So what's the least one should except to have to show for an honest 40hrs of work?

38 posts / 0 new
Last post
EdBourgeois
EdBourgeois's picture

Conservatives want to minimize gov.aid, cool, me too. And they say they don't want anybody just gaming the system and I think we could again agree. There are many millions of folks that do the needed jobs that we don't much respect at least pay wise. They are willing to take pride in and work an honest 40hrs a week and more when needed as long as they can still have time for family. There isn't room in the present system for everyone to be able to move up a normal ladder because it is realistically more of a  triangular shaped ladder. So most will have to continue their low paying job for as long as they can still work. So take away much of the gov. aid and let business determine what you have during your life and for your old age. What should this at least be?

Comments

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
Well isn't it a better

Well isn't it a better question what value can your 40 hours of labor add to the company andtho from there?

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
  No, it's a question of how

 

No, it's a question of how to divide the spoils.

workingman
workingman's picture
The business owner gets to

The business owner gets to decide how to divide up the spoils. The employee can move on to a different company if he does not like the pay he is receiving.

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
U have to produce more than u

U have to produce more than u cost simple as that.

chilidog
Why do you have to work 40

Why do you have to work 40 hours a week?  I see no reason you can't work 119 hours a week.  Some people function fine on 6 hours of sleep.  I'll even give you an extra hour to eat and poop.

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
What?

What?

chilidog
Hardly anyone is "successful"

Hardly anyone is "successful" working only 40 hours a week.  And I am not being sarcastic.

 

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
Well I am and I would love to

Well I am and I would love to work more but because of overtime laws myemployer can't afford it.

chilidog
Seriously?  You have a

Seriously?  You have a college degree and you're working in a field that requires it, and you're not salaried?  I have never worked a 40 hour week. Never.  Even when I was in college, if you count the hours in class and studying in addition to my part-time job it came to over 40 hours a week.  And I have always been salaried.  People who work 40 hours are always the first to get cut.

Come in earlier and stay later and you will survive. 

Also,

If you really are working only 40 hours a week, you should be networking in the evenings with other professionals in your field.  Get some brownie points with your boss and find out if he belongs to Rotary or Lions or some other organization and ask him how you can participate. 

If you want to be a real kiss-ass, emulate your boss's style:  buy and wear the same outfits.

Art
Art's picture
Quote:Well I am and I would

Quote:
Well I am and I would love to work more but because of overtime laws myemployer can't afford it.
Now, they want to do away with overtime laws. Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
I'm not saying get rid of it

I'm not saying get rid of it but if I want to work more than 40 hour week and am willing to take those hours shouldn't my employeer be able to give me those hours with out fear of government punishments.

chilidog
Look, if you want to work

Look, if you want to work more than 40 hours a week for your employer, but your employer doesn't want to pay for the overtime, and you're willing to work for the regular wage, just offer it.  How's he going to get in trouble? You're going to rat him out? One of the other employees will rat him out?

Just start working half an hour earlier and stop working half an hour later. You will get noticed, your wage/salary will increase.  Then start working more. If someone starts bitching, they'll be shut up in a hurry or shown the door.

God help me if you're another right-wing union worker...

lovecraft
We should also stop those

We should also stop those govt punishments for employing children.

lovecraft
It's funny-in the 90's the

It's funny-in the 90's the right wing pushed for welfare reform(thanks Clinton) saying recipients were laZY and should be working. Now they complain they aren't working at good enough jobs that pay enough to support anyone. 

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
It's illegal for them to

It's illegal for them to accept that offer and they can be punished for thatviva the tax code.

lovecraft
You are an employers wet

You are an employers wet dream.

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
Good since I'm non union I

Good since I'm non union I need to be in this economy.

captbebops
captbebops's picture
Sounds like some people have

Sounds like some people have been "programmed" to be wage slaves and that "work" is somehow "holy." How about a 10 hour work week and more leisure time?  The millienials would rather work less and have more free time.  I can't blame them but we need to rescale things for that work better.  And apparently there is only enough for 1/3 of the populace to be employed full time.

In the tech field we emphasize "work smart not hard".  If you can accomplish your project for the week in 8 hours why not have the rest of the week off?  We're kinda hooked on the idea that we must be "productive" all the time.  That piece of  programming was done by oligarchs.

 

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
I make 20.50 and hour I work

I make 20.50 and hour I work 8.75 hours 4 days and 5 Fridaykid I could I would do 5 10 hour days but I can't because my work is not generallyworth 31 a. Hour.

workingman
workingman's picture
Why not use a professional

Why not use a professional sports team as the average work week for pay And for time. a few months off a few weeks of warm ups a few months where you work really hard And than have a few months off again. The league min for football is 400,000 a year.

chilidog
CollegeConservative

CollegeConservative wrote:

It's illegal for them to accept that offer and they can be punished for thatviva the tax code.

Your employer may not be giving you more hours because you're just not very smart, as evidenced by this remark.

Just start working longer hours.  If you consistently work 45 hours a week, and if your employer is smart, he'll raise your wage from 20.50 to 23.00, and more since you demonstrate such a good work ethic.  If that doesn't happen, leave. If the employer tells you to cool it because they don't operate that way, stay with that company FOREVER.

delete jan in iowa
Boys, I have the perfect job

Boys, I have the perfect job for you... Working for a rich couple in Texas on a RANCH!  The 78 year old Mexican man who's had the job for the last 25 years is finally going home to be with his family in Mexico this winter and there is an opening.  

Here's the job:  Horse tending and cleaning up their poop; landscape maintenance (which is answering the the wife's whim in the 7 family homes yards of over an acre each); and ranch work (anything the ranch foreman wants you to do in your spare time).  

HOURS:  7 days a week, 365 days a year, from 7 am to 6 pm!  WAGE after 20 years is $9.25 an hour and they will throw in an old shack in the middle of a cattle pen to live in!  You can NEVER have a day off and you will NEVER get a bonus or pay raise unless the owner feels like it!

Does this sound like the kind of job you want?  Welcome to the new working environment in America!

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
Im a consultant so I work for

Im a consultant so I work for multiple companies from multiple offices and they try and limit how much they use me so they  dont pay over time

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
workingman wrote:The business

workingman wrote:
The business owner gets to decide how to divide up the spoils. The employee can move on to a different company if he does not like the pay he is receiving.

I was replying to collegeconservative, who was saying that employees get paid the value they add to the company. In a competitive market, only the marginal workers gets paid his value - the rest of the workers provide more value to the company than they are paid.  If this is the case, the owner gets all the profit from those workers. Now, I was saying that a better question is how to divide the spoils or profits. 

One way to be as you suggest, to let the employer have it all. Another is to let the employee have it all. Western civilization has roughly decided to give most of it to the employer, except a significant part that goes to regulations such as occupational health and safety, retirement, health care, minimum wage and, at long last 40 hour work week.

So the natural question to ask is why you object to this system, since it seems to have worked well so much in the past.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
CollegeConservative wrote: U

CollegeConservative wrote:

U have to produce more than u cost simple as that.

I don't understand your point here, I guess you didn't understand mine. Well, please read my response to workingman.

Calperson
Calperson's picture
captbebops wrote: If you can

captbebops wrote:

If you can accomplish your project for the week in 8 hours why not have the rest of the week off?  We're kinda hooked on the idea that we must be "productive" all the time.  That piece of  programming was done by oligarchs.

 

It is just a personal choice. It all depends on how you look at life in general. Your above mindset is just the typical leftist/union mindset of trying to milk the most amount of time/money out of a particular defined "project". Sure, you can complete the task in 8 hours and then "milk" the rest of the week on the couch in front of the TV pulling bong after bong, but let me tell you, there is another approach.

The reason rich people ARE rich, is because, they see that completing the task in 8 hours is a huge bonus. They now have the rest of the week to get a head start on their other projects and to create leads for even more future projects.

They are sort of "hooked" in a way, but it is a fun "hooked". Work creates a self fulfillment that enhances your entire being and actually makes you much happier as a person. Working on your dreams and your future pays off many, many, times especially if you are doing this in your peak bong years of the 20's and 30's.

I'll never forget the time when Thom had Donald Trump call in for an interview on his show for a Social Security debate. Thom thought he was going to hit the Donald with a "Zinger" about raising the retirement age, asking; "So what age do you think you should retire?".

I'll never forget the Donalds reply;

"To tell you the truth Thom, I don't want to retire. I love what I do. I love getting up in the morning and going to work. I love the feeling of fulfillment it gives me, the feeling of satisfaction it gives me, and feeling of being closer to God it gives me."

The Universe has a great way of dishing out its Karma. If you get up every day to spread an 8hr project into a 40 hour week for an employer you hate and would do anything to shaft, just so you can get back to your couch and bong on every night, then you deserve a meagre existence with a leaky roof, the electricity about to be disengaged, and McDonalds food for dinner.

Art
Art's picture
Quote:Im a consultant so I

Quote:
Im a consultant so I work for multiple companies from multiple offices and they try and limit how much they use me so they  dont pay over time
A consultant that is paid for an hourly wage? Not like any "consultant" I ever heard of.

Art
Art's picture
Quote:It is just a personal

Quote:
It is just a personal choice. It all depends on how you look at life in general. Your above mindset is just the typical leftist/union mindset of trying to milk the most amount of time/money out of a particular defined "project". Sure, you can complete the task in 8 hours and then "milk" the rest of the week on the couch in front of the TV pulling bong after bong, but let me tell you, there is another approach.
There are things that set apart people who are paid by the hour and people who are paid a salary. If you prefer to be paid a salary, then you should be working in such a job instead of fouling the nests of the hourly workers. You are not one of them. You do not belong with them. If you are valuable enough to your company to be worth a salary, then you should be proving this to your employer.

chilidog
CollegeConservative wrote: Im

CollegeConservative wrote:

Im a consultant so I work for multiple companies from multiple offices and they try and limit how much they use me so they  dont pay over time

Are all these employers aware that you're employed with all of them? 

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
Yes

Yes

chilidog
I'm totally confused about

I'm totally confused about what you've got going.  I don't know what industry you're in or what part of the country you're in, but if you're making $20.50 an hour with virtually no experience, you must have a degree that has some value.  If you really want to work more than 40 hours a week and make more money and you can't find anyone in your area, you need to relocate. Seriously.

captbebops
captbebops's picture
Art wrote: Quote:It is just a

Art wrote:

Quote:
It is just a personal choice. It all depends on how you look at life in general. Your above mindset is just the typical leftist/union mindset of trying to milk the most amount of time/money out of a particular defined "project". Sure, you can complete the task in 8 hours and then "milk" the rest of the week on the couch in front of the TV pulling bong after bong, but let me tell you, there is another approach.
There are things that set apart people who are paid by the hour and people who are paid a salary. If you prefer to be paid a salary, then you should be working in such a job instead of fouling the nests of the hourly workers. You are not one of them. You do not belong with them. If you are valuable enough to your company to be worth a salary, then you should be proving this to your employer.

Yup, the example I was giving was for a "salaried" employee not an hourly one.  No one is counting the hours for the "salaried" employee but instead what is accomplished.  This is not often understood by people who work hourly.  In consulting, which I now do, it is mostly by milestones.  One might start out billing a client per hour at a high rate and the more hours the rate goes down until you're talking  project large enough to have milestones.  And "salaried" probably don't much to Calperson's surprise sit around pulling a bong but probably do other interesting or productive things.  If we had 10 hour work weeks would people just sit around getting stoned with their free time?  Probably not.

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
I think to get back to the

I think to get back to the main point the question boils down to is the work u provide 40 hrs in worthTyne living wage u want and if it's not is it the employers responsibility to give u that to his detriment or is it your responsibilityrot get a better job?

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
CollegeConservative wrote: I

CollegeConservative wrote:

I think to get back to the main point the question boils down to is the work u provide 40 hrs in worthTyne living wage u want and if it's not is it the employers responsibility to give u that to his detriment or is it your responsibilityrot get a better job?

Both.  Unfortunately there isn't always a better job.  You make it sound like you can just go out and pick the job you want at the wage you want.  Wouldn't that be nice?  There has always been a battle between labor and ownership.  If you give free reign to workers, then wages would be outrageously high and unsustainable.  If you give free reign to employers, then wages would be outrageously low and immoral.  There has to be a balance that works for everyone.  Right now there is no balance.  Everything is tipped in the favor of employers and the majority of workers are getting the shaft.  That's the only reason labor unions developed in the first place.

If it were left up to employers do you really think that work weeks would be only 40 hours long?  Do you really think they would volunteer a week or two's paid vacation?  Paid holidays?  Sick pay?  A minimum wage?  Be realistic here.  There was a time not too long ago when American industry would lock hundreds of women inside of a warehouse and not let them out until they met a quota.  They were paid penny's on the dollar of what their work was worth.  There were sweatshops filled with little children that would have to work to meet quota's or they wouldn't even get paid anything.  Where was the moral high ground then that you think would exist now?  Labor unions may not be perfect but they have given the American worker so many important benefits over the years and that's why it pisses me off so bad when you people who actually benefit from those times start badmouthing and belittling unions.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
The point is if it is a job

The point is if it is a job being done in the USA, then the employer or the govt are responsible to ensure that the worker receives adequate compensation. Someone will work at restaurants, everyone can't go out and get a better job, because then we have no restaurants.

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
Ye we would high school

Ye we would high school students and young adults will allways need jobs.

chilidog
chilidog wrote: Why do you

chilidog wrote:

Why do you have to work 40 hours a week?  I see no reason you can't work 119 hours a week.  Some people function fine on 6 hours of sleep.  I'll even give you an extra hour to eat and poop.

David Ricardo had something to say about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_wages

It ultimately comes down to social stability and riot prevention.

We could pass laws that effectively ensure that someone can work for one hour a day and have enough wages for his calories and shelter for that day.  But then they have the rest of the day to be idled, and they might start breaking your stuff.  So they have be occupied doing something for probably more than one hour each day.

This scenario is also true if people are forced to work 119 hours a week for minimum sustenance and minimum shelter.