OT: Finnish Prime Minister proposes 24-hour workweek
Sign.
Me.
Up.
https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1215100881256865792?s=19
(It will also not surprise most of you that she's a millennial.)
January 8th, 2020 at 11:02 PM ^
Most of the comments are going to be about her looks.
January 8th, 2020 at 11:08 PM ^
I'd like to hope most people around here can freak out her words and not just about her looks. It's the 21st-century.
January 9th, 2020 at 7:24 AM ^
Well she is attractive, but having said that, if you get paid by the hour, that will screw up you yearly income.
January 9th, 2020 at 8:22 AM ^
Just pointing out that, while this is a very interesting topic that will have plenty of pro/con commentary for numerous reasons, it is so far OT that it really doesn't belong on this blog.
January 9th, 2020 at 1:39 PM ^
Not as hot as my sister. Also,who the hell wants to work that much during a week?
January 8th, 2020 at 11:06 PM ^
I'm sure this will end well.
24 hours may be cutting it a bit close but there's no reason people need to work 40 hours a week. It's a convenient number that was settled on decades ago but could be altered for different industries and timeframes. And before everyone rushes in, you absolutely should be able to work more if you want or if your job requires it (such as in the medical field). But if you look at my point total you'd deduce I don't spend my full week working, and it would be nice to spend more time with my family and hobbies if it didn't adversely affect my employer (which let's be honest, is always going to be a give-and-take situation).
Anyway, there's a good discussion to be had around changes in how we view employment and its role in people's lives as technology makes it easier to be apart, but I'm not sure we're going to find it on a blog where half of the people yell at the other half about how HS kids are convinced to attend college.
January 9th, 2020 at 12:08 AM ^
In China, the 996 schedule is common among jobs Americans would consider white collar (e.g., software engineering). That's... 9 AM to 9 PM, 6 days a week.
There's a reason that Chinese economic growth has been outpacing the Finnish for.. well, a long time now.
Ultimately, though, this is cultural. In the US, we've been putting growth over serenity for years -- it's practically a nationally defining characteristic. It's led to some of our greatest successes -- and to some of our biggest problems. The idea of a 24-hour work week isn't actually bad, especially in the information economy -- in many jobs, if you could eliminate the distractions, pointless meetings, idle chit chat, etc., you could get as much or more work done in 24 focused hours as you can in 40 unfocused hours. However, if you were to propose it in the US, you'd quickly get accused of being lazy -- it's practically un-American.
(Then again, I'd be willing to wager that you wouldn't end up with 24 highly effective hours, at least not for very long. The pointlessness would end up creeping in, and this would actually cost productivity).
January 9th, 2020 at 3:13 AM ^
You're way off base about China. China can grow quickly because it's still much poorer. South Korea was growing at a similar rate, and that's slowed way down, even though they still work just as much as the Chinese. The Japanese also work long hours and they've been in a recession since like 1990. Highly-developed, rich nations simply can't grow at astronomical rates. Their workers make too much and their currencies are too strong. The US doesn't have a big trade deficit with China because of not working enough.
January 9th, 2020 at 6:46 AM ^
Developed countries where workers put in crazy hours (like Japan and Korea) also tend to have very low birth rates nowadays, which will cause future problems when said workers will be retired.
January 9th, 2020 at 7:37 AM ^
Those countries also have problems attracting immigrants which America doesn’t (well, at least yet no matter how hard Agent Orange tries). That also harms them moving forward future generations.
January 9th, 2020 at 8:12 AM ^
Nobody has a problem with immigration. They have a problem with illegal immigration and people coming to mooch off welfare. I can't quantify how big of a problem that is, but it does no benefit to our economy. Now anybody that complains about people with skills coming here to compete needs to read a history book.
January 9th, 2020 at 8:21 AM ^
This is probably not going to be received well, even if it's mostly true. Some people complain about the educated coming here to work.
January 9th, 2020 at 8:34 AM ^
I don't want educated people coming here to work. My ancestors, and most others, came here without a pot to piss in and worked their assess of in shitty jobs so their kids could have a better life.
Now we want educated people willing to accept less pay and worse working conditions than American citizens to come here and take our cushy office jobs away from us? No thanks! I want people with nothing to immigrate here. Let them start at the bottom just like everyone else did.
And the immigrants on welfare meme is propaganda. Every one I've ever known was exceedingly hard working and too proud to take a handout.
January 9th, 2020 at 8:21 AM ^
Actually, immigrants are a massive net benefit on the public treasury side of the economic equation. They pay billions annually in taxes at all three levels of government plus consumption taxes.
Factor in the fundamental economic concept that their presence both stirs demand for many basic items for businesses to provide and provides more labor for jobs others here won't do.
All the above is true whether or not the person entered with papers or not. Or whether they ultimately acquired papers or not.
This mooch off the system myth is the stuff of fantasy. It's designed to appeal to the same people who love movies where the bad guys are black or brown. It's a powerful idea that many politicians milk to maintain power.
But it's not factual.
January 9th, 2020 at 8:51 AM ^
fact: the california hospital association a few years ago said that it spent $2.2 billion dollars on unremibursed medical expenses due to immigrants, and had to close 34 emergency rooms since those are used as 'walk-in' clinics and of course can't refuse service.
fact: entire schools and in some places, school systems could close down if the illegal immigrant population was not present.
fact: the cost in police, fire, ambulance, crime, jails, prisons, vehicular accidents/insurance, roads and traffic would drwarf the hosptial numbers. and that's just in california.
love them, pray for them, but don't try to justify that illegal immigrants are a net benefit to the economy. that is a lie.
and yes, we are a household of immigrants. neg away.
January 9th, 2020 at 9:15 AM ^
Nothing you stated here refutes what NateVolk said. Hospitals around the country are closing down bc of lack of insurance in ACTUAL citizens combined with stringent regulations forcing hospitals to form massive conglomerates and networks in order to stay afloat. For someone so willing to blame illegals for these issues, I’m sure you want to guarantee healthcare to your fellow citizens right?
LMFAO
January 9th, 2020 at 10:23 AM ^
maybe you didn't understand what i wrote: $2.2 billiion, in one year, because of illegals. that is a huge cost. your response is that there are other issues besides that with hospitals. that's not logic, that's deflection.
i'll make a few guesses here, you let me know if i'm right: you've never spent any signif time in california, and particularly socal. same with law enforcement, emergency services, courts, jail, prison, insurance industry, educator in a severely impacted area of illegal immigration, etc. neither an immigrant, nor a farmer. maybe not even in the hospital industry. so how'd i do, any of my guesses correct?
and when you use profanity, even in an acronym, it lets me know you don't really have a response. its cool, there really isn't one based on the numbers. there may be many other good to great reasons for the position, but financially justifying it is not one of them.
January 9th, 2020 at 10:58 AM ^
Am in medicine. So try again.
You cited examples from 1 state, inaccurately, to refute a post that is talking about federal level impact of illegal immigrants without sources.
The impact of illegal immigration pales in comparison to the “other issues.” Thus, your 2.2 billion figure is not nearly as big as you want it to seem. Hell, in Cali alone illegals account for maybe a quarter tops of the general uninsured population. If we took care of our actual citizens, then you wouldn’t even be scapegoating them. Now does that mean illegals are never a negative on any community? No, I’m sure there are instances in which the amount of money they put into the system via consumption etc does not offset the public utilities they use with actual citizens.
No one needs your superficial prayers since your actual prejudices are known.
Speaking about my vocabulary instead of the topic at hand is actual deflection.
January 9th, 2020 at 12:46 PM ^
so i was right about almost all of my questions, but be specific, what exactly do you do 'in medicine'?
what was cited that was inaccurate, and what do you have to refute it?
most importantly, do tell, what are my 'actual prejudices'?
January 9th, 2020 at 4:39 PM ^
It’s pointless going back n forth with someone who’s intentionally obtuse. The downvotes pretty much confirm that.
January 9th, 2020 at 6:04 PM ^
so your true character is exposed.
a quitter full of words but nothing else. at least now i know your 'actual prejudice'.
January 10th, 2020 at 11:48 AM ^
I exposed you. You’re mad. Cya. Thoughts and prayers.
January 9th, 2020 at 1:21 PM ^
FROM THE TOP ROPE
January 9th, 2020 at 10:02 AM ^
That's one unsourced fact and three assertions, including calling people liars. That's no way to have a discussion.
And yep, I'm an immigrant (legal), too.
January 9th, 2020 at 10:15 AM ^
If it's only illegal immigrants you take issue with then make it easier for them to be legal immigrants and your problem is solved. It's only "illegal" because someone drew a line in the sand and made up the requirements. At the moment, those requirements are being set up with the intention of preventing as many immigrants from entering the country as possible, legally or not, because they're a darker skin tone.
January 9th, 2020 at 5:21 PM ^
I don't think you understand how economies work. Government spending—more police, schools, roads, etc.—creates jobs and economic activity. From your post, it sounds like you're claiming that a bunch of doctors, police officers, and teachers would lose their jobs if not for the increased demand for their services created by immigrants.
I'm not saying that you don't make some good points about the costs of immigration, but your conclusion that those costs are somehow economically detrimental doesn't square with Econ 101.
January 9th, 2020 at 8:25 AM ^
Looks like Trumps senior advisor Stephen Miller needs to read a book then considering how the administration has been severely cutting down on H1/J1 visas being granted to skilled immigrants.
The illegal immigrant argument has always been a ruse to tamp down on actual immigration as a whole.
However my original point is that developed economies in the east have problems attracting/keeping skilled workers thus resulting in consequences with regards to the future when it comes to population.
Japan has govt programs designed to make people have more kids but like everywhere else their millennial and zoomer generations are fed up with the entrenched hierarchy of working for the sake of working amongst other things.
January 9th, 2020 at 9:02 AM ^
Japan doesn't want ANY immigrants. They'll have to get over it soon though, because they have the least amount of sex of any developed country and their population is old as fuck as a result.
Pretty much the same story in most of Europe, although they use birth control instead of masturbating to anime tentacle porn.
January 9th, 2020 at 1:26 PM ^
I had a couple of buddies who worked/lived in Japan for a number of years, and ended up marrying Japanese women who I am also friends with. According to them, the Japanese work a crazy amount of hours, but a lot of it is face time. They have to be at the office 60+ hours a week, but they "don't do much" while they are there. I'm sure it is an exaggeration, but the point is valid; people don't do a lot of work beyond X hours a week even if they are there.
I'd love a 4 day 24 hour work week. I'm guessing I could get just as much done and my internet surfing would happen on my own time.
January 9th, 2020 at 9:48 AM ^
No, it really hasn't "always been a ruse". You're putting words in people's mouths. A great many people will tell you - myself included - that they are in favor of legal immigration and against illegal immigration, but when you say things like that you're basically saying we're wrong about our own position. What we're against is people breaking the law. This is not difficult. Oh, and we're also against the purposeful conflating of illegal and legal immigration by making basically no distinction in the media and just calling everyone "immigrants" whether or not they're here lawfully - and by extension, calling people who are anti-ILLEGAL-immigration "anti-immigrant."
January 9th, 2020 at 10:15 AM ^
Your vote, assumption caveat, goes to a admin that incorporates a nationalist agenda with a senior advisor on record advocating for lower immigration on aggregate regardless of immigration status. How is that my fault for pointing that out?
The end point is the same regardless of how you personally feel regarding the nuance between legal and illegal immigration. Thus you really don’t care to differentiate either.
January 9th, 2020 at 10:52 AM ^
Assumption caveat regarding my vote is far more necessary than you think.
And even if I did vote for who you think I voted for, since when does voting for a particular candidate mean you must necessarily adopt and agree with literally every plank in their platform or every action they take? That kind of assumption is quite possibly the number one thing wrong with partisan political discourse today. Why can't I vote for someone and still disagree with them on certain things? Especially given the functional binary choice we have. I do care to differentiate. We can vote for people who are closest to what we believe - in fact we frankly have no choice but to do so - and still advocate something different.
January 9th, 2020 at 3:16 PM ^
Yes, it has always been a ruse to keep colored peoples and minorities out of the country.
The very first immigration laws in the 1870/1880s weren't based around wealth, or skills, or knowledge. It was "There's too many Chinese people in the country, you can't come over anymore." And that continued into the next century. After WWI, "good immigrants" from Western Europe were let into the country at staggeringly high numbers than peoples from other areas of the world. All the while Asian immigrants continued to be banned from entering the country. Things might have improved after WWII, namely that we stopped with a blanket ban on certain ethnicities, but "legal" immigration is just a made up term to justify keeping people out of the country.
You can dress it up all you want, and say you're "just against breaking the law yada yada yada". But when that law is based historically on racist policies, and currently being enforced/shaped by a white nationalist..........well I'm just gonna call a spade a spade.
January 9th, 2020 at 10:06 AM ^
Stephen Miller is evil in a spray-on-hair bottle.
January 9th, 2020 at 12:43 PM ^
Illegal immigrants are mostly barred from accessing federally-funded welfare programs. What services they do have access to are things like WIC, emergency Medicaid, etc. And their kids must have access to K-12 schooling, but that's at the state level and is pretty small (about 1% of all children in school). Now there are states where that burden is more significant, and undocumented parents of children born in the US (the comically-offensive "anchor babies") do have access to additional benefits, but in sum total we're talking about a small number of people compared to the US population overall. And "people with skills" argument ignores the fact that a lot of these undocumented immigrants do the jobs citizens don't particularly want/have the skills to do, such as construction, cleaning, maintenance, farming, etc. And that doesn't even address the new jobs they create via new businesses, the money they spend that goes back into the economy, etc.
The "convenience" of blaming others for perceived problems is very American, but it's just not backed by facts.
January 9th, 2020 at 12:04 PM ^
I don't think those countries even want many immigrants. But they've got to do something to boost their birth rate or they just won't have enough taxpayers in the future. The most effective way to do that is to make it easier on working parents so they don't feel like they have to choose between parenthood and having a career.
January 10th, 2020 at 9:19 AM ^
Korea and Japan have 0 problems attracting immigrants. They're just highly xenophobic countries who don't want them. That's changing a bit because no one's having kids, but even then, grudgingly. When people were fleeing Syria, like 10 guys made it to Korea and there was a massive uproar about it.
January 9th, 2020 at 11:06 AM ^
There's some truth to that -- growth rates are usually expressed in percentages, which obviously hurts larger economies. However, there's also a lot of untruth to that, because China has the largest economy in the world, measured by purchasing power, and the third largest, measured by nominal GDP.
To be completely fair, there's a lot of backlash against the 996 system, because, well, people don't really like the 72-hour work week. And, it's officially illegal, but... Chinese labor laws are... uh, unevenly enforced.
That has nothing to do with the "trade deficit," BTW, which has got to be one of the most misunderstood terms in broad use. The US has a large trade deficit with China because many blue-collar Chinese will/must work under conditions that Americans generally won't -- basically, the Chinese price their own labor more cheaply than Americans do, so we buy a lot of it.
The simple fact of the matter is that the long work hours in the countries you're talking about were intended as a way to bring those countries out of poverty, and they have succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Yes, Japan has been in recession for a long time. However, they are in recession as a top-5 world economy. Japan, the same country that was utterly demolished 75 years ago -- literally starving, in fact. Remember the "Made in Japan" joke from Back to the Future? That was reality. And, with limited natural resources, but with an awful lot of hard work, you're now worrying about a prolonged recession of a top-five world economy.
January 9th, 2020 at 12:12 PM ^
So, look at my comment history and the years that I have been on this blog (don't want to come across as a troll).
I did a bunch of deals where manufacturing moved from the USA to China. The main reason is that the Chinese government does not care about the environment or the workers.
January 9th, 2020 at 12:29 PM ^
The 996 culture goes both against China labor laws and the general trend of industries; in my experience only sweatshop IT firms even try (for brief periods) to run like that and usually they produce such dogshit results that they are forced to put more effort into good work-product and not just speed.
China's economy has grown faster, in large part, because it was much worse off not that long ago. The per-capita nominal GDP for Finland is around $49k; China is about $10k. That doesn't tell the whole story, obviously, as comparing a country of about 6M to one with 1.3B, but if you want paint with a broad brush so will I.
And China's growth has slowed a bit as well; it was over 10% to start the decade and is closer to 6.5% now. That happens when the low-hanging fruit (mostly manufacturing) slowly starts to fade and you're left with rising income, rising expectations for services, and more competition from similar low-cost labor countries nearby. China is trying to break into a lot of service-based industries (IT, health, finances, etc.) and people who work in those industries don't work crazy hours anymore, or at least don't feel it's always necessary.
I don't think 24 hours would work in the US for a number of reasons, but I could see a move to a 4-day week being on the table, or at least the option. Lots of companies provide some flexibility on that front, and industries like nursing have 3 or 4-day weeks due to longer shifts. So it's not crazy.
January 9th, 2020 at 9:35 AM ^
The 40 hour work week wasn't "settled on". Workers and unions had to fight literal battles in the streets to get the 40 hour work week.
And after four decades of wages stay flat while productivity has exploded, people deserve more pay and fewer hours.
January 9th, 2020 at 10:29 AM ^
How soon they forget.
January 9th, 2020 at 12:46 PM ^
Yes, I'm well aware of that. But they "settled" on 40 hours because it's Mon-Fri for 8 hours a day. Before then people could be expected to work every day save for some hours on Sunday to go to church. I won't in any way diminish the impact of unions.
I agree people should be paid more and work fewer hours if it makes sense. My issue was that 40 hours wasn't written on some stone tablets and is immutable.
January 8th, 2020 at 11:08 PM ^
I’d like to work 1 24 hour shift
January 9th, 2020 at 7:48 AM ^
LOL!!! You enjoy yourself with that! I am no longer young enough to pull that off without a few days of recovery, which largely eliminates the benefit. Poor me...
January 8th, 2020 at 11:11 PM ^
What is “work” anyway. I know people that make 6 figures by pushing buttons a couple of times a day. Buttons. You keyboard warriors know what I’m talkin bout. Work. Ain’t existed since 1963.
January 9th, 2020 at 12:13 AM ^
Fuck yeah, Jibbroni!
January 9th, 2020 at 8:13 AM ^
I represent that comment. God bless America!
January 8th, 2020 at 11:13 PM ^
January 8th, 2020 at 11:18 PM ^
Only for the poors!