• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    6
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    You’d have to get rid of the least productive workload. We have work in abundance, but well paying jobs are kept tight by a minority of the population. By reducing the workweek, the medium term natural reaction of the market is getting rid of the least productive jobs, and create job opportunities that pay better all across the board to fulfill the more productive workloads that have just been left vacant, ultimately making each hour of work more productive.

    This isn’t a painless process: there are businesses that are going to have to rethink their finances and a few will have to shut down. But businesses aren’t an end by themselves - they’re useful as long as they serve to allow people to earn a living: if we’re going to oppose a restructuration of the economy that benefits the vast majority of the people because businesses will suffer, we’ve got our priorities backwards.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      19 months ago

      I’m not necessarily opposed to this… I just expected the plan to address how the productivity gap will be filled. Looks like the plan is: “People will just work harder in the 32 hours to make up for it”.

      My pessimism says that if this passes, businesses will just increase their prices to cover the extra cost per hour of employee time.