Election 2019 - Week 3

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

Theres tons of data out there that a 30-32 hour working week is almost as effective as a 37 hour week.

And do any of those examples include "real" everyday businesses, and not ones like ad or marketing agencies who have inflated their prices to cover for it? Eg The profits of a shop can't magically be improved by opening shorter hours.

Dividends and money sent to Tax havens, is POST-tax.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Ditto Boris, he's got own magic money forest along with his crop of lies. He's promising spending not seen since the 1970s, plus tax cuts ! It's not obvious crap from a habitual liar. Why aren't you calling out him in the same way?

So you agree that Corbyns spending is unsustainable?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

And do any of those examples include "real" everyday businesses, and not ones like ad or marketing agencies who have inflated their prices to cover for it? Eg The profits of a shop can't magically be improved by opening shorter hours.

Dividends and money sent to Tax havens, is POST-tax.

It doesn't get spent here in the same way I've just described wages. That was the clear and obvious point I was making.

The impact on shops would be an interesting one. Staggered shifts would be one approach. With the extra time people have would they spend more time/money in their High Streets?

Obviously from your armchair you couldn't comprehend such impacts.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

It doesn't get spent here in the same way I've just described wages. That was the clear and obvious point I was making.

The impact on shops would be an interesting one. Staggered shifts would be one approach. With the extra time people have would they spend more time/money in their High Streets?

Obviously from your armchair you couldn't comprehend such impacts.

Whatever happens the profits and the resulting tax revenue will go down. No escaping that fact. EG How's the high street doing?

They may have extra time, but not extra money.

How would staggered shifts work? You still need X number of people on shift at the same time. Shops are just one example. There are a myriad of other businesses and organisations(eg NHS, councils) where an increase in productivity is 100% impossible.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Whatever happens the profits and the resulting tax revenue will go down. No escaping that fact.

Not true.

EG How's the high street doing?

They may have extra time, but not extra money.

How would staggered shifts work? You still need X number of people on shift at the same time. Shops are just one example. There are a myriad of other businesses and organisations(eg NHS, councils) where an increase in productivity is 100% impossible.

Ah I see now. You are incapable of seeing things at a macroeconomic level. That's fine.

How can work at a council not achieve an increase in productivity? Are councils and thei workers all well oiled machines churning out their range of roles in exactly 40 hours per week, no more no less?

It’s great fun isn’t it, gaming out a policy programme that will, thankfully, never see the light of day.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Theres tons of data out there that a 30-32 hour working week is almost as effective as a 37 hour week.

There is evidence that backs that up...................initially but a 4 day week has not been monitored for a great length of time.

Even in the shortish studies that been done Productivity does go up at the start, due to the excitement of the change and the need to get the same amount of work, and more, done in a shorter time frame. But as the novelty wears off and the 4 days become the norm, there is evidence that productivity falls.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...-cut-in-output

Some sectors may not be able to participate, or certainly there would be challenges, in the public sector of policing, NHS etc, as costs would rise as more would have to be employed, and the retail sector may struggle.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Theres tons of data out there that a 30-32 hour working week is almost as effective as a 37 hour week.

Will only work for office type roles. Businesses that run 24/7 don't have a snowball in hells chance to do that and increase profits/production.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Carth

Will only work for office type roles. Businesses that run 24/7 don't have a snowball in hells chance to do that and increase profits/production.

Businesses that run 24/7 presumably don’t have single employees working those hours and so stagger roles throughout the day and days. I don’t really see the challenge of adjusting the rota slightly to accommodate this.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

Not true.

Ah I see now. You are incapable of seeing things at a macroeconomic level. That's fine.

How can work at a council not achieve an increase in productivity? Are councils and thei workers all well oiled machines churning out their range of roles in exactly 40 hours per week, no more no less?

An increase in costs without a matching increase in income leads to a decrease in profits.


It takes a fixed amount of time to perform certain functions, eg refuse collection. When dealing with a person on the telephone with a complaint or query, it takes time. If there are more efficient ways of doing something, it will only be the private sector that bothers with it.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Businesses that run 24/7 presumably don’t have single employees working those hours and so stagger roles throughout the day and days. I don’t really see the challenge of adjusting the rota slightly to accommodate this.

You don't see the challenge of paying 300 people the same money to work 32 hours instead of 40, and the wages further required to employ extra workers to cover the 'missing' hours?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

An increase in costs without a matching increase in income leads to a decrease in profits.

It takes a fixed amount of time to perform certain functions, eg refuse collection. When dealing with a person on the telephone with a complaint or query, it takes time. If there are more efficient ways of doing something, it will only be the private sector that bothers with it.

“Only the private sector”

What absolute nonsense. In the workplace very few actions take “fixed” amounts of time. There’s also fatigue, attention span and a wide range of other factors that give human beings variable productivity at different points throughout the working day. Your ignorance on these matters is frankly startling.

---------- Post added at 23:14 ---------- Previous post was at 23:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

You don't see the challenge of paying 300 people the same money to work 32 hours instead of 40, and the wages further required to employ extra workers to cover the 'missing' hours?

If each was as productive in 32 hours, the starting premise of the post you quoted, as 40 there’d be no need for additional staff. Just the rota adjusted to give cover across the 168 hours of the week. With 300 staff that shouldn’t be too hard.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

There is evidence that backs that up...................initially but a 4 day week has not been monitored for a great length of time.

Even in the shortish studies that been done Productivity does go up at the start, due to the excitement of the change and the need to get the same amount of work, and more, done in a shorter time frame. But as the novelty wears off and the 4 days become the norm, there is evidence that productivity falls.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...-cut-in-output

Some sectors may not be able to participate, or certainly there would be challenges, in the public sector of policing, NHS etc, as costs would rise as more would have to be employed, and the retail sector may struggle.

Any increase in profits from that example would have been from extra business coming their way. That would've occurred regardless of the hours worked.

Productivity increased in the four days they worked so there was no drop in the total amount of work done, a study of the trial released on Tuesday has revealed.

Doesn't mean a thing, if they were previously spending the slack time "twiddling their thumbs". The workload wasn't there to fill all of the time before. As they get more business, that will no longer be the case. Before they could fill that slack time with no increase in costs. That would give more profits and the potential for increased wages. As it is, they will instead have to employ more people who will then also have slack time.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Any increase in profits from that example would have been from extra business coming their way. That would've occurred regardless of the hours worked.

Business just “comes your way” spontaneously coming into existence all by itself. Wow.

Doesn't mean a thing, if they were previously spending the slack time "twiddling their thumbs". The workload wasn't there to fill all of the time before. As they get more business, that will no longer be the case. Before they could fill that slack time with no increase in costs. That would give more profits and the potential for increased wages. As it is, they will instead have to employ more people who will then also have slack time.

Nonsense armchair analysis here with no empirical evidence whatsoever.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by jfman

If each was as productive in 32 hours, the starting premise of the post you quoted, as 40 there’d be no need for additional staff. Just the rota adjusted to give cover across the 168 hours of the week. With 300 staff that shouldn’t be too hard.

Ever heard of 4 on 4 off shift patterns, Continental shift patterns and the like?

You're saying machines could run themselves, feed themselves materials needed, fix any breakdowns themselves etc etc during the hours no workers were there.

apologies in advance, but . . "Your ignorance on these matters is frankly startling."