this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
3 points (80.0% liked)

politics

18935 readers
3410 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
3
Bernie Sanders unveils 32-hour workweek bill with no loss in pay for workers (thehill.com)
submitted 6 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] yarr@feddit.nl 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Imagine I manage a business where my employees earn $1000 a week, working five 8-hour days. Suppose my profit margin per employee is 10%, resulting in a $1100 return for each one.

Now, if a new law mandates that I pay my employees $1000 for a 4-day workweek, my operation could start incurring losses. The question then arises: where would the necessary additional funds come from? Likely, I'd have to increase my prices. I'm open to considering this arrangement, but I seek clarity on the strategies to mitigate such financial gaps. Should a 4-day workweek lead to a 20% hike in prices, I'm uncertain about the benefits of this change...

I'm all for a more healthy work/life balances, but typically businesses don't like to incur extra expenses, so I would predict if workers are present 20% less, businesses would charge 20% more to make up the gap, which means workers would end up needing to earn more money, which may lead them to work more hours, making this change pointless.

If this came with some consideration from the federal government, like "we will give a 20% tax break to businesses that do this" I would consider the idea funded and I think it may work. Otherwise, this just feels like voting our way into price increases.

[–] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Do you think your overhead would also decrease if you only had a 4-day work week?

[–] yarr@feddit.nl 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Look at it this way. Let's say I run a widget factory. I have a worker, Joe, that I pay $1000/week to. Each day, Joe creates me a widget that I can sell for $220. That means at the end of the week, I have 5 widgets I can sell for $1100, yielding me $100 profit.

Now, we move to a 4 day work week. I pay Joe $1000. He creates me 4 widgets, still worth $220 each. I sell them for $880 total. I now lose $120 each week.

Under the current plan, it seems the guidance is that Joe will magically start working faster and produce more than 1 widget per day. If he does not, my other option is to increase the price of widgets or to decrease the amount of money I pay Joe.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

So you won't be able to steal as much of the value Joe creates from him and instead have to pay him a fairer share? Oh darn. You mean you won't be able to live in luxury while others do the work for you?

Fuck off lmao

[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Which will be struck down almost unanimously because the US government is a cesspool of liches and ghouls.

[–] docAvid@midwest.social 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I mean, yes? That's kind of the point. This is how we shift the conversation and put pressure on politicians. Put these bills forward and make people vote them down on the record, so those votes can be used against them.

[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And how’s that been working out for you guys so far?

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 months ago

I mean, screwing with the Overton window has worked great for Republicans. It’s absolutely fair play to use the same tactic from the other side. Frankly, it should have been done the second it became apparent that Republicans in general were trying to push the window to the right.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

My boss just told us all how this will "remove our lunch and break times and take away all holidays" trying to scare us. Leeches, all of them.