So, apparently Mark Takano (representative from California) proposed a 32 hour work week act in congress right now. It would amend the 40 hour work week to now be 32 hours, allowing us to have 4 8 hour days rather than 5 8 hour days.
Given stuff I've been talking about lately, this is an overdue change. As I said, we're working with labor laws designed in the 1930s. They need an update, and a 30-32 hour work week is the most reasonable and conservative shift we can make. While my previous model would have this lowering GDP, let's be honest, it's just a model, and there's a ton of inefficiency with work as it is, where a lot of people drag out their work weeks looking busy because the punishment of getting done with your work quickly and efficiently is to either get paid less as you're working fewer hours, getting fired as your job is not worth a 40 hour a week salary in the eyes of employers, or you have to take on additional responsibilities. Our system is designed to MAKE work, not reduce it. Because reducing it means you're not putting enough sweat and tears into earning your right to exist. it's the backwards thing about our system. Iceland has tried a 4 day work week with 35-36 hours and saw no reduction in its productivity as a result, and I have seen arguments from people such as Rutger Bregman in his Utopia for Realists suggesting that work reductions might be possible without significant hits to productivity. So this is a good idea.
But, let's face it, while this is a long overdue change, it's not going to be perfect in and of itself. After all, many people currently do work more hours, and the current laws do nothing for them. This includes salary workers and even a lot of hourly workers, such as those working 80 hours a week in some factory jobs. Honestly, we should have much stronger regulations in some of these jobs, where employees are allowed to refuse overtime demands. I really think that should be a thing. We can argue maybe not in some essential occupations like the medical industry, but for most, yes, absolutely. You don't need people working 80 hours a week in factories making widgets, or people working 60 hours a week as a software developer for some video game, or people working 70 hours a week as a salaried manager at Wendy's making like $30,000 a year. It's ridiculous. I mean, people should be allowed to work much less than they do. And this law should be stronger than this.
Another issue is one of pay. The minimum wage is $7.25. People have pushed for a shift to $15 an hour in recent years. We've discussed this. While $15 is relatively high and very progressive, in 5 years, which is about the amount of time it will take to implement such a shift, that minimum wage will turn into something closer to $13 an hour now. And if you move to 32 hours a week, you'll have to have workers making $18.75 to make the equivalent of $15 in a 40 hour a week system. So, pay does need to be increased.
Alternatively, we should have a UBI. A $13,200 UBI would be similar to say, a $6.35 minimum wage as is. So you could have that, along side say, a $12 minimum wage and have it work. But UBI could lead to additional work refusal, making the actual productivity hit even larger to some extent. While I would argue the economy can handle it (keep in mind I ran scenarios down to around 23 hours a week work equivalent, with 32 being very conservative by my estimation), it is something to keep in mind. A UBI would also theoretically give people the ability to say no. Which is to me worth it more than regulatory changes like this (although they are welcome). Honestly, I would like to do away with the concept of a fixed work week, between UBI and universal healthcare, and allow people to work as many or as few hours as they want. I mean, some people have the drive where they would want to work 60 hours to earn as much money as they can, while others would want to work like 20, just to have a little extra spending money. And I think we should let them. Maybe the right answer is we should do away with the notion of the work week, as with UBI and universal healthcare, we wouldn't need benefits attached to jobs, and employers might have to shift to an hourly or task based system similar to the gig economy to get workers. And while the gig economy is horrible to workers under the status quo due to the lack of things like benefits, and stable working hours, with a UBI and universal healthcare, these things might become perks, allowing workers to simply have more flexibility. I think it would be a much better, grander change.
Honestly, either way, the 40 hour work week is an outdated concept. It was designed in the 1930s, and while it was utopian back then, in the modern era it feels horribly outdated and in need of updating. Honestly, a 32 hour work week is the least we can do in my opinion. Like many other democratic party inspired changes, it's long overdue, and actually relatively moderate. it's like the bare minimum we should accept. But it is progress and that said, I am for it, as long as it is paired with a robust minimum wage increase or a UBI. So good on you, Mark Takano, for pushing this idea. I wish more people were as forward thinking as this.
Now, will this pass any time soon? Sadly no. Not with jokers like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema being swing votes in congress. I swear those guys make their whole careers out of being democrats who oppose people having nice things. And I bet a lot of other "moderate democrats" and even some so called "progressives" (seriously, some people consider the likes of Nancy Pelosi "progressive"), would probably oppose the idea. Because democrats seem to not want people to actually have nice things. So who knows. It's probably DOA like everything else nice right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment