Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-case- ... -week.html

Take notice: the new plan of the liberal elite Keynesians is for you and me to halve our standard of living. We'll only work 21 hours per week, so we'll have more time to
pick sh!t with the chickens. We can all save money on that $5/gallon gas by taking the seats out of our cars to lighten them - - since we will have all lost our @sses anyway.

If I'm only working 21 hours a week, how am I going to pay for all those lazy bastards that don't pay any taxes?

OakRidgeStars wrote:If I'm only working 21 hours a week, how am I going to pay for all those lazy bastards that don't pay any taxes?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I guess Tim Geithner will just have to look after himself.

Creating EU-level living standards for the entire world by 2050 would require a six-fold increase in the size of the global economy, with potentially devastating consequences. Instead of growing the economy, maybe we need to recalibrate society to make everyone happier and successful with less.

Isn't the EU currently scrambling to try and save their economy. Germany is basically the only country left that is producing any sort of increases in that economy. And how are they rewarded? They get to bail out the rest of the EU. Do we really want to model ourselves after something that is already failing? Isn't the definition of stupidity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

totes6 wrote: Isn't the definition of stupidity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You shouldn't talk that way about His Excellency Mr. Obama's administration. It's racist, you know. Besides, DHS may be reading this as we speak/type. If you suddenly quit posting, we'll know.

I set my own hours (and incidentally work well over 40 hours a week), but back when I punched a clock it never escaped my attention I spent much the day daydreaming since I usually had all my work wrapped up by noon.

Yet I had to linger around anyway for some arbitrary reason. Never did see I couldn't just leave at noon. It also struck me as odd that say, a department store is open from 9-5, when most people are working. Why not just be open from 5pm-10pm and save on overhead?

The article makes several key points, Americans are overworked and underpaid as it is, we should work less.

I can see the blow-back for this, it mentions several times this would help wean us off mindless consumerism, something the powers that be would not want to happen.

Overall a great find and a good read, though I'd file this under the "I wish" column.

Kreutz wrote:Overall a great find and a good read, though I'd file this under the "I wish" column.

.......................................

Nope. File it in the "horsehockey" file.

Kreutz wrote:I set my own hours (and incidentally work well over 40 hours a week), but back when I punched a clock it never escaped my attention I spent much the day daydreaming since I usually had all my work wrapped up by noon.

Yet I had to linger around anyway for some arbitrary reason. Never did see I couldn't just leave at noon. It also struck me as odd that say, a department store is open from 9-5, when most people are working. Why not just be open from 5pm-10pm and save on overhead?

The article makes several key points, Americans are overworked and underpaid as it is, we should work less.

I can see the blow-back for this, it mentions several times this would help wean us off mindless consumerism, something the powers that be would not want to happen.

Overall a great find and a good read, though I'd file this under the "I wish" column.

....................................................................................

I fear I must beg to most respectully differ. (don't wanna P. anybody else O., you see)

There are probably a lot of folks who could get their job done in 21 hours a week; but my opinion would be that if they could, they weren’t productive enough to start with. I could get by with working 21 hours a week for a while. But (1) things I wasn’t really looking after would go to the devil after a while, and (2) it would drive me nuts because I’d rather work than do most other things. I can’t help it; I like it. It gives life worth and purpose beyond just eating, sleeping and doing whatever feels good at the time. As much as I enjoy occasionally playing at something or taking off on a big hunting, fishing or shooting trip or travelling somewhere I haven’t been before, it has often occurred to me (usually when SWMBO or somebody else that’s come along will say “I wish I could do this all the time”) that I do NOT wish that because it would be a shame to get tired of doing it. The other problem is that fun, exciting stuff generally ain’t free. So if most folks had 47% of their current worktime available to play, they’d need 5 or 6 times the recreational budget to take advantage of it. So how are they going to do that on 53% of the income? My guess is that if you gave folks a 4-day weekend and then cut their pay in half most of them would feel like they were in jail when they weren’t at work. The rest of them would either get a second job or find something to steal 4 days of the week.

Think in terms of a manufacturing plant. Doesn’t matter whether it’s making twinkies or condoms. It can’t just cut back to 21 hours a week from 40, because it is geared to need 40 hours to produce enough to meet the demand (in fact, many factories are set up to run 20-24 hours a day to minimize the capital cost of production. Those might cope with the twice-as-many-crews problem a little more easily, but the other issues remain). So what happens if it’s people are suddenly cut back to 21 hours a week? I guess it needs to hire a second crew, right? Sounds like a good thing to some people, maybe, because the employer still has a 42-hour production period and the employers only have to work 21 hours a week.

But how do the workers get by on 52.5% of their pay (assuming they were working 40 hours per week)? And what about the fixed costs to the employer of having an employee? I’m talking about the employer’s contribution to group health benefits and other similar costs. Bottom line is you’d have either twice as many people employed but disgruntled because their wages were insufficient, or you’d have nobody willing to work at all because they couldn’t make enough money to be a better deal than welfare. AND you’d have inflated costs to produce any goods or services that involved any labor. And before someone says “just let the factories operate 21 hours a week and quit”, that brings on a whole lot more additional cost; because you’d need twice the factories at more than twice the cost to do the same job. It would be analogous to one of us having two houses (and therefore two mortgages, two sets of utility bills, two sets of taxes, and two sets of maintenance and upkeep costs) so we could live in one house Monday through Thursday and the other one Friday through Sunday.

Seems to me it’d be the same way in most service businesses. Say it’s the front desk or housekeeping down at the local Holiday Inn. Same deal. Bottom line: this is the silliest dang thing I’ve heard in years. My guess would be that none of those Keynesian economists ever had a real job that involved any more than pushing a pencil.

I fear I must beg to most respectully differ. (don't wanna P. anybody else O., you see)

There are probably a lot of folks who could get their job done in 21 hours a week; but my opinion would be that if they could, they weren’t productive enough to start with.

What are you, a communist?

Why punish success? If a skilled worker can have the job done satisfactorily in 4 hours, why should he be compensated differently from a dullard who takes 8 hours?

In regards to pay and pricing, remember, all prices are purely arbitrary. If we all made 50% less, then prices would naturally adjust to 50% less than now, with no actual net change whatsoever in profits or expenses.

What are you, a communist?
NOPE, JUST SOMEBODY WHO BELIEVES IN WORKIN'.
............................................................................................
Why punish success? If a skilled worker can have the job done satisfactorily in 4 hours, why should he be compensated differently from a dullard who takes 8 hours?
IF HE CAN GET IT DONE IN 4 HOURS AND IT TAKES OTHERS 8, HE'S OVERQUALIFIED AND OUGHT TO BE TASKED AT SOMETHING THAT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF HIS CAPABILITIES.
...............................................................................................
In regards to pay and pricing, remember, all prices are purely arbitrary. If we all made 50% less, then prices would naturally adjust to 50% less than now, with no actual net change whatsoever in profits or expenses.[/quote]
NO, BECAUSE THE SAME AMOUNT OF LABOR WOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO EVERYTHING AS IS NOW, BUT EVERYBODY WOULD JUST BE UNDEREMPLOYED.

Make work schemes are systemically flawed.