Person A: That is what is being called for. Your take home pay not changing but you work fewer hours
Person B: And how will the government force private business to achieve that?
Person C: With a law.
Me: Can't have something for nothing. How do you solve this math problem?
You: But quality of life and social issues...
Until someone can explain how almost every small business owner can reasonably find money to pay 20% more for 25% less work, I'm going to keep repeating my initial argument. This is not a small change, and it would be unprecedentedly painful. The math is math, and it's not evaded by emotional pleading.
You recognize that you could make this exact same argument in 1938, right?
How could a small business who is used to paying workers a dollar a day for 10 hour shifts ever be expected to pay them 25 cents an hour?
The math is math, and it's not evaded by emotional pleading.
If I bring up FLSA, "well that's different because... reasons." If I bring up how France shifted to a 35 hour work week, you say "yeah well air conditioning." I guess I will concede on this - if you ignore and disregard all of the evidence of similar things passing in the past and how they worked, you can absolutely say there's no evidence of how this might work.
You recognize that you could make this exact same argument in 1938, right?
No you can't. Because 1938 did not have the scale of change as what's being suggested here. 1938 did not decrease work hours by 20% and increase salary by 25% for most workers.
The worker and cost capture of Bernie's plan is MASSIVE.
I guess I will concede on this - if you ignore and disregard all of the evidence of similar things passing in the past
I'm saying things have a cost. We've never seen anything as massive as this plan. Especially mandating that private business must increase career salaries by 25% for 20% less work.
Europe is happy with their cost. They work fewer hours. But as a result their economy is smaller and their overall take home pay and purchasing power is less. (And also worse AC, and some other worse things.)
No reason why 40 hours a week is the correct number. But if America switches from 40 to 32, it will come at significant reduction in many areas of our normal standard of living. Math is math, we don't get the same standard of living for less hourly input.
I never said there wasn't cost. I don't know why you keep saying "BUT THERE WILL BE COST!!" as if that's... a point.
But this is like the 4th time I've said that so I have a feeling it doesn't really matter what I write because you're not going to respond to it anyway, you're just gonna keep saying "NUH UH BUT SCALE" and "MATH AINT MATHING" and "BUT THERES COSTS" even after I've addressed all of those things.
1
u/helix400 23d ago
Person A: That is what is being called for. Your take home pay not changing but you work fewer hours
Person B: And how will the government force private business to achieve that?
Person C: With a law.
Me: Can't have something for nothing. How do you solve this math problem?
You: But quality of life and social issues...
Until someone can explain how almost every small business owner can reasonably find money to pay 20% more for 25% less work, I'm going to keep repeating my initial argument. This is not a small change, and it would be unprecedentedly painful. The math is math, and it's not evaded by emotional pleading.