The Post-Pandemic Workweek Should Be Reduced by 10 Hours



Just say it. Libs are lazy!


How you going to pay more for less? Hello inflation!


Let's start at 25 h/w and negotiate up to 30 but we'e gonna hafta address the Giant Corporate Vacuum that gobbles up so much of our GDP. And btw, how tf can Bezos's Ginormous Wealth go up by 3O BILLION DOLLARS in, admittedly, a fucking Pandemic?

What makes Bezos worth more than what, 50 million people?
How is it that Bezos is so prized by this country that he's allowed to gobble up so much of the Citizenry's Wealth and so many -- SO FUCKING MANY -- are doing so poorly?

Where tf is the Balance in that -- or is 'balance' / economic Justice merely some childish sort of liberal Fantasy only to be dreampt about on your way to LaLaLand?

“And those who see this demand as laughable utopian dreaming must be pitied, because someone has tricked them into a form of sleep-talking.

Because productivity has dramatically increased while real (not nominal) wages have declined, we have, as our reality, almost the perfect inverse of increased work for less pay. To demand a shorter workweekthof r more money, then, is as concrete as working more for increasingly less money.”

So we've 'decided' what we want is to do what, instead, end up with probably a Hundred Million of our Citizens out there with shitty, if they're 'Lucky,' health insurance and here we are, in the very early stages (if Republicans have their way, and it looks like the courts may be sympathetic) of a Panfuckingdemic.

It makes no Sense.

“And those who see this demand as laughable utopian dreaming must be pitied, because someone has tricked them into a form of sleep-talking.

Because productivity has dramatically increased while real (not nominal) wages have declined, we have, as our reality, almost the perfect inverse of increased work for less pay. To demand a shorter workweekthof r [Chas!] more money, then, is as concrete as working more for increasingly less money.

The world does not need more productivity. We have done productivity forever and forever. Can't we do something else with this, our one and only world?”



@3: Covet thy fantasy, squire.


This is another one of those things like healthcare that every other civilized nation is somehow capable of doing but the supposed greatest and richest country in the world cant, for...reasons.

The spice must flow.


Charles, I would be delighted if you would quit working altogether. I will continue to work 40 hour weeks for as long as I may.


i'm pretty sure everyone DESERVES a home with a Puget Sound view, 14 weeks of paid vacation, free utilities and most importantly, free cable tee-vee.


Nah, guesty, we'alls prefer Comcast

the second-largest broadcasting and cable television company in the world by revenue and the largest pay-TV company, the largest cable TV company and largest home Internet service provider in the United States, and the nation's third-largest home telephone service provider. Comcast services U.S. residential and commercial customers in 40 states

because we'alls LOVE taking it up the ass from multinational Monopolies.

"Don't Like it?

--actual CoMCa$T Motto

THIS is what we the people Deserve.
The OPPOSITE of Free Shit.

That belongs to those who
can wrest it away
from the rest
of US.


Chuck you’re the one to be pitied if you think a 32 hour week paid for 40 is ever going to pass.


Charles, spending other people's money is a Lazy way of daydreaming.


At the end of 1930, just after the start of the Great Depression, the Kellogg’s cereal plant in Battle Creek, Michigan, replaced its three eight-hour shifts per day with four six-hour shifts. Founder W.K. Kellogg and Kellogg’s president Lewis J. Brown hoped to achieve several goals at the same time: to reduce unemployment in the community, to increase worker efficiency, and to provide employees “greater opportunity for recreation and enjoyment — outside of business hours,” which would “mean better living and working conditions generally.”


No doubt Charles is going to push The Stranger to give a 33% raise in pay and cut the amount of work required of its staff. To do otherwise would be hypocritical, both for Charles for writing this and The Stranger for publishing it. This would also provide The Stranger a great example to other businesses in showing where this money can come from.


"Charles, spending other people's money is a Lazy way of daydreaming."

I duuno.
It seems to keep
TheRich pretty busy.


Doh! People are already not working...why on earth do you think 10 hours less per week is viable?

1) We need people working and at efficient levels.

2) We need to get the economy going ..forward momentum within the guidelines of health parameters, protocols and significant restraints.

3) Placing even more burdens on business requiring them to pay for work not performed isn't a great idea...if you want the economy to grow and get people back to work.

The concept of working less and at greater costs only exists in the make believe world of Mudede-nomics.


Keynesian economics have it backwards. It's not about the consumer, it's about the producer. Without production there is nothing to consume.


I believe that E.F. Schumacher proposed the 30 hour work week in "Small is Beautiful" decades ago. A six-hour, 5 day week IIRC. The reasoning was more about overall happiness for those doing less-attractive jobs: the impact of 6 hours a day doing a crap job wasn't as miserable as 8 hours.

The problem is that US culture is not into 'small'. It is into pushing the envelope, making things 'big', we are a 'big' culture. Everything else would have to scale down culturally - material expectations etc. I don't see that happening if anything our culture moves towards more and MORE material stuff and higher expectations.


I mean there is an entire class of people whoS job it is Is to add cost but no value to products. We don’t have to get the wood chippers warmed up if they agreed to be multimillionaires instead of billionaires. We could easily keep everyone’s take home pay and consumer prices the same if we got rid of some of these insufficiencies that add no value but a lot of cost but those inefficiencies hire PR firms (more inefficiency) to convince you that you can’t be free unless someone owns 15 yachts and the elephant mans remains.
Let the bootlicking commence in 3...2...and...


@1 raindrop, et al, As usual, Charles does himself no favors in his word salad approach to writing, however the typical dumbfucks that show up in groves here are as usual, well… being their typical dumbfuck selves (always fascinating that the dumbest among us are the most persistent in showing everyone how dumb they are).

Anyone remember Paul Ryan’s recommendation for growing the economy? Have more kids! Paul Ryan is a dumbfuck. Our present day economy is dependent on unsustainable growth. You can not continue economic growth based on selling more stuff to more people forever. There is a limited amount of resources on this planet, and a limited amount of people that can be supported by those resources. So if you’re too fucking stupid to understand that basic principle, shut the fuck up, you have nothing to contribute other than your dumbfuckery, just like Paul Ryan.

The 40-hour work week is completely arbitrary in economics. There is no economic “law” that suggested 40 hours is the ideal amount of time for any individual to contribute to the economy. 40 hours is only what “everyone” has just accepted as the way it should be. Why? Primarily because the dumbfucks have decreed it so.

And just wait until AI & robotics start replacing hundreds of millions of jobs. I know all you dumbfucks get excited at just the prospect of that. You're thinking that just means a bigger slice of the pie for you, because that's just how dumbfucks think.

Changing the 40-hour work week is hard because of the way the US economical model works, and because there are a lot of dumbfucks. But if you can’t even comprehend why it needs to change, then you’re "lazy" in the brain, like raindrop… or more concisely, just another dumbfuck.


I'm with 18 & 19. Though rather than a scale back from 40 to 30, I'd prefer a several month long annual paid vacation, similar to that which WH Taft proposed decades ago...

For the overwhelming majority of us, work can prove unnecessarily stressful, driving up rates of all sorts of disease and unhealthy habits and behavior. Those sad little week long getaways we periodically embark upon in an effort to stay sane and/or explore our world are wholly insufficient. I had the amazing opportunity to spend 8 days down in Cuba a couple years ago. And as beautiful and awe inspiring as that time was, it didn't really afford me anywhere near the time needed to fully disengage from my own life and to simply experience the culture as I'd have liked.

The only thing I'd really agree with anyone of the bootlicker comments on is that such a radical change is not gonna happen in our lifetimes. But there's hope for the next generations. An inability to recognize this truth is sad and unfortunate.


I don't see how less work for the same pay is "muddled thinking," while less work for more pay somehow is not. they are just parts of a continuum. Going to a four-day week would have tons of benefits, not just in terms of more personal time but in less resources and time wasted in commuting, making child care simpler, etc. I also like the idea pf more vacation, perhaps in longer bocks, rather then cutting the workweek. Many employers would see little change in productivity if they cut a day off (in theory, 4x 10 hour days is the same as 5 x 8, and my experience is that people probably get essentially the same amount done whether they are officially working 8 or 10 hours).

People who work in factories, restaurants, etc. of course simply have to be there to keep things moving. You would not expect the same productivity from 32 hours in the factory or selling shoes or whatever as you would from 40, of course, so a shorter workweek would increase labor costs in that kind of an industry. I'd expect substantial resistance to an immediate 25% increase in labor costs so this is going to be a tough sell. Also, if we continue to tie health care to jobs, having to hire more people = more health insurance premiums to get the same amount of work done is going to mean that the real increase in labor costs is much more than just the decreased number of hours for a given paycheck.

This is a discussion we really ought to be having but it is not going to happen easily.