how overpriced are contractors in Australia anyway?

$85 an hour

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

I've got wayyyy to much leave accrued. I frequently work weekends and have accrued a significant amount of time in lieu over the last few years. I took six weeks off over Xmas...and didn't actually use any of my annual leave. I worked out the other day I've got enough leave to take a long weekend every weekend for the next three years...not that I will I love my job.

Cheers

Sir O

 

[nulla nulla]

I can take it or leave it.....

 

[Starcraftmazter]

$85 an hour

Far too much - that number can easily be cut in 3. Don't even need to go to university to be a plumber!

 

[breaker]

$85 an hour

$100 an hour here

 

[breaker]

I give up. This is like arguing that the sky isn't blue.

He doesn't drink

And stargazer there are less people on a farm because we can't afford the labor

 

[Starcraftmazter]

He doesn't drink

And stargazer there are less people on a farm because we can't afford the labor

Nonsense.