Topic: So, apparently I can't work more than 40 hours a week... - page 3. (Read 5708 times)
Are you sure you want to work as many hours as possible at a minimum wage place, and have no free time, instead of work as little as possible at such a place and spend all your free time on improving your chances for a much higher paying and intellectually stimulating job? (I.e. education/training)
Atlas, I have it - the solution to your problem.
Pretend to be an illegal alien.
That way you can work 90 hours a week AND get paid less than the minimum wage. Best of all, no health and safety regulations so you can risk your life to make the boss a few extra cents.
Problem solved.
No need to thank me - it just makes me happy to know that you will finally be able to work the long hours with low pay that you dreamed of and so richly deserve!
Pretend to be an illegal alien.
That way you can work 90 hours a week AND get paid less than the minimum wage. Best of all, no health and safety regulations so you can risk your life to make the boss a few extra cents.
Problem solved.
No need to thank me - it just makes me happy to know that you will finally be able to work the long hours with low pay that you dreamed of and so richly deserve!
It has nothing to do with stamina or efficiency. The 70 hour workers (not managers) simply don't value any free time. Sticking Twinkies on a shelf is stimulating to them on some level beyond what others deem acceptable.
Right, and the only reason those people are competing with him for this job is because, since neither of them can work 70 hours weeks, the two of them are on an equal footing. If this law were eliminated, he would not be competing with them.Whether that meant he'd look elsewhere or they'd look elsewhere depends on lots of factors. But either way, he wouldn't be competing with them. There are plenty of jobs where being able to work 70 hours a week makes no difference. Teacher, for example.
(often the overtime not paid anyway as it is deemed "just something you have to do if you want this job").
Then that's just the market rate for the labor. If the employee can be easily fired and replaced with somebody who can easily meet the requirement of un-salaried overtime, then why not?
I see nothing wrong here.
You assume that the market is some kind of objective being that assigns value to labour. It isn't.
It's my first time entering the workforce and it seems finding work that exceeds 40 hours a week is hard.
Why? Because the state feels it's necessary to mandate employers by force to pay 1.5 times the wage for every hour worked overtime.
Fuck this. If I want to offer labor for more than 40 hours per week, it's my damn right. It's my labor.
Why? Because the state feels it's necessary to mandate employers by force to pay 1.5 times the wage for every hour worked overtime.
Fuck this. If I want to offer labor for more than 40 hours per week, it's my damn right. It's my labor.
when I tried to join the workforce not too long ago, I was trying to find a half-time job. Not at all easy. Because of the overhead they always want you fulltime. Now I'm back to self-employed, working over 40 hours ;|. darn.
On the one hand, I agree with you that you should be able to work as many hours as you would like. On the other hand, for a rational person in the first world, that number should at least average out to less than 40.
That's my point. You're in competition with people who can outwork you like you can't believe. You probably can't keep up with them. They just work and sleep. If not for time and half, the business would fire you because you finally get tired of 70 hour weeks.
He's only in competition with those people because of this law. If not for this law, those people would be working 70 hour weeks at jobs where that kind of stamina is maximally valued and he wouldn't be competing with them at all. He'd be looking for a job where that kind of stamina is of no (or minimal) value. If there are people who can outwork him by that much, then he's picked a job at which he's terribly inefficient. An ideal system would discourage him from working in that field, not hold others back so he has a chance.It has nothing to do with stamina or efficiency. The 70 hour workers (not managers) simply don't value any free time. Sticking Twinkies on a shelf is stimulating to them on some level beyond what others deem acceptable.
Sure - I don't think anyone thinks it's a bad idea for you to want to work extra hours (for pay of course).
The problem is that if your labor is just not valued at all (which it basically wouldn't be if you are in direct competition with the developing countries) then you won't even get a job to start with (in which case your biggest problem won't be over getting the latest plasma TV).
Specifically in regards to the OP I'm sure you can find other ways to make extra money outside of the 40 hours if you want to.
The problem is that if your labor is just not valued at all (which it basically wouldn't be if you are in direct competition with the developing countries) then you won't even get a job to start with (in which case your biggest problem won't be over getting the latest plasma TV).
Specifically in regards to the OP I'm sure you can find other ways to make extra money outside of the 40 hours if you want to.
Wealth is not zero-sum. It's not the corporations fault that people buy crap they can't afford.
All I am saying is if your labor is not scarce and easily replaced by anyone with a lower cost-of-living, then maybe you need to move up a little to get the first world living you desire.
It's not coercion. It's reality.
All I am saying is if your labor is not scarce and easily replaced by anyone with a lower cost-of-living, then maybe you need to move up a little to get the first world living you desire.
It's not coercion. It's reality.
If that happens, it seems the first world isn't generating the wealth to justify their lifestyle. The problem isn't cheap labor; it's a poor performing economy and overvalued labor.
Well to a fair extent I think it could be argued that a large proportion of the first world's "wealth" is generated by big business through the use of 3rd world labor for the benefit of the share holders and upper management - and for this case they are indeed generating enough wealth for their lifestyle (just look at those yachts and private jets).
So no problem as long as you are in the right group (a large shareholder or part of the "team") - the rest of the first world populace is the problem (which I guess includes you as you are neither of these two groups). So all those outside of the two groups don't deserve anything (including a job) as you are basically not needed.
I see nothing wrong here.
Well then don't complain when the majority of jobs are outsourced to China and India and the majority of other people in developed countries become unemployed (unless you really do want to work your 80 hours a week for a few measly bucks to be on the "same level").
If that happens, it seems the first world isn't generating the wealth to justify their lifestyle. The problem isn't cheap labor; it's a poor performing economy and overvalued labor.
Profit is not "that which is preferable", it is "that which makes one better off".
If I threaten to cut off either your finger or your toe, and you choose the finger, you have not profited by the exchange of a finger for a toe.
Yes I have for I will be harmed nonetheless. When I make no choice, i will be worse off. If I threaten to cut off either your finger or your toe, and you choose the finger, you have not profited by the exchange of a finger for a toe.
Quote
all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
That's my point. You're in competition with people who can outwork you like you can't believe. You probably can't keep up with them. They just work and sleep. If not for time and half, the business would fire you because you finally get tired of 70 hour weeks.
He's only in competition with those people because of this law. If not for this law, those people would be working 70 hour weeks at jobs where that kind of stamina is maximally valued and he wouldn't be competing with them at all. He'd be looking for a job where that kind of stamina is of no (or minimal) value. If there are people who can outwork him by that much, then he's picked a job at which he's terribly inefficient. An ideal system would discourage him from working in that field, not hold others back so he has a chance.But at least you recognize that this law doesn't protect people from "abusive management" or some nonsense like that. All it does is hold the hardest-working employees back for the benefit of the less hard working employees. How about a law requiring that the pinky toes of each of the top 10 NBA players be broken to give the other players a chance.
I see nothing wrong here.
Well then don't complain when the majority of jobs are outsourced to China and India and the majority of other people in developed countries become unemployed (unless you really do want to work your 80 hours a week for a few measly bucks to be on the "same level").
Profit is not "that which is preferable", it is "that which makes one better off".
If I threaten to cut off either your finger or your toe, and you choose the finger, you have not profited by the exchange of a finger for a toe.
If I threaten to cut off either your finger or your toe, and you choose the finger, you have not profited by the exchange of a finger for a toe.
Quote
all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Subsistence is not profit, Atlas.
Is life not preferable to death?
Subsistence is not profit, Atlas.
I remember being your age and thinking that people work for profit.
...then they wouldn't work. People will only enter an exchange if they will be better off in return. Masochism included. Life can be hard but it doesn't justify making the forest equal with a hatchet and a saw.
I remember being your age and thinking that people work for profit.
(often the overtime not paid anyway as it is deemed "just something you have to do if you want this job").
Then that's just the market rate for the labor. If the employee can be easily fired and replaced with somebody who can easily meet the requirement of un-salaried overtime, then why not?
I see nothing wrong here.
Jump to: