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?
Well I just can't help but disagree. I don't take credit for the idea either, I believes Kaynes does.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The cost of providing a hair cut.
Why would it? You're assuming that only the demand side drives prices.
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 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
$85 an hour
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?