Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours(fisherphillips.com)
fisherphillips.com
Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours
https://www.fisherphillips.com/news-insights/california-employees-4-day-workweek.html
225 comments
Because there's really no reason to question whether government should reasonably limit standard business practices – we've seen, in spades, how business practices are driven entirely and only by concerns of profit while the labor market has very little flexibility that would allow workers to "vote with their feet" and move to "better" employers without outside influence.
Put another way: Of course it's a good thing to force businesses to make work more humane and sustainable for the humans who have to do it.
Put another way: Of course it's a good thing to force businesses to make work more humane and sustainable for the humans who have to do it.
>> while the labor market has very little flexibility that would allow workers to "vote with their feet" and move to "better" employers without outside influence
Have you heard of the Great Resignation?
Have you heard of the Great Resignation?
>> Have you heard of the Great Resignation?
Isn’t the Great Resignation driven at least in part by the government’s influence? COVID lockdowns and regulations heavily incentivized employers to offer more flexibility around remote work, and COVID economic relief policies helped provide folks with the financial stability needed to look for better employment. I’m not sure this would have occurred organically without any government intervention.
Isn’t the Great Resignation driven at least in part by the government’s influence? COVID lockdowns and regulations heavily incentivized employers to offer more flexibility around remote work, and COVID economic relief policies helped provide folks with the financial stability needed to look for better employment. I’m not sure this would have occurred organically without any government intervention.
That would only explain remtoe workers, However non-remote jobs are having the same problems. Hell the MCD's in my area now has signs wanting people at up to $16/hr (min starting is $13 now)
Government policies are never the correct way to solve societal problems, even taking the premise the the "evil profit motive" is the actual reason we have seen abuse in the past (which I disagree with), the resolution to that is NEVER government as any honestly look at government policies requires one to conclused that at best the government policy just takes credit for something that was happening anyway, but more often the government policy slows or stopps the trend to improving lives
Just look at the "War on Poverty", at the start of that poverty was dropping FAST, then the government steps in to "solve" the problem of poverty that the evil free market could not (even though it was), and poverty rates flatlined.
Trillions and trillions of dollars spent later, and the government still has not solved that problem, where the free market likely would have if allowed to continue...
Government policies are never the correct way to solve societal problems, even taking the premise the the "evil profit motive" is the actual reason we have seen abuse in the past (which I disagree with), the resolution to that is NEVER government as any honestly look at government policies requires one to conclused that at best the government policy just takes credit for something that was happening anyway, but more often the government policy slows or stopps the trend to improving lives
Just look at the "War on Poverty", at the start of that poverty was dropping FAST, then the government steps in to "solve" the problem of poverty that the evil free market could not (even though it was), and poverty rates flatlined.
Trillions and trillions of dollars spent later, and the government still has not solved that problem, where the free market likely would have if allowed to continue...
How do negative externalities fit into your picture?
And you believed these are resolved with government policies?
Which ones? Point to some examples of government resolving these to the detriment of corporations?
The examples I could provide would be government shielding corporations from these negative externalities, limiting their liability, and socializing the costs to the tax payers of that government....
I can point to no examples of govermment resolving the problem of externalities
Which ones? Point to some examples of government resolving these to the detriment of corporations?
The examples I could provide would be government shielding corporations from these negative externalities, limiting their liability, and socializing the costs to the tax payers of that government....
I can point to no examples of govermment resolving the problem of externalities
The Clean Air act in the US is a good example.
If someone thinks the Government doesn't solve problems, they can just look at the 1929-1934 and how problems got "solved" under free market capitalism (before the massive government interventions starting in 1934).
(we now consider that period to be a giant mistake specifically because the government did not do enough and left free markets to their own accord)
(we now consider that period to be a giant mistake specifically because the government did not do enough and left free markets to their own accord)
No "we" do not, some people do, some people do not
There is LOTS of scholarly economics works that shows government intervention in the markets not only lets to the crash, completely extended the length the crash.
Specifically the fed actions in 1929 lead to prolonged pain not seen in other nations that recovered faster because their central bank did not try to "solvable the problem"
To state that is a forgone conclusion that everyone agrees that "free market capitalism" was the cause of the great depression is highly ignorant
There is LOTS of scholarly economics works that shows government intervention in the markets not only lets to the crash, completely extended the length the crash.
Specifically the fed actions in 1929 lead to prolonged pain not seen in other nations that recovered faster because their central bank did not try to "solvable the problem"
To state that is a forgone conclusion that everyone agrees that "free market capitalism" was the cause of the great depression is highly ignorant
I suggest checking to see what policies changed in 1934, and who was in power before and after (and why).
[deleted]
Most companies treat employees as necessary liabilities to make profit and not assets. Flexibility only went one way, and people felt that life is too short to be treated like shit, so they left. Usually the bosses/managers/execs had tons of flexibility, but the employees didn't.
I'm not saying your wrong, it's just that it took a pandemic for people to realize that working in a shitty job for 20 years may not be the best use of their lives.
I'm not saying your wrong, it's just that it took a pandemic for people to realize that working in a shitty job for 20 years may not be the best use of their lives.
Yes. Are you trying to imply that the Great Resignation was not the result of the outside influence I mentioned – in this case government intervention (lockdowns, unemployment insurance expansion), and a global pandemic that removed hundreds of thousands of people from the workforce and changed priorities for companies and employees?
The definition of the length of the work week and who it applies to is already a concept defined by government.
Stated this way it makes it sound as if the government, unbidden by anything external, just decided to make this a requirement one day. Of course, this was not the case.
In reality workers, unions and even industry leaders themselves were already pushing for this decades before the government codified it in the Fair Labor Standards Act.
In reality workers, unions and even industry leaders themselves were already pushing for this decades before the government codified it in the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The reason various entities wanted it codified in law was because regardless of what labour with actual negotiating power and businesses with the ethics and margins to not demand absurdly high workweeks wanted, millions of workers didn't have much choice.
When child labour was legal, lots of children worked.
When child labour was legal, lots of children worked.
People literally died fighting for the 40-hour workweek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair
Unfortunately. People should be able to negotiate between themselves without interference from the government.
With all respect, that is an astoundingly naive viewpoint in light of the fact that there is nowhere near power equality between employer and worker.
I suppose many folks here are in those blessed industries and positions where employers and employees are in much more balanced relationships than mostwhere.
Which is how it should be; I don't think anyone would doubt that GP is correct in this regard. But - very sadly - not how it works in most of the reality.
Which is how it should be; I don't think anyone would doubt that GP is correct in this regard. But - very sadly - not how it works in most of the reality.
I agree. I constantly see arguments in HN comments that come from the perspective of a highly paid tech worker and they either ignore anyone making minimum wage or pretend they don't exist in this dynamic or they are written off as unimportant because they should have "worked harder to change their position in life"
Its pretty sad that this ideology exists, we need people to do jobs and we shouldn't shit on them for it. We should support people in what every job they're doing because we're all part of the same societal machine
Its pretty sad that this ideology exists, we need people to do jobs and we shouldn't shit on them for it. We should support people in what every job they're doing because we're all part of the same societal machine
As should children! Why should the pesky government step in the way of my child working in a factory.
>without interference from the government.
I don't see the corps giving up all the advantages they have such as mandatory arbitration and the like. It wouldn't be an equal negotiating table for the vast majority of people.
I don't see the corps giving up all the advantages they have such as mandatory arbitration and the like. It wouldn't be an equal negotiating table for the vast majority of people.
The government is one of the mechanisms we created to negotiate things.
>but hardly anyone is questioning whether this is a good or legitimate role for those in government to decree and mandate.
That's because you are in the wrong forum. I would think that there are forums out there where unpopular or less common opinions are the norm. Your original point is still true, far less people care less about their freedom, welcome to life.
That's because you are in the wrong forum. I would think that there are forums out there where unpopular or less common opinions are the norm. Your original point is still true, far less people care less about their freedom, welcome to life.
If the govt does not have the power to dictate working hours, people would did from overwork like in the other countries. May be not software for now, but definitely it is possible with low skilled jobs. This is actually a good thing for the govt to have power over.
PS: This applies to every company, so the playground is fair to compete against.
PS: This applies to every company, so the playground is fair to compete against.
It is interesting to see the tensions play out between managers/"entrepreneurs" and workers in threads like this.
The idea that the establishment of a working week is government tyranny is obvious to one side and bizarre to the other.
The idea that the establishment of a working week is government tyranny is obvious to one side and bizarre to the other.
Keeping managers and entrepreneurs on the same plane is the most bizarre thing and frankly insulting to entrepreneurs
Eh whether government should have the right to do this takes a backseat to the fact that the government is the only way we can do this.
The government is the only coordinating mechanism we have to enforce something like this, otherwise everyone is playing the prisoner’s dilemma.
The government is the only coordinating mechanism we have to enforce something like this, otherwise everyone is playing the prisoner’s dilemma.
Respectfully, this seems like a completely backward take.
If you don't care about whether or not government should be able to do things, and are only concerned with whether or not it does things you like, you end up with a government that can do whatever it wants. Eventually, that power will be wielded by someone you find detestable, or even worse, someone who finds you detestable.
If you don't care about whether or not government should be able to do things, and are only concerned with whether or not it does things you like, you end up with a government that can do whatever it wants. Eventually, that power will be wielded by someone you find detestable, or even worse, someone who finds you detestable.
Seems like we're mixing up couple things here--(a) the level to which a government represents the people and (b) the powers that a government should have.
It's easy to lose sight of the fact that the government is--in its ideal essence--just a way for a population to collectively enforce compliance with / contribution to a social good.
I don't think it's controversial to say that if 100% of people wanted a 32 hour work week, the government should probably pass a law mandating that. Separately we can argue about the tendency for the aims of government to diverge from the aims of the citizenry or there being a slippery slope, but the "legitimate role" of government is representing the people.
It's easy to lose sight of the fact that the government is--in its ideal essence--just a way for a population to collectively enforce compliance with / contribution to a social good.
I don't think it's controversial to say that if 100% of people wanted a 32 hour work week, the government should probably pass a law mandating that. Separately we can argue about the tendency for the aims of government to diverge from the aims of the citizenry or there being a slippery slope, but the "legitimate role" of government is representing the people.
It's probably more nuanced than that. If 100% of people wanted a 32-hour work week, a law wouldn't be necessary - we would just have a 32-hour work week. The fact that the number is less than 100% is the reason we need a law, because the incentives aren't aligned between those who want it and those who don't.
Because 100% of people don't want something is hardly "reason" to create a law and just because a majority wants something doesn't make it right. There are plenty of examples of that in history.
Is the role of government to maximize social good or individual liberty? I'd rather the latter because the examples of the former are abundant and dreadful. Anyone who thinks this isn't a race to the bottom where lawmakers trade "happiness" for votes at the cost of liberty is lying to themselves. Let's not kid ourselves, a 40 hour work week is not the same as child labor in the coal mines; such laws exist only to win votes. When will it be 20 hours a week? 16? At what point do we descend into the madness that embraced Rome where the role of government became appeasement of the populace to keep them from revolting?
Is the role of government to maximize social good or individual liberty? I'd rather the latter because the examples of the former are abundant and dreadful. Anyone who thinks this isn't a race to the bottom where lawmakers trade "happiness" for votes at the cost of liberty is lying to themselves. Let's not kid ourselves, a 40 hour work week is not the same as child labor in the coal mines; such laws exist only to win votes. When will it be 20 hours a week? 16? At what point do we descend into the madness that embraced Rome where the role of government became appeasement of the populace to keep them from revolting?
The prisoner's dilemma is a toy example where everyone wants the same thing, but they can't achieve it without some external mechanism. Many regulations in the real world fall into this category, ensuring your competitors can't do things you don't want to do and thereby force you to do it to compete (and they in turn don't want to do it, but if their competitors do it...).
This is not a good example, and is part of the problem with these types of discussions.
Not everyone wants the same thing in the prisoner's dilemma. The prisoners all want one thing and the prosecutors want something different. If everyone wanted the same thing here, there would be no dilemma.
That's the case with 32 hour work weeks. Employees want them - but employers don't. So there is a misalignment of incentives. And employers specifically have much more power in the situation because there is a significant imbalance in risk between the two. The external mechanism is needed here in order to accommodate and mitigate that power balance.
The mechanism could be legislation, it could be collective action in the form of a union, etc. But it's specifically because not everyone agrees, and the disagreement comes with a power imbalance that the law is necessary.
Not everyone wants the same thing in the prisoner's dilemma. The prisoners all want one thing and the prosecutors want something different. If everyone wanted the same thing here, there would be no dilemma.
That's the case with 32 hour work weeks. Employees want them - but employers don't. So there is a misalignment of incentives. And employers specifically have much more power in the situation because there is a significant imbalance in risk between the two. The external mechanism is needed here in order to accommodate and mitigate that power balance.
The mechanism could be legislation, it could be collective action in the form of a union, etc. But it's specifically because not everyone agrees, and the disagreement comes with a power imbalance that the law is necessary.
The definition of the prisoners dilemma is that it is symmetrical, the only two parties involved are the prisoners and they want the exact same thing, and have the exact same motivations and payoffs and still can't agree on the best course of action.
Thats why it is a good toy example of this issue.
It is a confusing name for it, since in reality there are often mechanism to punish "snitches".
I prefer to think if it as two people wanting to make a trade without a framework to enforce any contract law. You both want to swap your items that are valued more by the other party, but since there's no mechanism to force you to be honest, you're both motivated to steal the other person's goods and not deliver yours. And so you both do that, and the trade doesn't happen, leaving you both poorer.
Thats why it is a good toy example of this issue.
It is a confusing name for it, since in reality there are often mechanism to punish "snitches".
I prefer to think if it as two people wanting to make a trade without a framework to enforce any contract law. You both want to swap your items that are valued more by the other party, but since there's no mechanism to force you to be honest, you're both motivated to steal the other person's goods and not deliver yours. And so you both do that, and the trade doesn't happen, leaving you both poorer.
The primary alternative to achieving this is through formation of unions. But, I’d wager there is an overlap between people who are against enforcement via legislation and people who are anti-union.
By "people who are anti-union", do you mean "people who believe unions shouldn't be allowed to exist", or "people who believe unions shouldn't be allowed to force workers to join as a condition of having the job"?
Hey, if they don't like it, they can get a job somewhere else, no need for authoritarian governments preventing people freely entering contracts with groups with much more power than they do individually.... wait, this reminds me of something?
Unions having the power to force employees to join is what's authoritarian. If I want to work for a company, and the company wants to hire me, we should be free to enter into a contract. A third party shouldn't have the power to say "you can't unless you pay us dues".
And before you say "well not if the company and union entered into a contract that said the company would only hire union workers", that's not how it works today. The laws we have today give unions the power to unilaterally say that without the company agreeing, and this is what's bad and needs to go away.
And before you say "well not if the company and union entered into a contract that said the company would only hire union workers", that's not how it works today. The laws we have today give unions the power to unilaterally say that without the company agreeing, and this is what's bad and needs to go away.
> The laws we have today give unions the power to unilaterally say that without the company agreeing, and this is what's bad and needs to go away.
Can you give examples? My impression was closed shop and union shop was negotiated, not dictated by law.
Can you give examples? My impression was closed shop and union shop was negotiated, not dictated by law.
The US is closed shop. If a subset of employees don't like their union, they are not allowed to form their own union.
Put another way, if employees disagree with something the union does, they have no recourse other than founding their own union and trying to get all their coworkers to vote to force every one to switch to the new union.
In particular, employees are not able to call strikes in the US. In some sense, unions solved the "problem" of employee walk outs by redirecting grievances away from employers and to large unions that are (in practice) unresponsive to employee requests.
When they do get things done, it's unclear what constituency they are serving, or who made the decision.
For example, the California statewide teachers union managed to block vaccine mandates for teachers. All the teachers I've talked to in Silicon Valley are vaccinated and support mandates.
Those teachers have no hope of joining a union that's not controlled by anti-vaxxers.
Put another way, if employees disagree with something the union does, they have no recourse other than founding their own union and trying to get all their coworkers to vote to force every one to switch to the new union.
In particular, employees are not able to call strikes in the US. In some sense, unions solved the "problem" of employee walk outs by redirecting grievances away from employers and to large unions that are (in practice) unresponsive to employee requests.
When they do get things done, it's unclear what constituency they are serving, or who made the decision.
For example, the California statewide teachers union managed to block vaccine mandates for teachers. All the teachers I've talked to in Silicon Valley are vaccinated and support mandates.
Those teachers have no hope of joining a union that's not controlled by anti-vaxxers.
Stop.
Employees can strike. Taft-Hartley illegalizes wildcat or secondary striking.
I still disagree with it because I don't think the Network Effect pruning was equal between Capital and Labor, but Strikes can absolutely be organized by private employees/unions.
Public sector unions are a different beast as far as I'm aware. See the Air Traffic Controller strike and how that flopped. But you've had some teacher's Union successes recently too.
Employees can strike. Taft-Hartley illegalizes wildcat or secondary striking.
I still disagree with it because I don't think the Network Effect pruning was equal between Capital and Labor, but Strikes can absolutely be organized by private employees/unions.
Public sector unions are a different beast as far as I'm aware. See the Air Traffic Controller strike and how that flopped. But you've had some teacher's Union successes recently too.
The issue isn't that there's no contract at all. The issue is that the contract isn't freely agreed to, since once 51% of workers decide they want a union, the company isn't allowed to walk away from the negotiating table.
Unions don't have that power last I checked, and there is nothing that requires an employer to sign away their ability to seek unaffiliated workers.
Just as there is nothing forcing a worker to join a Union. The only thing is, if you don't join, you don't get the benefit of collective bargaining.
Just as there is nothing forcing a worker to join a Union. The only thing is, if you don't join, you don't get the benefit of collective bargaining.
> Just as there is nothing forcing a worker to join a Union. The only thing is, if you don't join, you don't get the benefit of collective bargaining.
This is only true in states with right-to-work laws.
This is only true in states with right-to-work laws.
Didn't California stop companies from preventing their ex-employees from working for competitors?
Sounds like they're doing exactly what you want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California
Sounds like they're doing exactly what you want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California
What does that have to do with unions?
> If I want to work for a company, and the company wants to hire me, we should be free to enter into a contract. A third party shouldn't have the power to say "you can't unless you pay us dues".
Seems like you only want to prevent unions from doing this, but not employers. You also want to prevent them entering into contracts with employers. It's not really a consistent argument is it?
Seems like you only want to prevent unions from doing this, but not employers. You also want to prevent them entering into contracts with employers. It's not really a consistent argument is it?
I'm okay if a union gets someone else to voluntarily agree to a contract that requires employee membership. I'm not okay with a union unilaterally forcing this without agreement.
Isn't it the authoratarian government that's enforcing these laws? Why are you blaming the poor unions, they're only doing what they legally have to do to maximise the returns for their shareholders.
This entire thread seems to be you willfully misinterpreting their comments, or taking the most negative possible interpretation, and then responding to that. In addition to violating the site guidelines, it's boring, stifles discussion, and is the stuff of emotional, uneducated partisan hackery.
I'm not blaming the unions for doing that. I am blaming the government for giving the unions the power to do that.
We've also seen significant anti-union legislation in recent decades; at the very least this would need to be undone in order to give workers a fair shot.
[deleted]
By prisoners dilemma, do you mean that people are free to negotiate amongst themselves as they see fit? Oh the horror…
We already saw what happens when people are free to negotiate for themselves with people who possess most of the money and resources. People including children were working 60 hours a week in horrendously unsafe conditions for barely enough to live.
The government isn't an interloper inserting itself. The government is US. We are negotiating with employers in a fashion where we actually possess enough influence to make a difference.
The government isn't an interloper inserting itself. The government is US. We are negotiating with employers in a fashion where we actually possess enough influence to make a difference.
Yes I do mean exactly that. It's entirely possible for both these things to be true:
- Everyone believes that if they and everyone else had a 32 hour work week, they'd be happier
- Everyone stays at 40 hours per week when given the choice of independently moving to a 32 hour work week due to social / economic pressures
In this case a government law helps everyone coordinate to get out of a local maximum.
- Everyone believes that if they and everyone else had a 32 hour work week, they'd be happier
- Everyone stays at 40 hours per week when given the choice of independently moving to a 32 hour work week due to social / economic pressures
In this case a government law helps everyone coordinate to get out of a local maximum.
They are free to negotiate their freedoms away.
What I have never understood so far, is that all the advocates of markets simply declare them free, as if reducing government involvement is going to solve inherent imbalances in power. The end result is branded "free market" when it is anything but.
What I have never understood so far, is that all the advocates of markets simply declare them free, as if reducing government involvement is going to solve inherent imbalances in power. The end result is branded "free market" when it is anything but.
I agree - a related issue is that if indeed government should be using it's power, then it should be exercised at theost local level possible ie at the city or county level. That way you could see what happens when people have more of a choice about whether to live under those rules or not, before applying it in a way that is harder to avoid. Meaning it is easy to move cities or counties (in the US), harder to move state, almost impossible to change countries for most people's.
If it really is good for companies, then more will move there. If not, they will move out - better to do the experiment on a small scale first!
But the aim of a lot of federal or state level proposed legislation is so that people can't escape nirvana...
If it really is good for companies, then more will move there. If not, they will move out - better to do the experiment on a small scale first!
But the aim of a lot of federal or state level proposed legislation is so that people can't escape nirvana...
> hardly anyone is questioning whether this is a good or legitimate role for those in government to decree and mandate.
That's because it's been discussed and the current status quo is the result. Check out the history of the labor movement.
> The nature and power of organized labor is the outcome of historical tensions among counter-acting forces involving workplace rights, wages, working hours, political expression, labor laws, and other working conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_St...
> More and more, I see governments mandating changes that already appear to be underway, but in a way that accrues the praise and rewards to themselves.
That's pretty much the definition of "politician", eh?
> Most Americans seem to be complicit in this transformation,
What transformation?
> continually voting greater and greater control and authority away from the people and toward government powers.
Without concrete examples it's difficult to say anything useful.
That's because it's been discussed and the current status quo is the result. Check out the history of the labor movement.
> The nature and power of organized labor is the outcome of historical tensions among counter-acting forces involving workplace rights, wages, working hours, political expression, labor laws, and other working conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_St...
> More and more, I see governments mandating changes that already appear to be underway, but in a way that accrues the praise and rewards to themselves.
That's pretty much the definition of "politician", eh?
> Most Americans seem to be complicit in this transformation,
What transformation?
> continually voting greater and greater control and authority away from the people and toward government powers.
Without concrete examples it's difficult to say anything useful.
{insert strawman here}
The US government doesn't do nearly enough to ensure the welfare of workers. If not being treated like shit by your employer bothers you have plenty of options.
The US government doesn't do nearly enough to ensure the welfare of workers. If not being treated like shit by your employer bothers you have plenty of options.
Government power isn't the only power. Workers cheer government regulation as one of their only leverages against employer power (or the power of capital).
> Most of the discussion here is about whether mandating business practice would be a good or a bad business move, but hardly anyone is questioning whether this is a good or legitimate role for those in government to decree and mandate.
Isn't the Government already limiting the workweek to 40h?
Isn't the Government already limiting the workweek to 40h?
The authority isn't with people right now, it is with capital and being wielded against the people.
The only mechanism I'm aware of to change that is government and it needs more power to do so. Government is elected and democratic. Capital is neither.
The only mechanism I'm aware of to change that is government and it needs more power to do so. Government is elected and democratic. Capital is neither.
I agree with your comment, but it has nothing to do with Americans.
Your comments sounds very much like an American with limited experience outside of the US. The scary part is that especially post pandemic, this is a very global phenomenon.
Source: American expat
Your comments sounds very much like an American with limited experience outside of the US. The scary part is that especially post pandemic, this is a very global phenomenon.
Source: American expat
Are you saying these laws are common elsewhere? I don't recall any other country passing a 4 day work week law. Either way, these type of laws being uncommon in America is not a bad thing.
> and I feel like most citizens are occupied with surrendering and assigning that power to their preferred political party
No, most of us are independent and lie to our friends for employment and sex
No, most of us are independent and lie to our friends for employment and sex
I need more free time from my work responsibilities so I can think about this very scary question with the gravitas it deserves. Can you give me a day off?
What we need is more enforcement of existing labor laws. A 40-hour work week with teeth. No "unpaid overtime". No "time shaving". Out of hours phone calls count as work time, with a minimum time for a call. (3 hours in the movie industry).
Yes, I mean we should also have a 32 hour work week but the laws surrounding it need teeth for sure. We should hold executives/managers criminally liable with the potential for jail time for repeat offenses. It's absolutely fucking absurd that shoplifting, especially when performed by disadvantaged folks carries harsher penalties than systematic wage theft. It's upside down clown world out there, abusing your position of power is FAR worse than stealing to eat or even fund a drug habit.
An interesting thing about white collar crime - jail time is a real deterrent. It doesn't take that much jail time.[1] Routinely sending managers to jail for 30 days for time-shaving would stop that practice rapidly.
[1] https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/how-stop-white-collar-...
[1] https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/how-stop-white-collar-...
Are you saying the punishment for shoplifting should be less if you're disadvantaged compared to if you're not?
No, I'm saying the reality is that the punishment often IS harsher if you're from a disadvantaged group. I think the punishments should be harsher for wage theft than shoplifting because the former is abusing a position of power, which I believe to be more corrosive to the fabric of society.
Though I also believe punishments should be proportional to your means, see for example speeding tickets in Finland. You shouldn't be able to afford to ignore the rules.
Though I also believe punishments should be proportional to your means, see for example speeding tickets in Finland. You shouldn't be able to afford to ignore the rules.
Not to mention that stealing $100 from 100 workers is objectively a worse crime than stealing $100 from a shop owner, and yet the former is not even punished. Talk about regulatory capture, eh?
In the current regime it seems like crimes are punished less if you are advantaged. The current system seems like a worse arrangement to me because it adds disadvantage to disadvantage.
Actually, yes.
Punishment doesn't fix the need to shoplift.
Maybe if we stop trying to solve everything with cops we'd actually make some social progress?
Punishment doesn't fix the need to shoplift.
Maybe if we stop trying to solve everything with cops we'd actually make some social progress?
For what it's worth, that was the legal situation in Germany until 1975 [1]. A shame in my opinion that even small-scale theft under extraordinary circumstances got handled as a full blown crime since then.
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundraub
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundraub
Yes
[deleted]
I did not think shoplifting was punished at all in California.
What I’d like to see is less government power, which means they stay out of my life, which means more freedom and less coercion, which means I can negotiate my life as I see fit like a grown up who is responsible for himself.
Exactly how much are you willing to be coerced to put food on the table? Because that's what we are really looking at here: Employers having power to coerce you into lifestyles and coerce you into things just so that you can put food on the table. Laws protecting employees (most of us!) are there because employers didn't simply treat people well, and people had little choice if they wanted to eat.
And I'll point out that you might be a grown up, but you live in a society. Simply taking care of yourself isn't enough, not only because other people are obviously doing things that benefit you greatly. You know, like treat patients in emergency rooms and uphold wiring standards so your air conditioner doesn't burn your house down, and even if it does the fire department puts the fire out without even forcing you to sell it for cheap or show proof of fire insurance.
You couldn't help where you were born, nor did you have a choice in your own primary education, nor whether or not your parents were rich or poor. You might be responsible for yourself now, but you don't fully take care of yourself, your starting level got chosen by others, and you are at the mercy of the actions of others, which can greatly affect your day to day life.
And I'll point out that you might be a grown up, but you live in a society. Simply taking care of yourself isn't enough, not only because other people are obviously doing things that benefit you greatly. You know, like treat patients in emergency rooms and uphold wiring standards so your air conditioner doesn't burn your house down, and even if it does the fire department puts the fire out without even forcing you to sell it for cheap or show proof of fire insurance.
You couldn't help where you were born, nor did you have a choice in your own primary education, nor whether or not your parents were rich or poor. You might be responsible for yourself now, but you don't fully take care of yourself, your starting level got chosen by others, and you are at the mercy of the actions of others, which can greatly affect your day to day life.
The government is the single most coercive entity making me work more to put food on the table. I work approximately 30% of my time to pay for services I don't want provided and mostly don't use.
If you want to talk about coercion, my employer gives me money for my services and I have the ability to walk away at any time. My government takes my money, and if I resist, they will put me in jail or kill me if I resist.
I am indeed at the mercy of the actions of others, but I am by far most helpless against the government.
If you want to talk about coercion, my employer gives me money for my services and I have the ability to walk away at any time. My government takes my money, and if I resist, they will put me in jail or kill me if I resist.
I am indeed at the mercy of the actions of others, but I am by far most helpless against the government.
And you’ll create a power vacuum that business will gleefully dive into and give you less freedom, more coercion, and less ability to negotiate your life as you see fit.
If you don’t remember why unions and OSHA exist then you are doomed to repeat it. Captains industry have no problems oiling their machines with human blood.
If you don’t remember why unions and OSHA exist then you are doomed to repeat it. Captains industry have no problems oiling their machines with human blood.
"which means I can negotiate my life as I see fit"
You seem to have absolutely no clue what life is like for most working people, combined with a frightening lack of historical context. Can you describe in precise detail how you expect an unskilled laborer to successfully negotiate an agreement in their favor when the employer can wield their vastly greater power without any government hindrance?
You seem to have absolutely no clue what life is like for most working people, combined with a frightening lack of historical context. Can you describe in precise detail how you expect an unskilled laborer to successfully negotiate an agreement in their favor when the employer can wield their vastly greater power without any government hindrance?
The government isn't the only source of coercion. In fact, it usually is the weakest one and it bows down to bigger sources of coercion like the wealthy, foreign/domestic investors and landowners.
Since those are deemed untouchable they will keep doing whatever they want.
Since those are deemed untouchable they will keep doing whatever they want.
You know you can do that right?
not everyone has the constitution to advocate aggressively for themselves. just because you can doesn't mean we can leave people who don't or won't to get exploited and taken advantage of. also not everyone is in a position to advocate for themselves even if they wanted to. there are a lot of people whose life would fall apart if they lost their job and the the business has all of the leverage. for those people, these regulations you hate are the only things preventing them from being sold into indentured survitude. your libertarian utopia is just like every other utopia. it's naive and nonsensical
This! 40 hours workweek with mandatory overtime pay (usually double per hour) with a minimum duration. Reducing the workweek below that would be considered unnecessary government intervention and is liable to be bad for business and workers. No one wants a pay cut that goes with it.
The government saying 40 hours in the work week is OK, but any other number of hours to you is "unnecessary government intervention"? What makes the number 40 sacred?
Because the government didn't set that minimmum, its what society determined over a course of 150 years as to what is "fair". Once the majority of the businesses by choice start reducing that, and the 32 hour week becomes the norm then sure legislate that for everyone. But it can't be imposed until then.
[1]https://www.cultureamp.com/blog/40-hour-work-week
[1]https://www.cultureamp.com/blog/40-hour-work-week
The idea that businesses instead of people should determine the normal working hours for people is entirely ass-backwards.
Yeah it's a completely ridiculous idea. All you need to do is implement a negative interest rate on cash and people will start cutting their hours voluntarily as they notice that there is no future generation that is willing to be in debt for their early retirement.
Right now with the 0% interest subsidy on cash people will work 40 hours to save themselves into an early retirement that won't be possible in the future and then they complain that the government stole their money through inflation by letting them save money that has no reason to exist.
Right now with the 0% interest subsidy on cash people will work 40 hours to save themselves into an early retirement that won't be possible in the future and then they complain that the government stole their money through inflation by letting them save money that has no reason to exist.
I would take that pay cut in a heartbeat. And yes, I realize the cut won't be proportional, I just want to work fewer hours and still have healthcare and reasonable pay for the time worked.
The proposal isn't a paycut right? As written employees keep the same pay but work 32 hours instead of 40.
One, there are a lot of businesses that operate on margins well under 20%. Some percentage of these would absolutely go out of business if you somehow mandated 80% of the current hours for 100% of the current pay. Now you can argue they should go out of business anyway, and maybe you're right, but it's still the government passing a law to intentionally put a lot of people out of business and make a lot of people lose their jobs.
Two, FTA "the proposed bill would require these employers to compensate employees who work in excess of 32 hours per week at 1 ½ times the employee’s regular rate of pay" - it's unclear to me how this impacts exempt vs. non-exempt workers. If you're salaried in California and you work 50 hours a week it's not like you get paid any more. Those are 10 hours of unpaid overtime. This doesn't seem to change that concept. If they're only talking about hourly workers, then it's a pay cut no matter what. In the "Disadvantages" section of the article it further implies that these changes would mostly impact hourly/non-exempt workers.
Three, why the differentiation between <=500 and >500 workers? If I'm an hourly worker someplace with ~490ish employees who works 40h/wk I'm going to have to worry about my hours being cut because of hiring I have nothing to do with. If I'm consistently getting overtime for a larger employer at ~40 hours a week, I'm going to receive a pay cut if they downsize and that work is no longer considered overtime.
Four, and perhaps most importantly, this is never getting signed into law. It's a publicity/donor stunt by some politicians and nothing more.
Two, FTA "the proposed bill would require these employers to compensate employees who work in excess of 32 hours per week at 1 ½ times the employee’s regular rate of pay" - it's unclear to me how this impacts exempt vs. non-exempt workers. If you're salaried in California and you work 50 hours a week it's not like you get paid any more. Those are 10 hours of unpaid overtime. This doesn't seem to change that concept. If they're only talking about hourly workers, then it's a pay cut no matter what. In the "Disadvantages" section of the article it further implies that these changes would mostly impact hourly/non-exempt workers.
Three, why the differentiation between <=500 and >500 workers? If I'm an hourly worker someplace with ~490ish employees who works 40h/wk I'm going to have to worry about my hours being cut because of hiring I have nothing to do with. If I'm consistently getting overtime for a larger employer at ~40 hours a week, I'm going to receive a pay cut if they downsize and that work is no longer considered overtime.
Four, and perhaps most importantly, this is never getting signed into law. It's a publicity/donor stunt by some politicians and nothing more.
You are assuming that wages represent 100% of costs when its more apt to be 30%. You are assuming that all employees are full time when in fact the minority often are. Lastly you are assuming that people will be paid 20% more for working 20% less. They would be making 25% more 5/4 not 4/5. For example 100 for working 5 hours is 20 100 for working 4 hours is 25. Those errors corrected lets blow through a hypothetical.
A shop that employs 40% of its folks full time will have to hire a ~10% (25% not 20%) bigger workforce in order to provide an identical number of labor hours. However labor costs while they are substantial aren't 100% of costs. It would be more normal for employee labor to be closer to 30%.
This means costs ought to increase more like 3% not 20%.
Businesses can take the additional profits from rising prices in fact only partially attributable to rising prices of inputs and probably come out even.
It ought to be noted that its also possible that many firms can't all hire 10% more labor making paying the overtime rate for some of its people the only feasible alternative to serving business. Paying 8 hours of overtime for a given employee is like paying for an extra 4 hours of pay or once again 10% of effected employees minus the additional cost of acquisition and management. This may end up being the desirable option.
A shop that employs 40% of its folks full time will have to hire a ~10% (25% not 20%) bigger workforce in order to provide an identical number of labor hours. However labor costs while they are substantial aren't 100% of costs. It would be more normal for employee labor to be closer to 30%.
This means costs ought to increase more like 3% not 20%.
Businesses can take the additional profits from rising prices in fact only partially attributable to rising prices of inputs and probably come out even.
It ought to be noted that its also possible that many firms can't all hire 10% more labor making paying the overtime rate for some of its people the only feasible alternative to serving business. Paying 8 hours of overtime for a given employee is like paying for an extra 4 hours of pay or once again 10% of effected employees minus the additional cost of acquisition and management. This may end up being the desirable option.
By focusing on the numbers specifically you're missing my entire point, which is that there are always businesses on the edge. This will put some businesses out, causing those employees to lose jobs and those owners to either try to open another business (expensive) or find work elsewhere (and most of the time if you own a business and it goes under you're not eligible for unemployment). Whether that's okay, or even good, is a separate discussion, but I don't see anyone arguing that not a single business will go under by having their payroll costs go up to cover the same number of hours every week.
> Businesses can take the additional profits from rising prices
If a business is increasing its prices, it's much more likely that it's doing so because its own COGS and other expenses are increasingly similarly.
> Businesses can take the additional profits from rising prices
If a business is increasing its prices, it's much more likely that it's doing so because its own COGS and other expenses are increasingly similarly.
People have a need say dinner. Many people will compete to provide dinner and those who are only marginally successful will fall off the game board under absolutely any set of ground rules to be replaced by others who are either better suited, better capitalized, or luckier.
Any change in the ground rules that makes life more expensive be it implementing health inspects, fire codes, minimum wage, over time, child labor will boot someone from barely functional to defunct to be replaced by someone smarter and better.
Such failures are disruptive but unemployment shields the employees to some degree from mischance and ultimately they don't long term care if bob's eatery goes out of business. Instead they care if there is someone they can cook serve or deliver dinner for. On average someone will be interested in serving that need and statistically the survivor will be a better business than bobs.
It's unfortunate if Bob goes under but statistically Bob as the owner of a business with 500+ employees he is well inside of the 1% and his financial well being is the last thing we ought to optimize for.
Any change in the ground rules that makes life more expensive be it implementing health inspects, fire codes, minimum wage, over time, child labor will boot someone from barely functional to defunct to be replaced by someone smarter and better.
Such failures are disruptive but unemployment shields the employees to some degree from mischance and ultimately they don't long term care if bob's eatery goes out of business. Instead they care if there is someone they can cook serve or deliver dinner for. On average someone will be interested in serving that need and statistically the survivor will be a better business than bobs.
It's unfortunate if Bob goes under but statistically Bob as the owner of a business with 500+ employees he is well inside of the 1% and his financial well being is the last thing we ought to optimize for.
> One, there are a lot of businesses that operate on margins well under 20%.
>
> Three, why the differentiation between <=500 and >500 workers?
I suspect that the third point is an attempt to address the first. A company with five hundred employees is (in theory) better able to absorb this cost than a mom-and-pop with ten people on staff. The exact number of five hundred is probably arbitrary, though.
I suspect that the third point is an attempt to address the first. A company with five hundred employees is (in theory) better able to absorb this cost than a mom-and-pop with ten people on staff. The exact number of five hundred is probably arbitrary, though.
It favors megacorporations, who can afford to eat any short term losses as new unfavorable conditions drive smaller businesses under, eliminating competition, and then prices adjust upwards when the local market has been sufficiently captured. This is how Wal-Mart and Starbucks and their ilk take over. It's impossible to compete against multi-billion dollar companies regardless of service, quality, or loyalty because small businesses deal with local margins and megacorps have global reserves.
Walmart doesn't need to compete with mom and pop, it simply needs to destroy them.
In that context, if we see local economies as something to be preserved, better regulations are needed. There might not be a legitimate case for that, since megacorps being massive efficiencies to bear. Deliberately reducing efficiency to placate small business owners might feel justified, but to the consumer, things are pretty good these days aside from shortages and inflation.
Walmart doesn't need to compete with mom and pop, it simply needs to destroy them.
In that context, if we see local economies as something to be preserved, better regulations are needed. There might not be a legitimate case for that, since megacorps being massive efficiencies to bear. Deliberately reducing efficiency to placate small business owners might feel justified, but to the consumer, things are pretty good these days aside from shortages and inflation.
That doesnt follow - if you get paid by the hour, a mandatory reduction in hours is a mandatory reduction in pay.
It's more complicated than that. Cost of labor is driven by what management is willing to offer and what employees can afford to accept. If a 32 hour effective cap leads to employees demanding 20 and employers offering 15 they can keep on offering until their firm goes out of business if they like.
We need a slew of things to change but not much will with the current power imbalances. Courts still won't/aren't going to hold companies accountable when million dollar lawyers and well priced bribes can save their assess.
Arguing about which band aid is best feels a bit like a distraction.
Arguing about which band aid is best feels a bit like a distraction.
Real enforcement with teeth would help a lot with several issues. One of the biggest is that construction projects in California drag on and on because an inspector will show up at a non-union job site to stop work and survey the labor to make sure they are getting paid and have fair working conditions. By "frequently" I mean weekly or more. This has massive productivity impacts, but they have to keep doing it because wage theft is endemic. If wage theft convictions came with decades-long prison sentences, this would stop. Unfortunately the public does not have an appetite for punishing white-collar crime, they only want long prison sentences for homeless guys who steal shampoo.
Serious question, and maybe this is just based on the people I've met: I've been hearing lots of business owners complaining about California's labor laws getting increasingly hostile which leads companies to relocate or move as many resources they can outside of CA, much like Tesla did. Does anyone else share that sentiment?
I personally think that this is well-intentioned but has consequences that need to be thought out before it becomes law.
I personally think that this is well-intentioned but has consequences that need to be thought out before it becomes law.
> I've been hearing lots of business owners complaining about California's labor laws getting increasingly hostile which leads companies to relocate or move as many resources they can outside of CA
I’m almost 50, and I’ve been hearing and reading lots of this my whole life.
But somehow California’s economy keeps doing well, even without being one of the places that are winning the battle to attract the firms that are optimizing for maximally emoployee-hostile labor laws.
I’m almost 50, and I’ve been hearing and reading lots of this my whole life.
But somehow California’s economy keeps doing well, even without being one of the places that are winning the battle to attract the firms that are optimizing for maximally emoployee-hostile labor laws.
California had just had its net population change going negative for the first time recently. There is a threshold where more businesses leave that it’s starting to reach. The cost of living doesn’t help along with crime. Climate change will also make the situation worse in the coming years, where we eventually lose temperate weather in exchange for forest fires. We’re already experiencing failing infrastructure like regular blackouts and issues with the bridges.
The state’s main saving grace for business is that non-competes are not legal in the state. It’s lucky that no other state is smart enough to do the same thing yet. If Oregon or Washington did it, it would be game over.
The state’s main saving grace for business is that non-competes are not legal in the state. It’s lucky that no other state is smart enough to do the same thing yet. If Oregon or Washington did it, it would be game over.
> California had just had its net population change going negative for the first time recently.
based on 2020 census, California is still growing.
2020: 39,538,223
2010: 37,253,956
6.1% increase
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/popchange...
based on 2020 census, California is still growing.
2020: 39,538,223
2010: 37,253,956
6.1% increase
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/popchange...
I can only add my anecdotal observations for whatever that is worth. When I left California in 2021 it was impossible for me to get equipment from U-haul, Penksy and Budget. I eventually gave up and hired a moving company despite having downsized my assets considerably. Even that was a challenge and the coordinators were spread extremely thin. Every company I spoke to said that they've never seen so many people leaving. I don't know what that translates to in real numbers. I also experienced something odd and unexpected. I would call a friend to say I was moving and they said they were too. This happened several times. Of the people in my circle that didn't leave it was either family or work obligations that was keeping them from relocating despite many wanting to.
The decrease was in estimated 2021 vs 2020 population, not census 2020 vs 2010.
> California had just had its net population change going negative for the first time recently
How much was it because of the pandemic causing work from home, which led to new employees joining remotely and not relocating to California, young people who lived here to move somewhere cheaper. The net growth might possibly increase in the coming years.
How much was it because of the pandemic causing work from home, which led to new employees joining remotely and not relocating to California, young people who lived here to move somewhere cheaper. The net growth might possibly increase in the coming years.
That's a factor, as is significant reductions in immigration. I expect California's population growth will return once things return more to normal.
We’ll see.
It’s also good to note that more and more companies are leaving due to both a combination of legislation, cost, and crime.
It’s also good to note that more and more companies are leaving due to both a combination of legislation, cost, and crime.
>> somehow California’s economy keeps doing well
California has the nation's highest poverty rate when cost of living is taken in to account.
If the worst poverty rate is "doing well", what would doing poorly look like, in your opinion?
California has the nation's highest poverty rate when cost of living is taken in to account.
If the worst poverty rate is "doing well", what would doing poorly look like, in your opinion?
Mississippi?
Mississippi is one of the states that has a lower poverty rate than California when cost of living is taken into account.
There are 48 others, can list them for you if needed.
There are 48 others, can list them for you if needed.
I was just answering your question:
> If the worst poverty rate is "doing well", what would doing poorly look like, in your opinion?
If your measure of pretty much anything puts Mississippi above California then maybe you've not got a great measure for doing well?
> If the worst poverty rate is "doing well", what would doing poorly look like, in your opinion?
If your measure of pretty much anything puts Mississippi above California then maybe you've not got a great measure for doing well?
Were it not for discrepancies I how federal policy effects states, the Supplementary Poverty Measure would be an excellent measure of how well you are doing at distributing the returns of economic activity generated. As it is, it's a decent measure anyway.
California (contrary to a lot of the images people have of what a progressive state would excel at compared to a more conservative one) is excellent at generating aggregate economic activity with great conditions for capital and a narrow elite labor segment, and very bad at distributing those aggregate gains to the rest of society. (To be fair, there is a very significant way in which that compared to other states, is because the more you fail at the first, the more the feds will ship money from the states that succeed at it to you as long as you commit to spend it on the second, so part of why Missippi looks better is that the gains of the strong aggregate economy California generates are skimmed at given to reduce local poverty in places like Mississippi, not based on relative need as measured by the SPM, but based simply on Mississippi’s weaker aggregate performance.
California (contrary to a lot of the images people have of what a progressive state would excel at compared to a more conservative one) is excellent at generating aggregate economic activity with great conditions for capital and a narrow elite labor segment, and very bad at distributing those aggregate gains to the rest of society. (To be fair, there is a very significant way in which that compared to other states, is because the more you fail at the first, the more the feds will ship money from the states that succeed at it to you as long as you commit to spend it on the second, so part of why Missippi looks better is that the gains of the strong aggregate economy California generates are skimmed at given to reduce local poverty in places like Mississippi, not based on relative need as measured by the SPM, but based simply on Mississippi’s weaker aggregate performance.
economy doing well? are you telling me that cities that are completely unaffordable and overrun with crime, homelessness, and drug abuse - along with mass exodus - are signs of a healthy economy?
I live here. I'm fighting the good fight - and it isn't working. It's getting worse every day.
I live here. I'm fighting the good fight - and it isn't working. It's getting worse every day.
So demand massivley outstrips supply. If people aren't living in such horrible circumstances (crime, homelessness, drug abuse), why is demand so high that houses are unaffordable?
I don't know if you've been in California recently, but in the East Bay at least a large number of small businesses have closed down and formerly vibrant places now look like homeless encampments. I used to feel comfortable taking out my phone even after dark on BART, now I don't. The economy might still be chugging along but it's not chugging along on the back of the big cities with ultra liberal takes on crime/homelessness/drugs, it's mostly chugging along due to the suburbs like Newport Beach, Pleasanton, etc. Those places have substantially more conservative views on crime/homelessness/drugs (Newport Beach is actually a Republican district) and don't really tolerate the sort of behavior we see in SF.
Seriously, just check out downtown SF if you don't believe me. It feels dead. There are more beggars than tourists. I recently went to a nice restaurant near the MacArthur BART station and not only was it dead, the area around it felt like I was visiting the hood near USC.
> why is demand so high that houses are unaffordable
It is not that demand is so high but that supply is so low. When you have SFH zoning with massive set back requirements you can't fit many people into the available space.
Seriously, just check out downtown SF if you don't believe me. It feels dead. There are more beggars than tourists. I recently went to a nice restaurant near the MacArthur BART station and not only was it dead, the area around it felt like I was visiting the hood near USC.
> why is demand so high that houses are unaffordable
It is not that demand is so high but that supply is so low. When you have SFH zoning with massive set back requirements you can't fit many people into the available space.
Downtowns are always kind of dull and empty outside of work hours. They exist to house a temporary population of millions for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week; after those 8 hours, they are totally abandoned ghost towns because it's not like you can use office buildings for some other purpose at night.
Some cities are better at mixing commercial and residential real estate so you feel this effect less. Downtown Chicago always felt eerie to me on nights and weekends. Everything is just closed and there are very few people around. Manhattan is less like this. (There was a time when I would leave work between 11pm and 2am. The bike ride down 2nd Ave was always chaos. The city never sleeps.) I haven't spent a ton of time in San Francisco, but it strikes be as being closer to Chicago than Manhattan. After work, everyone is out in the neighborhoods.
In my non-expert opinion, people in California go to bed earlier than in New York. I feel like everyone thinks they need to be up for work at 5am to "beat the traffic" and be in the office for calls at 9am New York time. This means they are in bed 9pm. Meanwhile, you can stay out until midnight in New York and be sentient again for the same 9am call.
Some cities are better at mixing commercial and residential real estate so you feel this effect less. Downtown Chicago always felt eerie to me on nights and weekends. Everything is just closed and there are very few people around. Manhattan is less like this. (There was a time when I would leave work between 11pm and 2am. The bike ride down 2nd Ave was always chaos. The city never sleeps.) I haven't spent a ton of time in San Francisco, but it strikes be as being closer to Chicago than Manhattan. After work, everyone is out in the neighborhoods.
In my non-expert opinion, people in California go to bed earlier than in New York. I feel like everyone thinks they need to be up for work at 5am to "beat the traffic" and be in the office for calls at 9am New York time. This means they are in bed 9pm. Meanwhile, you can stay out until midnight in New York and be sentient again for the same 9am call.
> I don't know if you've been in California recently, but in the East Bay at least a large number of small businesses have closed down and formerly vibrant places now look like homeless encampments.
Despite the positive things I said upthread about the long-term trends, there is a very acute short term issue caused by the interaction of the inadequate response to the aggregate and distributional impacts of the pandemic with the preexisting housing affordability issue that is going to become a major long term problem if it isn't addressed.
Despite the positive things I said upthread about the long-term trends, there is a very acute short term issue caused by the interaction of the inadequate response to the aggregate and distributional impacts of the pandemic with the preexisting housing affordability issue that is going to become a major long term problem if it isn't addressed.
> Seriously, just check out downtown SF if you don't believe me. It feels dead.
Wouldn't we attribute this more to COVID, though? This thread is talking about a hypothetical poor economy due to businesses leaving because of employee-friendly labor laws. In early 2020 downtown was pretty vibrant.
> There are more beggars than tourists.
I get that you're exaggerating for effect, but c'mon. I saw plenty of tourists/shoppers in the Powell/Market area in the middle of a weekday last week, out and about, doing their thing.
Wouldn't we attribute this more to COVID, though? This thread is talking about a hypothetical poor economy due to businesses leaving because of employee-friendly labor laws. In early 2020 downtown was pretty vibrant.
> There are more beggars than tourists.
I get that you're exaggerating for effect, but c'mon. I saw plenty of tourists/shoppers in the Powell/Market area in the middle of a weekday last week, out and about, doing their thing.
> Wouldn't we attribute this more to COVID, though?
It's been my anecdotal experience that hot areas in other cities like New York and Chicago are not dead like SF and the East Bay are. Nor are they as sketchy - I'd feel comfortable walking around Millennium Park at night and be pretty confident I wouldn't get robbed. Can you say the same about the Embarcadero?
> hypothetical poor economy due to businesses leaving because of employee-friendly labor laws
Tons of small businesses are dying out and you think the poor economy is hypothetical? Just because Chipotle and McD's can afford to pay every surcharge CA/SF imposes through labor laws doesn't mean small businesses can afford to. It's ironic, because despite all those surcharges the suburbs are still more affordable for a low skill worker than SF is, primarily because the supply of housing is so much better.
2 coffee shops in my local area have closed down recently for good. Starbucks is still going strong, but that doesn't mean the local economy is vibrant.
> I saw plenty of tourists/shoppers in the Powell/Market area in the middle of a weekday last week, out and about, doing their thing
Hmm, I went last week on a weekday and I'd put it at 50/50 homeless/beggar vs tourist. Powell St. BART/Union Square area. In any case, it was certainly a lot worse than a few years ago when it would be more like 95% tourists. I saw multiple homeless sleeping in Union Square which would have been unimaginable 3 years ago.
It's been my anecdotal experience that hot areas in other cities like New York and Chicago are not dead like SF and the East Bay are. Nor are they as sketchy - I'd feel comfortable walking around Millennium Park at night and be pretty confident I wouldn't get robbed. Can you say the same about the Embarcadero?
> hypothetical poor economy due to businesses leaving because of employee-friendly labor laws
Tons of small businesses are dying out and you think the poor economy is hypothetical? Just because Chipotle and McD's can afford to pay every surcharge CA/SF imposes through labor laws doesn't mean small businesses can afford to. It's ironic, because despite all those surcharges the suburbs are still more affordable for a low skill worker than SF is, primarily because the supply of housing is so much better.
2 coffee shops in my local area have closed down recently for good. Starbucks is still going strong, but that doesn't mean the local economy is vibrant.
> I saw plenty of tourists/shoppers in the Powell/Market area in the middle of a weekday last week, out and about, doing their thing
Hmm, I went last week on a weekday and I'd put it at 50/50 homeless/beggar vs tourist. Powell St. BART/Union Square area. In any case, it was certainly a lot worse than a few years ago when it would be more like 95% tourists. I saw multiple homeless sleeping in Union Square which would have been unimaginable 3 years ago.
> It's been my anecdotal experience that hot areas in other cities like New York and Chicago are not dead like SF and the East Bay are.
The Bay Area experienced a massive internal-to-California (largely to the Sacramento area) outmigration during the pandemic, which removed a lot of support for businesses from locals, and tourism hasn't recovered from the pandemic and related restrictions.
This has been (on paper) great for me as a Sac area homeowner, but more to the point here it makes judging California economic health by looking at Bay Area brick-and-mortar business district vitality potentially very misleading.
> In any case, it was certainly a lot worse than a few years ago when it would be more like 95% tourists.
Federal COVID-related domestic air travel restrictions (other than masking, which continues) only just ended, and federal international air travel restrictions still exist. This impacts tourism, obviously.
The Bay Area experienced a massive internal-to-California (largely to the Sacramento area) outmigration during the pandemic, which removed a lot of support for businesses from locals, and tourism hasn't recovered from the pandemic and related restrictions.
This has been (on paper) great for me as a Sac area homeowner, but more to the point here it makes judging California economic health by looking at Bay Area brick-and-mortar business district vitality potentially very misleading.
> In any case, it was certainly a lot worse than a few years ago when it would be more like 95% tourists.
Federal COVID-related domestic air travel restrictions (other than masking, which continues) only just ended, and federal international air travel restrictions still exist. This impacts tourism, obviously.
> cities like New York and Chicago are not dead like SF and the East Bay are
I haven't been to SF, but I have been to New York. I was shocked how dead the area around the WTC was on a Monday morning (I'd just arrived and walked arround for an hour or so absorbing the city and trying to find a hardware store to get a UK-US plug as it had been so long since I travelled internationally). My local town in rural UK was busier than 8AM Monday morning downtown New York. That can't be healthy. This was about 7 weeks ago.
I haven't been to SF, but I have been to New York. I was shocked how dead the area around the WTC was on a Monday morning (I'd just arrived and walked arround for an hour or so absorbing the city and trying to find a hardware store to get a UK-US plug as it had been so long since I travelled internationally). My local town in rural UK was busier than 8AM Monday morning downtown New York. That can't be healthy. This was about 7 weeks ago.
I ate dinner at Co Nam on the corner nearest MacArthur BART last night and it was absolutely jumping with a huge wait. On my way there I rode down Telegraph through Temescal and there were ridiculous crowds of people on every block. On my way home after East Bay Bike Party (1000+ people easily) there was still a big line of people waiting to get into Marufuku Rame even at 10PM. And there was the typical crowd at Kingfish Pub.
The idea that the East Bay somehow died in the last two years is ridiculous.
The idea that the East Bay somehow died in the last two years is ridiculous.
If downtown SF is dead, then people aren't living there, demand is very low and thus apartments are very cheap through simple supply and demand.
You may want to increase density in downtown SF, and that's a reasonable decision, but you are claiming fewer people are there now then there were a few years ago. I don't believe there's been any drop in the number of housing units in the city, so that must mean apartments are empty. Is that the case?
You may want to increase density in downtown SF, and that's a reasonable decision, but you are claiming fewer people are there now then there were a few years ago. I don't believe there's been any drop in the number of housing units in the city, so that must mean apartments are empty. Is that the case?
I think from a politics standpoint yeah I’m kind of a doomer. I identify as liberal but the people running on liberal platform are really dumb and their opponents are insane/dumb in other ways. There’s no good options to vote for. Idk how we will manage to wade through that.
I kinda think part of the problem is the pervasive expectation that there should be someone to vote for with a Platform They Believe In And You Should Too. That's fundamentally at odds with the mechanics of our system, where you need to build coalitions of people who can at least agree that this set of compromises is better than the set pitched by the other candidates.
And actually, I think finding compromises is fundamentally what this tech is for, right? "How do we make decisions with neighbors we disagree with, mostly without shooting?"
But because platforms are compromises, the demand for leaders that Truly Believe in their platform gives us people pretending to be crazy and stupid. With maybe some genuinely crazy and/or stupid mixed in (but I'm not confident that I can actually distinguish) and lots of layers of "it's complicated" on top.
And actually, I think finding compromises is fundamentally what this tech is for, right? "How do we make decisions with neighbors we disagree with, mostly without shooting?"
But because platforms are compromises, the demand for leaders that Truly Believe in their platform gives us people pretending to be crazy and stupid. With maybe some genuinely crazy and/or stupid mixed in (but I'm not confident that I can actually distinguish) and lots of layers of "it's complicated" on top.
> I kinda think part of the problem is the pervasive expectation that there should be someone to vote for with a Platform They Believe In And You Should Too. That's fundamentally at odds with the mechanics of our system
Yeah, our systemic duopoly and the associated requirement for backroom coalition building (and the associated papering over of differences for marketing purposes) to build viable parties is a significant defect in our structure of government compared to many other modern democracies.
Yeah, our systemic duopoly and the associated requirement for backroom coalition building (and the associated papering over of differences for marketing purposes) to build viable parties is a significant defect in our structure of government compared to many other modern democracies.
Why are they signs of an unhealthy economy? Gentrification and bad zoning laws alone could explain many of your examples.
Weird comment. Could you define gentrification? For decades, "Gentrification" has the go-to for the people that applaud tesla leaving and Amazon being rejected by New York. Ironically, those same people are strong proponents of zoning and centralized planning of the whole state. Pretty fed up with their outsized control and demonization of anyone that tries to make things better.
Death tax vs estate tax. Immigration vs international talent acquisition. UBI vs Freedom Dividend. Gentrification vs Multi-family zoning.
The (twitter centric) left would make much more progress in America if they worked on better messaging instead of just relying on moral arguments.
The (twitter centric) left would make much more progress in America if they worked on better messaging instead of just relying on moral arguments.
> are you telling me that cities that are completely unaffordable and overrun with crime, homelessness, and drug abuse - along with mass exodus - are signs of a healthy economy?
The parts of that that are real long term issues, particular unaffordability problems (of which homelessness is an effect) absolutely are an effect of a strong aggregate economy that the pro-labor and redistributive policies haven't been enough to keep with; so is the “mass exodus“ (that is, the domestic out-migration mostly in lower-income segments that has for a long time been slightly above domestic in-migration that has had substantially higher average income, that only became net overall outmigration with recent federal policy and COVID-related curbs on international immigration.)
Unaffordability is a result of the enormous wealth of capitalists and elite labor that aggregate economic strength has produced driving up costs.
> I live here.
So do I.
> I'm fighting the good fight
In what way?
The parts of that that are real long term issues, particular unaffordability problems (of which homelessness is an effect) absolutely are an effect of a strong aggregate economy that the pro-labor and redistributive policies haven't been enough to keep with; so is the “mass exodus“ (that is, the domestic out-migration mostly in lower-income segments that has for a long time been slightly above domestic in-migration that has had substantially higher average income, that only became net overall outmigration with recent federal policy and COVID-related curbs on international immigration.)
Unaffordability is a result of the enormous wealth of capitalists and elite labor that aggregate economic strength has produced driving up costs.
> I live here.
So do I.
> I'm fighting the good fight
In what way?
I feel like these trends are waves and we are currently in the down trend. I think we’ll see a bigger uptrend once the economy stabilizes again. We are in a multi prong proxy battle between energy sources and work/life shift. Once people figure out this change I’m sure things will get better as they did for other cities like nyc. Things were really awful back in the day and got better, then got worse, then got better again.
Also, companies might move their headquarters to Texas or whatever but people deep down (workers and probably also the company owners) prefer the lifestyle and experiences that California offers. California coast cities are amazingly beautiful and offer diverse range of activities outdoors and venue wise, and no massive McMansion in 100 degree Texas heat where you have AC blasting and Have to drive eight lane highways everywhere will ever replace the fact you can just hop on your bicycle and ride five min to the beach. I’m just going off anecdote from friends here.
Also, companies might move their headquarters to Texas or whatever but people deep down (workers and probably also the company owners) prefer the lifestyle and experiences that California offers. California coast cities are amazingly beautiful and offer diverse range of activities outdoors and venue wise, and no massive McMansion in 100 degree Texas heat where you have AC blasting and Have to drive eight lane highways everywhere will ever replace the fact you can just hop on your bicycle and ride five min to the beach. I’m just going off anecdote from friends here.
> you can just hop on your bicycle and ride five min to the beach
I can assure you that the percentage of Californians that enjoy this lifestyle is vanishingly small. I've lived in all three coastal metros in California, was an avid user of the beach and hate driving; this lifestyle is not realistically achievable for most people that live there, even the average person in tech.
Most engineers aren't trading a house in Santa Monica for a house in Texas. They are trading a house in South San Jose. That lifestyle is much less different.
I can assure you that the percentage of Californians that enjoy this lifestyle is vanishingly small. I've lived in all three coastal metros in California, was an avid user of the beach and hate driving; this lifestyle is not realistically achievable for most people that live there, even the average person in tech.
Most engineers aren't trading a house in Santa Monica for a house in Texas. They are trading a house in South San Jose. That lifestyle is much less different.
I have an extremely close friend, who is at the C-Level, that just shocked me with news of moving to Boulder, Colorado due to the hostile California laws. I haven't gone in detail with him about what laws/ordinances are specifically having him move there, but yeah...
Company I'm at moved headquarters from CA to TX. A bunch of execs left CA too with the relocation. Only people staying are the ones who love SF.
Boulder is California-light. Colorado doesn’t yet have the endemic corruption you get with uniparty states like California, but with all the Californians moving there and doing the same thing, it’s coming.
The rise in homelessness in Boulder in just the past few years is amazing.
The rise in homelessness in Boulder in just the past few years is amazing.
I lived in Highlands Ranch, CO for roughly half a year, and man the suburban sprawl in anything outside of Boulder is on steroids. My impression of Colorado is that it's a "hot" place to be right now (very much hyped as the place to escape to), but that will in time be expended as housing costs skyrocket and no new housing can be built because everything is interconnected by a 6-8 lane highway.
Reference: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Highlands+Ranch,+CO/@39.55...
Reference: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Highlands+Ranch,+CO/@39.55...
[deleted]
Tesla's 'move' was a PR thing -- the great majority of the engineering team is staying in CA.
It was also Musk searching for even more subsidies from the Texas state government.
I don't necessarily share the sentiment, but I am curious to hear the case for the consequences. California is basically its own economy: the state can make its own rules, so from my perspective, the state has more power to set the rules. Other states, at best, can market themselves as "not California"-- something to run from, but not necessarily something to run to.
I think there most certainly is something to run to. Lower taxes, less regulations to comply with, state-level offices willing to get on the phone and make things happen to bring innovative businesses to the state, lower cost of living, better weather.
Whether or not you think all these things are good things for a state to have, or whether you think Texas represents your values, it most definitely offers something to run to, even in a world without California.
Whether or not you think all these things are good things for a state to have, or whether you think Texas represents your values, it most definitely offers something to run to, even in a world without California.
Indeed, California is the fifth largest economy in the world, ahead of the UK and India (based on GDP).
We took our business elsewhere. It’s becoming crazytown back there.
I’ve said this many times before but keep in mind that people were strongly opposed to the 40hr workweek and it ultimately led to higher productivity. Less illness and injury, primarily.
Source: The Rise and Fall of American Growth.
Source: The Rise and Fall of American Growth.
Not sure there is causation there. A lot of factors contributed to the decrease in illness and injury, including the jobs themselves, a lot of the dangerous ones either got outsourced or died out.
This bill affects only hourly workers, which means that Walmarts and other companies will just cut their work week and pay employees less. They are not going to pay them overtime if they work more. And poor people will need to find an extra job to keep up with bills.
The only poeple who might benefit are hourly gov employees - but that depends on budget constrains.
The only poeple who might benefit are hourly gov employees - but that depends on budget constrains.
This is poor reasoning. It assumes there will be enough extra jobs, but there is a friction to that. Wallmart trying to staff up with more people will also not be trivial for them, and come with more fixed costs.
Obviously it would be better with a magic way to get rid of second jobs for poor workers (and stuff like UBI and JG nicely avoid these issues without magic) but it still would be win for labor.
Obviously it would be better with a magic way to get rid of second jobs for poor workers (and stuff like UBI and JG nicely avoid these issues without magic) but it still would be win for labor.
Instead of all these regulations, why not institute basic income. If every adult was given $2000 ( or whatever figure we come up with ) you wouldn't have to create so many laws. Minimum wage, work hours, retirement, diversity, etc laws would be unnecessary because it would be difficult to exploit people whose needs are met. Why pass hundreds of laws when you can pass 1 that solves all the problem?
$2000 barely covers rent ( 1 br LA/SF). We’d also need rent control legislation to prevent rents from rising to absorb the UBI.
Apart from that I agree - UBI is the simplest, cheapest way to lift the population out of poverty.
The outcomes are fantastic - I recommend Rutger Bregman’s book on it.
Apart from that I agree - UBI is the simplest, cheapest way to lift the population out of poverty.
The outcomes are fantastic - I recommend Rutger Bregman’s book on it.
> $2000 barely covers rent ( 1 br LA/SF).
The market will develop housing for basic income people or you could always move to lower cost areas.
> We’d also need rent control legislation to prevent rents from rising to absorb the UBI.
Nope. If people are given basic income, the market will develop housing/services to cater to them.
The market will develop housing for basic income people or you could always move to lower cost areas.
> We’d also need rent control legislation to prevent rents from rising to absorb the UBI.
Nope. If people are given basic income, the market will develop housing/services to cater to them.
"The market" has shown itself to be woefully inadequate at developing housing for those on the lower part of the income scale. I'm not sure why that would change under a basic income scenario.
The market hasn't developed housing for people on the current minimum wage, so I have my doubts that it would be any different with UBI
There’s plenty of cheap housing if you don’t need to be near a competitive job market to cover the rent.
Rents will simply rise by whatever the amount of the basic income is.
You can definitely get a studio in the LA area for like 1400. Close to public transit too.
California is a huge state, you don’t have to live in the heart of LA or San Fran
Also even in my wildest communist fantasies it’s completely infeasible for UBI to cover a 1br market rent in a big city without that immediately causing completely ridiculous inflation. Fiddling with monetary policy doesn’t magically 3x the housing supply.
Wrong comment? The comment is saying move out of big cities. I agree.
Because you have to fund basic income.
And if your goal is a population that pays its way and has relatively generous working conditions and less unequal income distributions, the hyper regulated Europe looks a whole lot better than, say, Saudi Arabia where citizens can live comfortable, unproductive lives topped up by monthly payments, discrimination is rife and an underclass of non-citizens do most of the work for very little money, often in truly awful conditions.
And if your goal is a population that pays its way and has relatively generous working conditions and less unequal income distributions, the hyper regulated Europe looks a whole lot better than, say, Saudi Arabia where citizens can live comfortable, unproductive lives topped up by monthly payments, discrimination is rife and an underclass of non-citizens do most of the work for very little money, often in truly awful conditions.
Andrew Yang proposed a VAT and redistributing funds from other entitlement programs.
basic income definitely doesn't mean they can deregulate everything else. it greatly lessens the leverage these businesses have over workers but the leverage doesn't go away entirely. also basic income doesn't solve every problem.
Because a UBI is the wrong solution for this problem. Reducing the work week should be done when productivity grows faster than the economy and a UBI does not care whether that is true or not.
As with the bill that Rep Takano introduced in Congress, I feel like the media are not discussing this in at all a reasonable way. It is _not_ a bill to shorten the workweek. It's a bill to change the line at which employers pay overtime ... to workers who would get overtime.
In California, for employers of the size mentioned here, workers become exempt at around ~$62k/yr. The BLS has stats for California which annoyingly give the median hourly wage, and the average annual comp (~$65.5k), but not the median annual comp. But certainly large fraction of workers are above the 'exempt' line, possibly more than half.
Add to that a lot of workers are:
- working for employers smaller than 500 staff in CA
- some form of contractor
- working multiple jobs (perhaps less now than a few years ago)
What's the proportion of workers who would be impacted by this?
And how many workers are not yet exempt, but are close enough to the exempt line that employers will be better off giving them a raise to an exempt salary and then demanding more hours per week?
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/labor/wage-and-hour/salary-laws... https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes_ca.htm#00-0000
In California, for employers of the size mentioned here, workers become exempt at around ~$62k/yr. The BLS has stats for California which annoyingly give the median hourly wage, and the average annual comp (~$65.5k), but not the median annual comp. But certainly large fraction of workers are above the 'exempt' line, possibly more than half.
Add to that a lot of workers are:
- working for employers smaller than 500 staff in CA
- some form of contractor
- working multiple jobs (perhaps less now than a few years ago)
What's the proportion of workers who would be impacted by this?
And how many workers are not yet exempt, but are close enough to the exempt line that employers will be better off giving them a raise to an exempt salary and then demanding more hours per week?
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/labor/wage-and-hour/salary-laws... https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes_ca.htm#00-0000
My regular workweek is 35h (unionizing helps) and if it would be possible to have working IT processes and reduce some managment overhead, i could be productive the level in 30h (and actually i am).
Shorter workweeks makes people focus.
Shorter workweeks makes people focus.
I've seen several cases here where going from 40 to 32 hours to have time for kids (very very common in NL) has kept the same or better productivity.
Of course those were all desk jobs, where it's not about exactly how many hours you're typing code or writing ideas but about the output. I expect it to be less applicable for assembly line kind of work.
Of course those were all desk jobs, where it's not about exactly how many hours you're typing code or writing ideas but about the output. I expect it to be less applicable for assembly line kind of work.
I really feel like work would be quite tolerable at 4 days a week. 5 days plus commute has always felt suffocating to me.
Consider that people used to work every day. Farming, hunting, subsisting. When organized religion and cities started to spread, you had one day a week as the day of rest. The industrial age and unionization brought us 5 days, which is now "suffocating." So if 4 days is the norm, that would start to feel suffocating also. Then it would be 3 days. Then, when work is the thing you spend the minority of your time on, you start to ask yourself "why am I doing this at all?"
> Then it would be 3 days. Then, when work is the thing you spend the minority of your time on, you start to ask yourself "why am I doing this at all?"
I think you hit the nail right on the head there my guy.
Also once the agricultural revolution happened peasants likely had much more unallocated than the typical office worker in the united states, probably by at least an order of magnitude. I'm not claiming it was a better life but there was a greater amount of self determination which is absolutely something we should strive toward.
I think you hit the nail right on the head there my guy.
Also once the agricultural revolution happened peasants likely had much more unallocated than the typical office worker in the united states, probably by at least an order of magnitude. I'm not claiming it was a better life but there was a greater amount of self determination which is absolutely something we should strive toward.
They may have worked every day, but not all day, and not through every season. Yes farming is hard work, but you don't work from 6-6 every day.
Also your slippery slope argument is silly.
Also your slippery slope argument is silly.
> Consider that people used to work every day. Farming, hunting, subsisting.
I would be surprised if individuals in a hunter/gatherer tribe used to work more than 8 hours every single day.
Most people also used to be in survival mode for their entire lives. That shouldn't be what we are aiming for today.
I would be surprised if individuals in a hunter/gatherer tribe used to work more than 8 hours every single day.
Most people also used to be in survival mode for their entire lives. That shouldn't be what we are aiming for today.
Maybe that becomes possible at some point? A long time ago we needed 7 days a week to farm or hunt enough food to survive. With technological advancements we may be at a point where we need near 0 work days to feed everyone and create a comfortable life.
Then doing work isn't needed to survive anymore but instead only because you want to achieve something. That could be many different things for many people.
Then doing work isn't needed to survive anymore but instead only because you want to achieve something. That could be many different things for many people.
> With technological advancements we may be at a point where we need near 0 work days to feed everyone and create a comfortable life.
Who builds the houses? Who handles the power generation? Who maintains the roads?
Who builds, and who flies, the airplanes in case people would like to travel?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. A lot of work goes into a functioning society.
Who builds the houses? Who handles the power generation? Who maintains the roads?
Who builds, and who flies, the airplanes in case people would like to travel?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. A lot of work goes into a functioning society.
That's true. But a hundred years ago, different questions were there.
We've largely automated and optimised many jobs into minimal work or non existance across industrial production, agriculture, all sorts of areas. There's no reason not to think we don't keep automating to solve the problems you've mentioned.
We've largely automated and optimised many jobs into minimal work or non existance across industrial production, agriculture, all sorts of areas. There's no reason not to think we don't keep automating to solve the problems you've mentioned.
I mean yes? trying to get society to the point where no one has to work to survive (food, clothing, etc) sounds really awesome. less stress and more time to spend on what really matters to someone personally
… you do realize farming isn’t a whole year thing at most latitudes, right?
"Then, when work is the thing you spend the minority of your time on, you start to ask yourself "why am I doing this at all?""
Crap! And i thought i was anonymous here.
Crap! And i thought i was anonymous here.
This is a bs narrative, ahistorical. Try Graeber/Wengrow’s recent research/book
If I subtract the time I spend checking my social media while pretending to work, I'm probably already doing a 32 hour work week...
This grinds my gears. I'm a part time at my office (govt contractor), and do more work in 20 hours than some others on my team do in 40. Restrictions on firing underperformers put us in the position of "needing" 40 hours in the workweek.
Let’s give them the benefit and say they get all their expected tasks done in that 32 hours.
What’s disappointing is wasting that time on social media, when those extra 8 hours could be to improve a process, do some self-learning, mentoring, research… at least, that’s what I do if what I need to get done doesn’t fill the week.
What’s disappointing is wasting that time on social media, when those extra 8 hours could be to improve a process, do some self-learning, mentoring, research… at least, that’s what I do if what I need to get done doesn’t fill the week.
Or you know; you could have a healthier work life balance whilst getting that same level of work done in the 32 hours.
What would happen to people's salaries in this case. Right now i'd bet most employment contracts for salary states 40 hours a week as a work week.
Would everyone take a 20% pay cut? Would people try to keep the same pay for fewer hours.
Would everyone take a 20% pay cut? Would people try to keep the same pay for fewer hours.
People would keep the same pay for fewer hours and companies would be lucky if that's all it is.
Keep in mind that wages and salaries have been largely stagnant for decades. Companies and corporations owe their workers a hell of a lot more than "same pay at fewer hours" by now.
Keep in mind that wages and salaries have been largely stagnant for decades. Companies and corporations owe their workers a hell of a lot more than "same pay at fewer hours" by now.
> Practically speaking, large employers would be required to compensate employees the same amount of pay for fewer hours worked.
Not sure that's true, unless the bill also mandates that employers continue paying the same amount to salaried employees. I assume what'll happen instead is that salaries go down to compensate, and wage employees get fewer hours. Personally, I'd be okay with that, but many people wouldn't want to take that hit.
Worth noting that this article is written by Fisher Phillips, a law firm that, according to Wikipedia, represents management exclusively, so they are not an unbiased source.
Not sure that's true, unless the bill also mandates that employers continue paying the same amount to salaried employees. I assume what'll happen instead is that salaries go down to compensate, and wage employees get fewer hours. Personally, I'd be okay with that, but many people wouldn't want to take that hit.
Worth noting that this article is written by Fisher Phillips, a law firm that, according to Wikipedia, represents management exclusively, so they are not an unbiased source.
I doubt this though. Over the long term it’s about being competitive. The marginal value of a salaried employee hour is small. It’s the base availability that provides the most value.
Not sure what the current work week is (assuming 40?).
Does anyone actually "work" close to that amount? I've got mine down to about 8 hours with an additional 8 of meetings where i sit on mute and contribute nothing.
Does anyone actually "work" close to that amount? I've got mine down to about 8 hours with an additional 8 of meetings where i sit on mute and contribute nothing.
I really hope this passes, just so we can see how stupid defining these things in legislature. This should be decided by employers, not politicians. If employers have too much power then you have a monopoly problem and you should do something about it, not rake small businesses over the coals.
I would love a 4 day work week, but only if it meant my job is secure. This is the worst way to go about it.
I would love a 4 day work week, but only if it meant my job is secure. This is the worst way to go about it.
There's no English equivalent, so please excuse the use of Google translate:
https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Auseinanderse...
This is the German wikipedia entry on the conflicts that trade unions and employers' associations in Germany have fought over the reduction of weekly working hours since the late 1970s.
https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Auseinanderse...
This is the German wikipedia entry on the conflicts that trade unions and employers' associations in Germany have fought over the reduction of weekly working hours since the late 1970s.
You can already have this as a salaried worker if you negotiate well when you get a new job, and I highly recommend it. Most people barely work on Friday anyway.
Note this seems to apply only to hourly workers. All of us salaried techies need to keep waiting for free market to open this up
Unionize, refuse to be on call, refuse to answer slack messages outside of work hours. If working in tech, and at startups specifically has taught me one thing it's that urgency is ALWAYS fake, you can put the fire out tomorrow morning. If there aren't consequences for bad planning then the bad planning continues. See also: financial bailouts of pretty much any kind, the cost of mistakes needs to be adequately large.
It's a great thought, but I'd be fired pretty quickly if I tried that. You will also not find a new job with those demands.
You know what I do to offset the after hours stuff? I slack the fuck off all day. It's not like anyone knows what I do anyway. "Hey Alar, what you up to today? -Oh y'know, just getting these switches up to date, gotta keep the packets flowing! Also have some phone stuff to do and getting the servers ready for patching this weekend! -Wow great job!"
Wake up at 8, "check email" until 9. Head to the office to show some face and actually check emails and do communication til 10. From 10-12 follow up with requests and put out any actual fires. 12-130 lunch. 130-330 knock out a meeting or two and then head home to "get my notes together and plan the next day" aka crack open a 6 pack.
I know this isn't always possible, but as long as you deliver SOMETHING every day, no one questions the infra "wizard".
You know what I do to offset the after hours stuff? I slack the fuck off all day. It's not like anyone knows what I do anyway. "Hey Alar, what you up to today? -Oh y'know, just getting these switches up to date, gotta keep the packets flowing! Also have some phone stuff to do and getting the servers ready for patching this weekend! -Wow great job!"
Wake up at 8, "check email" until 9. Head to the office to show some face and actually check emails and do communication til 10. From 10-12 follow up with requests and put out any actual fires. 12-130 lunch. 130-330 knock out a meeting or two and then head home to "get my notes together and plan the next day" aka crack open a 6 pack.
I know this isn't always possible, but as long as you deliver SOMETHING every day, no one questions the infra "wizard".
Sure this is a valid strategy, one I've also employed, but I would prefer a world where we can be open about the fact that we don't actually work nearly as hard as we pretend to rather than the current situation. Dishonesty shouldn't be rewarded.
> It's a great thought, but I'd be fired pretty quickly if I tried that.
Hence the call for unionization.
> It's a great thought, but I'd be fired pretty quickly if I tried that.
Hence the call for unionization.
I’d rather have my life than theirs though.
Thought provoking essay by Bertrand Russell on idleness. https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/
I've worked for 6 different employers in my life, Ive also employed people.
100% of my experience is that its rare for someone to ping me out of work hours, and if they do, I completely understand that its an emergency. Since I also care about the company's well being, (that's where I get my paycheck from), Im happy to help.
In 20 years as an employee or employer this has happened maybe 5 times.
I don't know where people are working that this is even an issue, but if at all possible consider switching jobs because youre working with sociopaths.
32 is too low, employers are going to leave California even more if this is approved.
100% of my experience is that its rare for someone to ping me out of work hours, and if they do, I completely understand that its an emergency. Since I also care about the company's well being, (that's where I get my paycheck from), Im happy to help.
In 20 years as an employee or employer this has happened maybe 5 times.
I don't know where people are working that this is even an issue, but if at all possible consider switching jobs because youre working with sociopaths.
32 is too low, employers are going to leave California even more if this is approved.
I guess you work in IT like 90% of the people here. For those (and me) fixed working hours are non existent. But if you work in a factory , shop etc like 90% of the other people then a 32 hour work week would very much help getting a happier life.
Maybe this won't work in the US. But in Europe I think it certainly does.
What prevents an hourly employee from working 32 hours now? It seems like many hourly employees have the opposite problem: they want more hours but they can't get them scheduled.
I do work in IT. You make good points, my job involves a lot of sitting down and honestly slacking.
If I worked standing up at a factory Im sure I would want 32 hours
If I worked standing up at a factory Im sure I would want 32 hours
Why don’t they start at 40 for everyone. That would be a great start Shes create another 20-30% more job openings
All this discussion is moot, since this bill not pass.
Govt. mandates 32 hr workweeks. Employers drop pay 20%.
Not shocked.
Not shocked.
Oh, nice. California, here I come!
mrichman(2)
Most of the discussion here is about whether mandating business practice would be a good or a bad business move, but hardly anyone is questioning whether this is a good or legitimate role for those in government to decree and mandate. More and more, I see governments mandating changes that already appear to be underway, but in a way that accrues the praise and rewards to themselves. Most Americans seem to be complicit in this transformation, continually voting greater and greater control and authority away from the people and toward government powers.