Board 8 > Do you thinking working 40 HOURS a week is reasonable in today's society?

(+) Yeah! (+)

A typical full time job in the US is 40 hrs/week every week with a few vacation/holidays days included which may or may not be paid...but is that a fair and reasonable amount? Should it be more or less? Should we scrap the need for work and just have basic income where everyone gets paid to do nothing?

Let's see what people think.
---

Those options are not very well thought out. Work would not disappear with basic income.

Pretty sad that so many people have been brainwashed into believing that 40 hours is reasonable...
---

Sounds fine.
---

Thing is, most of the time it's over 40 hours. Waking up earlier, getting ready, getting to work, and getting home can easily turn an 8 hour day into a 10-12 hour day.

I know, I'm currently living in that nightmare. 1.5 hour bus commute both ways in a single day. FML.
---

Vlado posted...

Those options are not very well thought out. Work would not disappear with basic income.

Pretty sad that so many people have been brainwashed into believing that 40 hours is reasonable...

What do you think is reasonable, vlado?
---

The first thing I think of is 18-24 hours, i.e. 3 full work days (at 6-8 hours), 4-day weekends.
---

well that'd be nice if I could pay the bills that way
---

It would require some people to settle for us making them 50x our salares' worth richer, as opposed to 100x... Which swiftly brings us to the subject of big banking and globalism, which we've been over many times.
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

well that'd be nice if I could pay the bills that way

with basic income you could pay the bills working 0 days a week, even!
---

40 hours is reasonable today. 10 years from now, probably not.

The economy will eventually collapse without something like basic income, but it's not necessary yet
---

I don't think it'd be a good idea (for me at least) to work 0 hours even if my income somehow stayed the same

I want more free time than I have but I have to do SOMETHING productive I think.
---

40 hours is reasonable but it should be 4 ten hour days instead of 5 eight hour days. I would gladly work a few more hours each day if it meant I got an entire extra day.
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

I want more free time than I have but I have to do SOMETHING productive I think.

Same.
Anything less than 30/week would make me feel like a bum, anything over 50/week makes me exhausted.
---

lol 40

i've been logging over 60 almost all month
---

Vlado posted...

Those options are not very well thought out. Work would not disappear with basic income.

When Vlado understands basic economics better than you!
---

I would prefer 30 but I'm just glad I only have to work 40.

I know to many salaried people who work 50-60 hours a week.
---

tbh I don't think most people actually get 40 hours of productive work in a week even if they say they're working that much
---

Currently over FIFTY FOUR % believe 40 hrs/week is reasonable! No wonder why there have been no attempts to change the definition of full time when the majority believes we work enough...but what say those that want BASIC INCOME? Should we reach a point where work is optional instead of required?
---

It's reasonable for me. For other people it might not be reasonable.
---

40
And you complain

Israel standard work week is 45 hours
---

http://macromeme.com/cat/buschemi-insane.jpg
---

Basic income still strikes me as a bad idea. You're giving money to people who don't need it, which costs a lot more than just giving it to people who do.
---

Certainly unreasonable to me
---

I’m not sure how basic income would be paid for if a large portion of the workforce stopped working, either through not wanting to work or being replaced through automation.
---

paperwarior posted...

Basic income still strikes me as a bad idea. You're giving money to people who don't need it, which costs a lot more than just giving it to people who do.

You can't just "give money to people who need it" because whenever there is an imbalance in a welfare system, the powerful are the ones to benefit the most at a detriment to the weak.

So given that there will always have to be SOME welfare system, a flat basic income is far better at giving help to those who need it than opinionated and imbalanced alternatives. There's also a negative income tax, which is basic income that quickly tapers off as income increases, which is still completely objective, but it creates perverse incentives towards the top edge of the taper that would hurt those around it. But it would still probably work best in practice considering how much cheaper it is.
---

paperwarior posted...

Basic income still strikes me as a bad idea. You're giving money to people who don't need it, which costs a lot more than just giving it to people who do.

That's a wrong way to look at it. By giving them enough money to survive, it would allow creative people to try their own ideas instead of wage-slaving to make some rich dipshit even richer, and eventually having their drive get lost in oblivion.
---

I guess 40 is fine

I'm really hoping I can avoid having to work 50-60 once I graduate
---

foolm0r0n posted...

paperwarior posted...

Basic income still strikes me as a bad idea. You're giving money to people who don't need it, which costs a lot more than just giving it to people who do.

You can't just "give money to people who need it" because whenever there is an imbalance in a welfare system, the powerful are the ones to benefit the most at a detriment to the weak.

So given that there will always have to be SOME welfare system, a flat basic income is far better at giving help to those who need it than opinionated and imbalanced alternatives. There's also a negative income tax, which is basic income that quickly tapers off as income increases, which is still completely objective, but it creates perverse incentives towards the top edge of the taper that would hurt those around it. But it would still probably work best in practice considering how much cheaper it is.

It's true that there are costs from managing who "needs" it, yes. A decrease proportional to other income does help some, although it does have the problem you mentioned, as does the current welfare system. I've just heard that the projected costs would be pretty damn high due to the number of people alone.
On topic, I guess 40 hours is pretty reasonable.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I guess 40 is fine

I'm really hoping I can avoid having to work 50-60 once I graduate

good luck being poor
---

SmartMuffin posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

I guess 40 is fine

I'm really hoping I can avoid having to work 50-60 once I graduate

good luck being poor

I mean, I think I'm pretty unlikely to be poor with my physics PhD
---

Vlado posted...

That's a wrong way to look at it. By giving them enough money to survive, it would allow creative people to try their own ideas instead of wage-slaving to make some rich dipshit even richer, and eventually having their drive get lost in oblivion.

Or worse, joining online hate campaigns to try to give their life meaning/purpose
---

SmartMuffin posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

I guess 40 is fine

I'm really hoping I can avoid having to work 50-60 once I graduate

good luck being poor

Or have a skill that has actual market value so you can work just 20~ hours a week and make more money than losers who went through a whole college program just to get a piece of paper to convince dumb rich people to hire them
---