Canadian Money Forum banner
1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,034 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
  • Like
Reactions: AlexInvestSavvy

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,991 Posts
Well that's the trick.

If you make $3k for the company in a week, they can give you $2k, (depending on capex/overhead) and everyone can be happy. Doesn't matter if it's a 8 hour week or a 40 hour week.

That's why the trick is getting people as productive as possible

It's also why a high minimum wage costs jobs. If someone only brings in $20/hr they can only be paid about $14/hr, or the employer is better off not having them.

That's why we need to innovate and push ways to make people "worth" more
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,145 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,991 Posts
... can't seem to open up that link (is it behind a paywall?) to verify MrMatt's post ... the "trick".
If the staff feel more relaxed, maybe they get just as much work done in 4 days as 5, who knows.
As long as the math works out, they can do a lot.

The issue is
1. Some employers are greedy and want to take "too much".
2. Some employees are greedy and want to take "too much".

Ideally the employers who underpay their staff, lose their staff to better companies, and the employees who take to much kill the company and lose their jobs.
Being too greedy hurts both the employer and employee.

Honestly if I had a company and I could provide good work conditions and still make enough I would.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,034 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
... can't seem to open up that link (is it behind a paywall?) to verify MrMatt's post ... the "trick".
Weird, you should be able. Otherwise I'll paste it here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,145 Posts
Weird, you should be able. Otherwise I'll paste it here.
... thanks for the offer. I'm now able to open and read the link. (Not sure why I wasn't able to do it earlier as it just kept loading ... and loading but doesn't. Got a blank page just waiting for more than 5 minutes!)

This "major evolution" of condensing the 5 days work week to 4 days doesn't really change anything (especially for salaried employees) other than the ability to further blur the lines between work and home. The answer is from the bolded part of this question.

Does this mean that the workload of the teams will have to be condensed within 4 days?

The idea is not to condense the working hours into 4 days, but rather to review our ways of doing things and our quality time invested, with the aim of working better! Above all, we want to increase the productivity and well-being of our employees.
Since the office will be closed on Fridays (eg), there'll be some operational cost savings to the company. I guess the company will find out if there'll be productivity increases with this 'evolutionary' work model for this IT (gaming) company.

[IMO: I think they need to focus on creativity first and the productivity should then follow.]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,784 Posts
A 4 day workweek was a dream when I was a young adult. All the media stories were about how people would use their newly acquired leisure time.

The reality became people work more hours to maintain the same standard of living. Overtime and multiple jobs became the norm.

Increased productivity lowered prices so employers could compete but that just maintained the status quo for workers.

Global free trade with impoverished nations not only eliminated a lot of jobs but made the ones remaining less able to increase wages.

After free trade, the companies had to not only compete with each other on price to consumers, but also with countries with the lowest living standards.

There is no longer any doubt that China got the gold mine and we got the shaft. We sold our future for trinkets and trash.

We were warned ...The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls and whispered in the sounds of silence.

H. Ross Perot famously had a way with words that galvanized ordinary Americans and helped him become the most successful third-party candidate since 1912.

He hurled one of his most well-known lines during a 1992 debate with Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush when he assailed the North American Free Trade Agreement, which had just been tentatively agreed to by Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

He predicted Americans would soon hear a “giant sucking sound” as production operations and factories packed up in the United States and moved to Mexico. Perot said something similar a year later in a debate with Vice President Al Gore, the most high profile in a series of debates on the trade pact, a few of which I participated in as an adviser to key Democratic leaders in Congress who opposed it.

Economists, business leaders, Clinton and most Republicans dismissed Perot’s worries as overblown. Despite the fact that most had never read the agreement, they argued free trade would create jobs, period. Over the objections of Perot, most Democrats in the House and other critics like me – NAFTA was ratified and went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,717 Posts
My personal experience was that I was not at maximum productivity when I worked 40 or 50 hours a week. This was the least efficient, in my experience.

In my case (this will depend on the person and nature of the work), when I worked 20 or 30 hours a week, I got virtually the same amount accomplished. This is mainly because I wasn't exhausted. I was better rested, refreshed, and looked forward to wrapping up work so that I could get to my free time.

I suspect it works like this for many people in computer & tech work. But it's not going to be like that in every field.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,991 Posts
A 4 day workweek was a dream when I was a young adult. All the media stories were about how people would use their newly acquired leisure time.

The reality became people work more hours to maintain the same standard of living. Overtime and multiple jobs became the norm.
Not really, people want ever increasing standards of living.

I remember going to the grocery store and buying food that is "in season", which is almost a laughable concept now.
You can buy fresh strawberries almost 365 days a year.
I grew up "middle class(ish)" with one landline and a single colour TV, and nobody had cable. Now pretty much everyone has multiple high def TV's, each person has their own supercomputer cell phone, and streaming "TV" is normal.

Then forget the massive population explosion, sorry if there is only room for 100k houses in that area, when the population increases by 50%, 50k families who would want to live there, can't.

The biggest problem is that we spend all the productivity improvements, and then some. Being massively in debt or even insolvent is considered the norm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,416 Posts
My personal experience was that I was not at maximum productivity when I worked 40 or 50 hours a week. This was the least efficient, in my experience.
When I was still working, I put in whatever hours it took to meet the objectives. I never ever considered that I had a "Job". I enjoyed what I did and I don't believe productivity was ever a problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
The biggest problem is that we spend all the productivity improvements, and then some. Being massively in debt or even insolvent is considered the norm.
The best way to deal with this problem is to calculate your spending by hours of labour, rather than simply in dollar amount.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,991 Posts
Capitalism rely on people spending, but I am focusing on trying to give solution to spendthrift to deal with their problem.
Capitalism doesn't require excessive spending, in fact I'd argue that prudent money management is to the benefit of the system overall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,784 Posts
Consumer spending drives the economy. That is why rich people getting more money they won't spend is called "dead money".

Government spending directed at the wealthy, either directly or indirectly through tax cuts, doesn't increase the GDP, because they don't spend it.

Government spending directed at those who will spend it, increases GDP. The money circulates through the economy.

The CERB replaced money that was taken out of the economy by loss of income due to the pandemic.

The "positive" effect on GDP was the decline in economic acitivity was less than it would have been without the government intervention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,281 Posts
Capitalism as a system doesn't require excessive spending at all.
Government as a wasteful and fiscally irresponsible institution requires excessive spending
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
Capitalism doesn't require excessive spending, in fact I'd argue that prudent money management is to the benefit of the system overall.
Define excessive.
The economic system do require some saving as a buffer against any type of shock and crisis, but ultimately, everything is build for consumption, including any new investment. This is because only consumption of the society make an investment worthwhile (returns), and not turn it into a giant money sink that eat investor alive, or bed debt in the banking and shadow banking system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,991 Posts
Define excessive.
You do know about dictionaries right?
more than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate.

The economic system do require some saving as a buffer against any type of shock and crisis, but ultimately, everything is build for consumption, including any new investment. This is because only consumption of the society make an investment worthwhile (returns), and not turn it into a giant money sink that eat investor alive, or bed debt in the banking and shadow banking system.
Did you read Brave New World?
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top