The 40 hour work week conspiracy

reply to post by abecedarian


Might I ask what you do for a living?

reply to post by Freedom or Death


Check this out. How about government workers work 20 hours and they all work making food and providing essential services to the population. So all of our basic needs are taken care of. Now if you want to be rich you can go work your for a dollar an hour or more. There would be no need for minimum wages. Your true value of worth would be paid, or you could simply sit at home and do nothing. If you chose to sit home and do nothing after so long the government puts you to work providing essential services for others. Because you do nothing and suck off the system a person who does nothing must work for the services that are provided to keep them going for other people sucking off the system. I would imagine we could have every basic need and work 1 year out of our lifetime keeping everyone healthy and fed.

Originally posted by Three Legs
reply to post by abecedarian

 

Might I ask what you do for a living?

I mentioned elsewhere but I'm more than happy to oblige....
I perform maintenance and upgrades on mobile communications facilities, cellular phones, microwave relays and the like. Our company also does fiberoptic and copper work at central offices / switches, etc.

reply to post by Three Legs


Families were fine when there was only a single wage earner, then both husbands and wives started working. Guess what happened prices went up accordingly,.. supply and demand. The OP makes a valid point, if 20 hour work weeks were mandated we would all be fine, prices would adjust.

That said it won't work without mandates and a global government. If 20 hour work weeks in USA and 60 in China, competitive advantage = China. When in control the NWO could accomplish this and make it work,... I think I'll just be happy working my 40-50 hours per week. That alternative is nasty.

On a lighter yet darker note the OP, according to his signature, would have to kill himself if his idea were implemented in a way that would work as I don't think the NWO is all about "freedom".

reply to post by ExPostFacto

I would imagine we could have every basic need and work 1 year out of our lifetime keeping everyone healthy and fed.

You and everyone you know must be incredibly productive for you to believe that. We already have a shortage of nurses. So how do you think you are going to get healthcare without doctors and nurses?

Though I did find some humor in picturing government workers farming. There would be five guys watching one guy plant crops..:LOL:

reply to post by abecedarian


Thanks!
Yep, that would be pretty hard to do without being their

However, I bet you could outsource like 75% of the jobs in this country or automate them.

Originally posted by Three Legs
reply to post by abecedarian

 

Thanks!
Yep, that would be pretty hard to do without being their

However, I bet you could outsource like 75% of the jobs in this country or automate them.

Maybe a fair portion of jobs could be shipped out, but you can't outsource climbing towers, building jumpers / coaxial connections, etc. You have to be "physically" there to do it.

So like I said, there's a fair amount of job security in my line of work.

[edit on 6/6/2010 by abecedarian]

Originally posted by Three Legs
reply to post by ExPostFacto

 

I would imagine we could have every basic need and work 1 year out of our lifetime keeping everyone healthy and fed.

You and everyone you know must be incredibly productive for you to believe that. We already have a shortage of nurses. So how do you think you are going to get healthcare without doctors and nurses?

Though I did find some humor in picturing government workers farming. There would be five guys watching one guy plant crops..:LOL:

5 guys watching, 2 in a truck down the street planning, 4 in the office coordinating....

These are "union" affiliates, right?

[edit on 6/6/2010 by abecedarian]

Originally posted by slane69

The OP makes a valid point, if 20 hour work weeks were mandated we would all be fine, prices would adjust.

Thank you

Originally posted by Freedom or Death

All it would take is a congressional act to enact such a scheme.

And maybe a few tariffs here and there until the majority have accepted it and a global movement towards the 20 hour work week has begun.

CIA black op dis-information would go far towards under-mining support of longer (40 - 80+ hr) work weeks.

Indentured servitude shouldn't be difficult to break the population of once the 20 hr work week is accepted and implemented by America.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by Freedom or Death]

the reality is that this 40/week doesnt really exists .... most people dont really work 40 hours in a week ... they just stall ...


but yeah, it would be nice 20 hour ... but it would be hard I dont believe they would be able to do it

Originally posted by Faiol
the reality is that this 40/week doesnt really exists .... most people dont really work 40 hours in a week ... they just stall ...


but yeah, it would be nice 20 hour ... but it would be hard I dont believe they would be able to do it

This is my point exactly. I think that if you gave people that extra day off that they don't really work anyway, then they'd likely maintain the same level of productivity during the 32 hours they are working, and it would provide long weekends to enjoy themselves and come back more refreshed.

People also need a sense of purpose and accomplishment, but having more time to do things other than work is also going to contribute to your well-being. Imagine the additional disposable income that will be liberated from people when they have an extra day at the lake or wherever. That would certianly help the economy.

I've read that some school districts are going to cut back to a 4-day school week to cut costs. If that gains traction, you might see more support for a 4-day work week as well, because a lot of people are going to have to start taking that extra day off to watch their kids if they aren't in school.

As for the OP, I am not going sit here and debate a socialist on the merits of socialism v. capitalism. You've already been proven wrong by the USSR, North Korea, Hitler and others, so save your breath.

reply to post by Freedom or Death


So since you cannot present the logic of this, apply it to the real world, or even demonstrate any models you used...you just skip over the valid points to keep yammering on about this fantasy?

I have to ask because as confrontational as it may seem, I am genuinely interested in ideas like this. They make such an insanely minute amount of sense that I can barely believe real people post this stuff. But you do and you seem sincere. So I am taking it you believe this stuff. I would really like to see the reality in which you have applied these principles and shown them to work.

Twice as much labor cost, twice as much production, charging half for products = profits to you.

Basically what I see is x + y + z = A

where X is the letter X, Y is the letter Y, Z is the letter Z, and A is any crazy thing you want it to be.

Can you explain how they cut costs on things such as food and medication? How stores get to charge half as much without getting half off of what they pay. Many of those prices are set by deals, not on the basis of how many the manufacturer can put out in an hour.

Twice as many people working at my grocery story to stock twice as much meat they get from twice as much production at a farm that has to be twice as big which technically means it needs more labor than the double you advise since they are splitting shifts already, to breed and butcher twice as many cows, to make twice as much meat for half the price = twice as many people who need food due to advertising?

I would really like to see the 100% model that tells you how this will work.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

So since you cannot present the logic of this, apply it to the real world, or even demonstrate any models you used...

Twice as much labor cost, twice as much production, charging half for products = profits to you.

Can you explain how they cut costs on things such as food and medication? How stores get to charge half as much without getting half off of what they pay. Many of those prices are set by deals, not on the basis of how many the manufacturer can put out in an hour.

Twice as many people working at my grocery story to stock twice as much meat they get from twice as much production at a farm that has to be twice as big which technically means it needs more labor than the double you advise since they are splitting shifts already, to breed and butcher twice as many cows, to make twice as much meat for half the price = twice as many people who need food due to advertising?

I would really like to see the 100% model that tells you how this will work.

Hmmm watch this



Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was an attempt to increase the wages of workers.

www.u-s-history.com...

Here they attempted to increase wages by increasing pay.

Today the 40 hour work week has become the norm, actually it has increased to 50 - 60 or decreased to 20 - 30 in attempts to cut costs.

Implemtation of the 20 hour work week would require some modifications to the 1938 attempt to make sure the same mistakes were not made. They did learn from the 1st depression, by going to war before it occurred. Lot's of money was injected into the war Iraq and Afghanistan war effort.

The modifications that would be required are outlined here.

(Solution) Free Energy + 20 Hr Work Wk + Zero Taxes = Freedom
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 6-6-2010 by Freedom or Death]

Originally posted by Freedom or Death
Hmmm watch this

No.

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was an attempt to increase the wages of workers.

www.u-s-history.com...

Here they attempted to increase wages by increasing pay.

Today the 40 hour work week has become the norm, actually it has increased to 50 - 60 or decreased to 20 - 30 in attempts to cut costs.

I do not need or want a history lesson but thanks. I want you to actually address the very specific questions I have asked you about your premise. I do not care why you came up with it, what you think it is based on, or what history you feel will help make a case for getting rid of something. I want you to explain to me how your system is going to work. I have asked very specific questions, many of them twice now.

Implemtation of the 20 hour work week would require some modifications to the 1938 attempt to make sure the same mistakes were not made. They did learn from the 1st depression, by going to war before it occurred. Lot's of money was injected into the war Iraq and Afghanistan war effort.

The modifications that would be required are outlined here.

(Solution) Free Energy + 20 Hr Work Wk + Zero Taxes = Freedom
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 6-6-2010 by Freedom or Death]

I am not clicking on a link with "free energy" in the title because that pretty much ends it right there. If your entire premise relies on something yet to even exist, then the rest of your non logic really does not matter.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

I do not need or want a history lesson ...

I do not care ...

I am not clicking on a link with "free energy" in the title because that pretty much ends it right there. If your entire premise relies on something yet to even exist, then the rest of your non logic really does not matter.

Oh you're one of them.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by Freedom or Death]

Originally posted by Freedom or Death

Oh you're one of them.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by Freedom or Death]

People that thought you actually had a real idea only to be let down to find out it is all based on fairy dust finally being invented? Yup, I am one of those.

Sorry but that takes away any reason to take you serious in any way about your idea. It is bad enough the math is faulty at best but since it is nothing that could possibly happen any time soon because it needs something that does not exist in order to be implemented then...what is the point?

Originally posted by Freedom or Death

Originally posted by I.C. Weiner

i am all for the 20hr work week - and it will increase productivity, i know that if i am getting paid by the job i will get it done faster, more efficiently and correctly; where as if i am paid by the hour i will "milk it" and take frequent "safety meetings" and a "long lunch"......

and i usually operate on the barter system, bring me what u want fixed and pay me with a case of beer, some herbs and ciggs and we got a deal!!!!

My point exactly.

Thanks for sharing

Who takes a long lunch that gets paid hourly besides people who have crappy management or who cheat the timeclock?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

I am genuinely interested in ideas like this.

Twice as much labor cost, twice as much production, charging half for products = profits to you.

Ok KJ try to follow along

Employee makes 1 widget per shift

Employer A charges $100 for a widget
- Employee earns $25
- Employer pays $6.20 for employees share of social security
- Employer pays $1.45 for employees share of medicare
- Employer pays $.80 on first $7,000 of employees wages for State and Federal Unemployment Taxes
- Employer pays $1 for employees workmans compensation insurance
- Employer pays $5 for employees share of health insurance
----------------
Employer has earned $60.55

Eliminate everything between employees wage and the bottom total of $60.55 and now employer has reduced his cost by $14.45.

THe state provides the basic saftey net of unemployement insurance, disability and health insurance. No body has to pay for this becuase the government will print up whatever amount it needs to pay for these basic services.

Employees wages are doubled to $50, but he works 1/2 the amount of time. Essentially that means that the employee still earns $25 for his efforts, but he does it in 1/2 the amount of time. 20 hours instead of 40 hours. Employer invests the $14.45 in the technology or education neccessary to make sure this is achievable. Between wage increases (Improving emploees morale and technological improvements the employee's productivity increases to produce 1.5 widgets in a shift instead of 1)

Employer's new baseline after changes is $100 for 1 widget or $150 for 1.5 widgets.

$150 total widget production
----------
- Employee earns $50
---------
Employer has earned $75

Employer now hires a second employee and repeats the process

Employer has now earned $150 after paying for employees. This is essentially an increase of $90 in profit for the employer. Two people are now emploed and both employees now work 20 hours per week while making what the made before.

Since employees will no longer have to pay for medicare, social security, health insurance, state tax or federal income tax thier buying power increases as well, meaning employees are now earning more while working less.

And before the nay sayers come along and claim that we all need to pay these taxes, relax and realize that we really don't. The government will be able to pay for these services by just printing cash.

Free energy is really one of the key componants in reducing costs.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by Freedom or Death]

But if the government prints up money from thin air, the money decreases in value without something to back it up.

This exactly the problem we are facing now and part of the reason your buying power is going down. As such, the wages earned, although they might increase, will be offset by the increase(inflation) in price of goods and services. You will have to work more to make an amount of money of equal value from the previous year.

Further, not everything in an economy produced or provided can be cut down to 20 hour weeks. Farming, service work, landscaping, construction, ... in fact, most of those and other industries and occupations require 50+ hour weeks.

Further, people that want to get ahead, will. They will continue to work full+part time jobs, work double shifts, start businesses, and do work on the side.

Frankly, I think your premise is skewed and you are trying to justify and excuse being lazy. Most of the people I know, work with, and serve do not ride a clock to 40 hrs...they work hard, and even if given the chance to work only 20 hours, would still work 40+hours.

I work 50 hours each week as an asst.mngr at a farm supply store. The people i serve are farmers...they work 40-60+hours each week depending on the season... even in off season, they are prepping their fields, doing maintainance to equipment, handling livestock and breeding or hauling to market, repairing fences, etc.

I also have a small farm and sell firewood in the fall, sell goats and pigs in early spring and early fall. That is all we've ever known to do and we enjoy it.

My parents would go on vacation, and after about 4 days...my dad was ready to go back to work. Heck, even during holidays and vacation...we still worked around the house and farm.

I was off half a day thurs...all day friday... and half a day saturday. I put up an entire new fence line, mounted 4 gates, dug all the holes for posts with a manual post hole digger, fed and watered my livestock in the morning and in the evening, plowed my corn and getting ready to plant some peas and late corn next week.

Sounds like a lot of work, but I have a house and 5o acres... 45 which are paid for, I have a place at the coast, my daughter is in college and will graduate after next year, and we're thinking of buying a place in the mountains... don't know yet. It all came from hard work.

All those condoning this 20 hr week and socialism...how old are you, what life experiences have you had, and do you have families and children...homes?

Originally posted by Freedom or Death
And before the nay sayers come along and claim that we all need to pay these taxes, relax and realize that we really don't. The government will be able to pay for these services by just printing cash.
[edit on 6-6-2010 by Freedom or Death]

There are two American politicians who had the same vision and the power to make that vision come true.

Abraham Lincoln gave the U.S. the greenback dollar which financed the U.S. through its most difficult period.

JFK wanted to reintroduce the greenback/U.S. note.

The U.S. note is not debt based, there is no central bank or banker who are owed 13 trillion, and the government can print it to facilitate circulation and tax it to prevent inflation.

(TLDR version at the bottom)

The value of the U.S. note is fiat. That fiat value is not based on gold or silver which are being bought by the boatloads and stored by the elites. That value is based on the natural wealth of the United States. The United States is the breadbasket of the world, has tremendous energy resources in coal and natural gas, has large coastlines bordering on 3 oceans, and is located in a geo-politically stable are of the world. The U.S. is truly wealthy. The U.S. note would be valuable because of this. Not many countries are so lucky.

The existing Federal Reserve Note (the dollar) is based on the wealth of the country

The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.

www.ustreas.gov... The United States Note functions the same.

Both United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are parts of our national currency and both are legal tender. They circulate as money in the same way. However, the issuing authority for them comes from different statutes. United States Notes were redeemable in gold until 1933, when the United States abandoned the gold standard. Since then, both currencies have served essentially the same purpose, and have had the same value. Because United States Notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve Notes, their issuance was discontinued, and none have been placed in to circulation since January 21, 1971.

The difference is that the Fed is a (privately held) bank and all the Federal Reserve Notes in existence is a loan/debt, that must be paid back with interest. It doesn't take half a brain to realize why the U.S. is so deep in debt. As for the U.S. note ....United States Notes (characterized by a red seal and serial number) were the first national currency, authorized by the Legal Tender Act of 1862 and began circulating during the Civil War. The Treasury Department issued these notes directly into circulation, and they are obligations of the United States Government ...The Treasury is a branch of government which means it belongs to the people so such a currency can easily be controlled and the government would have political interest in controlling such a currency to maximize its benefit to the economy. Such currency is not debt based, if the economy needs more money, the government prints it, too much money, the government taxes it and destroys it, simple. Same purpose and strength as the Federal Reserve note but without the ball and chain debt.

A U.S. note in place of a debt based Federal Reserve note (dollar) would eliminate the giant government debt. Because the Fed note is debt based, it is only natural that Americans would be deep in debt on average. Because the Fed Note is debt based it is only natural that costs would increase and monetary value decreases. Because the Fed note is debt based, companies have to take out loans (and pay interest) to expand and the cheapest way to do this is by shifting labor overseas. Yes other countries have debt based currency but they also have a de-facto legalized slavery system.

A U.S. note currency, in addition to sensible tariffs (hey other countries do it) would make the U.S. and Americans in general so wealthy and so full of potential that no one would care whether or not they worked 20 hours, or 40, or 70. Imagine those trillions of dollars in liabilities that cripple Americans becoming an asset instead. Instead of trillions to those who own the debt, the country and the government would be free of any debt burden and can achieve anything.

A U.S. note would allow the government to advance ANY special project it desires. It can be space travel or it can be giant state worker union pensions. It can combat terror or combat poverty. So long as the government prints enough money to facilitate economic growth and destroys excess currency through smart taxation (prevents inflation), a fiat non-debt based U.S. Note would solve many economic problems.

(TLDR version)

The problem with the U.S. note is that there would be no mega powerful banking class that virtually runs the economy.

And the two powerful politicians who wanted such a currency, Abraham Lincoln and JFK shared something else in common.

A bullet to the head.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by wutone]