Nancy Pelosi: Death of 40 Hour Work Week Frees Americans to Pursue Happiness

reply to post by FlyersFan


People get to whom they voted for. She wouldn't be in office otherwise. Just get wise and
vote her out because she is a joke. Lets see that she gets obamacare and see how she would like it.

When I saw this pic the other day, one of the first people I thought of was Pelosi - although it's so true of so many people running this country.

Problem is - THEY don't know.



I see stupid people!

Daedalus
reply to post by Aazadan

 

prices go down, because people have less money?

minimum wage drives up costs?

what in the HELL are you talking about?

minimum wage has no impact on the cost of anything, and if it were true that people having less money, reduced prices on stuff, almost everything would be free...

where do you get this stuff?

Prices always go up right after a minimum wage increase, it's because corporations pass the costs on to the customer.

Minimum wage has plenty of impact on the cost of things, I don't feel like debating it in this thread though (though I will say, I'm in favor of having a significantly higher wage... it's completely beside the point though).

The median wage in the US is $50,000, people have plenty of money even though wages are in decline. Furthermore, we put things on credit cards which make peoples purchasing power a bit more liquid. Credit will eventually dry up and that will cease.

Back to my point though, when everyone is earning less, goods sell for less money. Have you ever bought items in poor countries? You can get the same electronic gadget that costs $700 in the US for $50.

If the work week declines (which I'm entirely in favor of) the prices of goods will shift to accommodate peoples new income levels because we have the productivity to still produce to excess. It will also do wonders for unemployment.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Okay, what I have to say about her is that she is right - kind of. It does sound nice to live in a society where people are able to work part-time and afford healthcare, a place to live, a car, internet, food, gas, and have hobbies and friends. It really sounds nice!

Implementation. That is where it falls massively apart.

The Venus Project anyone!!!

reply to post by FlyersFan


How many (USA) people reading this post has health care (insurance) from their current job right now and how much are you paying for it per month?

Personally I'm covered for most everything at 100% after my co-pay and deductible. For me to have this insurance, I'm personally paying $850.00 and my employee pays the remaining $900.00.

So this is about the cost for me to have health insurance with out obamacare.

$850.00 out of pocket per month via pay check.
($50.00 per medicine, then $15.00 x2 - $56.00 x1 $1200.00 x1)
$50.00x4= $200.00 (one time charge per year )
$1286.00 every 30 days I pay this to the pharmacy to get my medicine (these are co-pays)

Per month I pay out of my own pocket $2136.00. This is just for 1 person. Lucky for me, the wife and two kids don't get sick too much.

How much would I pay if I had Obamacare? ALOT less. But I'm one of the lucky ones that don't need Obamacare to survive.

personally, I can careless regarding Obamacare.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Pelosi is from planet Idiot and she really needs to grab Obama and the rest of the career politicians and go back.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by 2XOHsurf


Continue? I just saw it said once. What's with the paranoia? Someone states an opinion that you don't like so you take it to a personal level, nice.

Really!? I barely make it with my full time hours as it is. But hey, at least I will be healthy. Hungry and bored but, healthy. Annnnd when I get hungry I can just fall more under the control of the Government and get food stamps. Why not socialized Internet while we are at it. How about one of those free cell phones too?

reply to post by FlyersFan

If you bother to watch the video it's obvious that Pelosi is referring to Obamacare when she says, "“Overwhelmingly, for the American people, this is a liberation,” and certainly not to the issue of the 'end of the 40 hour work week'.

The linked article is a great example of propaganda with its careful use of ellipses to obfuscate the meaning of the quotation. The idea that a politician would refer to employers cutting workers' hours and wages as liberating is ludicrous.

Do any of you bother to read the articles and watch the video before commenting, or am I alone here?

Not to mention that the linked article is published by a political action committee, Bizpac. They are quite literally paid shills whose goal is to influence public opinion. apparently, their stock in trade is deceptively quoted articles!

FlyersFan
She said cutting the hours would liberate people and give them freedom to pursue their happiness. YES, that's what she said.

That is a flat out lie.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Yes and we should start with her job and all the rest of the other scum in government. Minimum wage and part time sounds fair for what little they do. Why not they don't even read bills and do their job right. We might as well fire them and hire Raggedy Ann we'll get the same outcome. At least Raggedy Ann won't say stupid things.

reply to post by FlyersFan


...and still she get re-elected. That fact stands as an indictment of the American voter, Californian in particular, the rest of us in general.

Only someone totally out of touch with reality would make such an asinine comment. Nanny govt. will care for us. ...and to pay for it, we'll soak those who actually believe in working for what they have.

reply to post by Daedalus

my job offered health insurance, and i had it for a while, but it was the lowest tier, and it was worthless, and i rarely found myself actually needing it, so i canceled it, because i couldn't justify the expenditure....i needed the money. now, with this latest example of federal meddling in the affairs of the citizenry, i will no longer have the option to NOT take the company plan, and the associated hit to my pay.....no matter how badly i need the money.

so tell me how you believe it works to make minimum wage, work less than 40 hours, and have no options for insurance.....tell me how that works, frees anyone up for anything more than another job or two, and how it's supposed to make anyone happier

No, you are not forced to take your employer offered health insurance. You can still get a plan off the exchange. And if you are struggling as you say you are, I'm sure you will qualify for subsidies to help you buy insurance.

If people are working for minimum wage and less than 40 hours, their insurance will almost all be paid for them.

The death of the 40 hour work week would be wonderful if
wages were honestly high enough to make ends meet at
those hours. The people this will most effect will not see
any benefit from this action, mark my words, food will not
go down in price, fuel will not go down in price, neither will
energy costs or housing...... good luck y'all.

Whether or not she claims this will be a good thing, it is
clearly a side effect of the bill she supports fully, while
she may not have said what the OP claimed the outcome
will be the same, workers who cannot afford to get by let
alone buy the new required insurance.... what a waste
of time.

reply to post by AlienScience


So we're supposed to get govt. help to pay for govt. mandated health insurance? Is that what you're saying? Really?

Instead of that, how about we lower the taxes on everyone so that they can keep more of their money? Oh, right, that would make us a bit too independent for the tastes of some of our more idiotic politicians... Pelosi comes quickly to mind for some reason...

seagull
So we're supposed to get govt. help to pay for govt. mandated health insurance? Is that what you're saying? Really?

Instead of that, how about we lower the taxes on everyone so that they can keep more of their money?

Which taxes?

Daedalus
reply to post by Bluesma

 

I need to ask though...what's the cost of living look like over there? and how well are people paid over there?

if they're paid decently for their time, and the cost of living isn't excessive, i can see how that would be a pretty sweet deal....

I found the information on this page to seem accurate-
www.numbeo.com...

In conducting an overall comparision between the US and French averages, it looks like the cost of living is a bit higher in France, and the salary is a bit lower. But style of living is pretty different too, with much less consumerism in general, so that is why I wonder if the same systems would be effective in the US, even if they are here.

Average Monthly Disposable Salary (After Tax) US- 3,200.00 $ France- 2,704.90 $

Once you bring home your paycheck, you don't have to pay for medical insurance or bills... that makes a difference. Depending upon your income level, there are lots of aid people get- especially if you have children, you get a certain amount from the state, for school expenses and such. Basically, it is easy to have the necessities for living (a roof over your head, food, basic medical care, basic education).

Some people do just feel that is all they need, and they stick with that. Job security is really well protected by laws too, so those people end up staying in the same job all their life.
Many of us americans tend to feel a lack of ambition is shameful, so we wouldn't be content with that?

In my personal case, my husbands income is way above that average, I do not need to work. (living with an american wife cultivates ambition and taste for luxuries...) but I work anyway, for pleasure. We pay a LOT of taxes, and are aware they are going to aiding other people. But we used to be the ones receiving that aid before, so we feel okay doing so. We couldn't have gotten where we are without that support in the beginning.

I think most americans don't like that idea. The french in general feel that aiding them to have employment is done through legislature they vote for. Americans don't like the idea of the government having any power over corporations, so that wouldn't work either.

I don't know... my family in america seems to struggle and have a difficult time, and yet when I see how much they make monthly, I don't get it. Until I note little things like that they have huge payments on their car and house, and getting a coffee each day means a huge 7 dollar thing, they'll pay 100 dollars monthly to get their dog washed and trimmed.... I realize all is relative, and "necessity" doesn't indicate the same thing for everyone!

FlyersFan
She said cutting the hours would liberate people and give them freedom to pursue their happiness. YES, that's what she said. Less hours and less money somehow equates to 'freedom to pursue happiness' in her twisted mind.

I actually LOL'd to read the way you wrote this! If you don't mind, I want to copy and save it. It would really help me to illustrate to foreigners the American mentality (because they do ask me about it a lot).


A walk in the forest, a long afternoon meal in the garden with the family and friends is considered happiness, but not long hours in the office and a lot of money in the bank!

They have trouble believing me when I say americans LIKE working- it makes them HAPPY- the knowledge that they possess money makes them happy- and it is all tied up in self esteem. We judge our worth by how much we work, not what kind of parent, spouse, friend, son, daughter, aunt or uncle we are. Those roles are secondary.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Perhaps Obama is trying to spin bad news into good, but in principle the death of the 40 hour week is a good thing.

ATSers shouldn't on one hand accuse TPTB of trying to keep the masses dumb and distracted so that they work hard and consume, then on the other hand complain when TPTB tell them they'll be working less...

Shorter working hours = less income = less money to spend. I'd guess that if this became widespread and permanent then manufacturers, retailers, producers etc will still want to sell in bulk so prices will slowly but probably inevitably drop, equalising the economy to function with less money flowing, or should i say haemorrhaging.

Now i'm certainly no economist, but this just seems like common sense. Don't put politicians in a 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' scenario - it's the kind of scenario that the good politicians are powerless in and the bad politicians capitalise on.