posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 11:23 PM
Originally posted by Freedom or Death
If you don't pay for it no one will have any incentive to produce it, then you won't have what you need or there at least won't be enough of it to
That's scarcity thinking.
We have more than enough.
A reduction in hours in not an elimination of the system.
People will still get paid under a 20 hour system and there will be rewards for increaed productivity.
Increased effort = increased pay.
[edit on 5-6-2010 by Freedom or Death]
Although I do agree that there is a lot of greed in our Capitalistic society, and I do believe the work week should be shorter, I wouldn't put the
number at 20. I really doubt twenty hours a week is realistic. Why do you think that could work?
The truth is, scarcity does exist. It requires educated people to come up with several products and solutions in our society, and several skilled
labourers to do a large amount of specialized work as well. These people's abilities are scarce. Not everyone can develop them or has the resources
to develop them. Everybody has different talents. We also have limited natural resources.
The 20 hour work week though is unrealistic. How would you suggest we cut this down? Automated production? Someone has to take care of the large
amount of machines then. Someone also has to manufacture them. At the same time, the demand for these machine makers/maintainers will rise, so will
their wages, along with the hours they need to work.
I just don't see it working. Labour is in demand, and to double everyones wages just won't happen if we keep the economy in equilibrium. You just
can't get enough work done in 4 hours a day!
[edit on 113030p://666 by For(Home)Country]