Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday introduced a bill to establish a standard four-day workweek in the United States without any reduction in pay. The bill, over a four-year period, would lowe…
Bernie: Here’s a bill that will help literally everyone. People waste less of their lives at work, and productivity goes up massively for the corporate overlords. There is no downside here for anyone.
Bernie is still the only politician I have donated to but to be fair to Biden, bussing was met with violent protests and even black activists criticized it for weakening black communities. There were good reasons to be against that method without being against desegregation.
There were good reasons to be against that method without being against desegregation.
That’s not a fact, it’s an opinion.
One that Biden hasn’t been able to rationalize to Dem voters for decades.
If you want to try, give it a shot. I legitimately believe you might do a better job at it than Biden.
But you’re gonna have to do more than say there was “good reasons” besides people of Bidens age being completely ignorant of psychology.
School busing sped up integration by decades, and when kids grow up in multiracial environments it changes their ingroup determination to not just be “people who look like me”.
We can only change that at a very young age, but it sticks with you for life. Even with busing, the effects were decades away.
If we didn’t have busing, generations of people would have suffered.
So if you and Biden want to argue with that, you’re going to have to put in a lot of effort to throw the last 30 years of psychology
It’s not my opinion. It is the opinion of many black civil rights activists at the time. They argued that spreading out the kids would weaken the ties to the black community. They wanted to make black schools better rather than move kids. They argued that strengthening the black community would be the most effective way to pursue civil rights. Given that black children still get inferior education to whites and black communities are impoverished, they might have been right.
Black leaders were mixed on the practice. Activist Jesse Jackson, NAACP officials and U.S. Rep. Shirley Chisholm were among those who supported busing efforts and policies. But many Black nationalists argued that focus should instead be placed on strengthening schools in Black communities.
A February 1981 Gallup Poll found 60 percent of Black Americans were in favor of busing, while 30 percent were opposed to it. Among white people surveyed, 17 percent favored busing, and 78 percent were against it.
“It ain’t the bus, it’s us,’’ Jackson told The New York Times in 1981. ‘’Busing is absolutely a code word for desegregation. The forces that have historically been in charge of segregation are now being asked to be in charge of desegregation.’”
If we citizens don’t apply the pressure, nothing will happen.
And if your cynical about doing that, try it anyway, just as an experiment, to see what happens. Hell, even make a YouTube video about your experience doing so, for content.
Just say "Please let my representative know that I am in favor of the Bernie Sanders bill (Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act) for a 32 hour work week."
It’s just a phone call. A 32 hour work week is worth a single phone call, right?
Unfortunately that’s a fairly naive take that fails to consider how most people work in the US- hourly employees would be fucked by this.
Retail, service, anyone whose not already working 9-5 office jobs; the reality is that they won’t loose pay, but they will loose hours. And you can bet your ass that companies won’t pay more to make up for it.
Yup. These “free market” folks conveniently forget that competition is bolstered when there’s a floor. An impartial referee to call balls, strikes, and fouls. A set of rules everyone has to play by, or they don’t get to play at all.
First off, it needs to be noted that the only mechanism to do that on so large a scale is to increase the minimum wage.
Which is how they did it in ‘38 when the work week went to 44, and in ‘40 when it when to what it is today.
The problem is that company are absolutely going to pass that off to customers (aka, the workers… ultimately.) and so really all you’ve done, effectively, is put far more people onto minimum wage.
Anyone who was above that mimimim? Gets the shaft.
And people who now are on minimum? Working two jobs to pay for everything (like most people in the bottom quarter are already doing anyhow,) so they don’t really see reduced hours anyway.
It’s well meaning and it’d be nice, but it needs to be done differently. Unions are strong now. Stronger than they have been since I’ve been working. Join a union. Make the change yourself; eventually it’ll get normalized without the above problems. (Also, better wages, healthcare, workplace safety and everything else Unions get you.)(don’t tell my boss’s boss that. He’s still buthurt from negotiating a new contract.)
Chances are they’ll pass on the costs, increase the price, anyhow, shrink products, and raise prices even more, and then blame the last three on the first.
I have no idea why you’re being downvoted. How would the government mandate a pay raise across the board? The government only has the federal minimum wage lever to play with. Somehow the law would have to say: all hourly workers must be paid 25% more. Would companies just increase prices by 25%?
Now, I’m all for reducing the work week to 32 hours. I’m tired of spending most of the week working and only having to 2 free days (of which one is usually spent doing home chores). But I’m genuinely curious about how this would be implemented without causing massive inflation.
I agree, it has little to do with it. I was just addressing the idea that the federal minimum wage being the only lever to play would not have a massive positive effect on a huge percentage of workers.
The AFL-CIO, which is only demanding a $15/hour minimum wage says that if it kept up with inflation, it would be $24/hour.
Based on that, the bare minimum someone working full-time should be making is a little less than $50,000 a year. And if the government used that ‘only lever to play,’ and it would still be less than the $68k that is needed to ‘live comfortably.’
ive been reading a few things by the AFL-CIO, older stuff, I’d pay attention, though. (And 24 sounds about right.)
I was chatting with the union’s negotiator (technically the enemy, but, whatever. We have a good relationship for that.) now that the new contract is ratified; he’s disappointed because he thought they could get more.
I’m glad the bigwig negotiated they sent out fucked it up every which way. Got my people a much deserved pay raise and stuff.
Seriously, corporations are freaking scared of unions just now. I hope this momentum lasts.
And you’d be wrong. Companies would still be paying them at whatever rate they were paid at. Most jobs don’t come with specifically guaranteed hours, however.
It’s a technicality, yes, but it’s also a very important distinction. They’re not losing pay. They’re losing hours. The consequence is the same; but short of minimum wage increases; there’s no mechanism for the US Government to dictate wages to individual companies. Particularly when they were never party to that contract in the first place.
If you are correct, then the bill won’t work, because it won’t have the support of all the hourly workers.
I’m assuming that Bernie and Co are smart enough to realize that, so they would make sure any bill that they wrote would cover that scenario that you’re describing, and not just waste all of our time.
That’s why I believe the part of the article I quoted earlier is factual, and covers what you’re speaking about.
Slow it down there Thanos, just because you can’t personally see a solution to our current predicament doesn’t mean that genocide is the solution. Do you honestly believe that would fix things? Are you a comic book villain?
You decrie brainwashing by the media and assume that you are unaffected, but you are clearly and dangerously mislead into losing all hope for a better world. The latest shift in climate disinformation is away from denialism and towards doomerism, and you seem to have fallen for it hard.
It is not too late. There are attainable solutions. Political change is possible, perhaps even inevitable. There will be consequences for what has already been done, but we can survive them and we will. What might not survive are the institutions that got us to this point, but we can build a better world in their absence. Don’t lose hope, that’s what the oligarchs want.
I know it’s hard to sympathize with those who refused to see reason and allowed the powers that be to bring us to the point of crisis, but it’s important to remember that they too are victims.
Bernie: Here’s a bill that will help literally everyone. People waste less of their lives at work, and productivity goes up massively for the corporate overlords. There is no downside here for anyone.
Everyone: Shut up, hippy.
They’ve been telling him that since he was being arrested for protesting for civil rights and Joe Biden was fighting against school busing…
Their stupid bullshit hasn’t stopped him yet
Bernie is still the only politician I have donated to but to be fair to Biden, bussing was met with violent protests and even black activists criticized it for weakening black communities. There were good reasons to be against that method without being against desegregation.
That’s not a fact, it’s an opinion.
One that Biden hasn’t been able to rationalize to Dem voters for decades.
If you want to try, give it a shot. I legitimately believe you might do a better job at it than Biden.
But you’re gonna have to do more than say there was “good reasons” besides people of Bidens age being completely ignorant of psychology.
School busing sped up integration by decades, and when kids grow up in multiracial environments it changes their ingroup determination to not just be “people who look like me”.
We can only change that at a very young age, but it sticks with you for life. Even with busing, the effects were decades away.
If we didn’t have busing, generations of people would have suffered.
So if you and Biden want to argue with that, you’re going to have to put in a lot of effort to throw the last 30 years of psychology
It’s not my opinion. It is the opinion of many black civil rights activists at the time. They argued that spreading out the kids would weaken the ties to the black community. They wanted to make black schools better rather than move kids. They argued that strengthening the black community would be the most effective way to pursue civil rights. Given that black children still get inferior education to whites and black communities are impoverished, they might have been right.
Lol.
You can’t try to defend Biden…
So you make up hypothetical Black people and say they didn’t want their kids to go to school with white kids?
Like, you just honestly tried to say it was the Black people being racist, and what’s the implication?
That Biden knew that, lied about why he was against busing as a cover job?
Why not just stop replying instead of that shit you typed?
https://www.history.com/news/desegregation-busing-schools
Has it been so long that you forgot which side eyounwere arguing?
Or do you legitimately think that backs up your opinion from almost a day ago?
Those are the “hypothetical” black people you were talking about. My point was always that there are legitimate reasons for not supporting busing.
Don’t listen to them, when they tell you that. As far as you know, might even be an astroturfer, trying to kill this in the crib.
Call your House of Representative member and let them know that you want this bill to become law.
If we citizens don’t apply the pressure, nothing will happen.
And if your cynical about doing that, try it anyway, just as an experiment, to see what happens. Hell, even make a YouTube video about your experience doing so, for content.
Just say "Please let my representative know that I am in favor of the Bernie Sanders bill (Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act) for a 32 hour work week."
It’s just a phone call. A 32 hour work week is worth a single phone call, right?
Unfortunately that’s a fairly naive take that fails to consider how most people work in the US- hourly employees would be fucked by this.
Retail, service, anyone whose not already working 9-5 office jobs; the reality is that they won’t loose pay, but they will loose hours. And you can bet your ass that companies won’t pay more to make up for it.
If it’s mandated by law they will. As they do in other countries.
Yup. These “free market” folks conveniently forget that competition is bolstered when there’s a floor. An impartial referee to call balls, strikes, and fouls. A set of rules everyone has to play by, or they don’t get to play at all.
Also known as regulation.
they lose hours but the hourly pay goes up, just like everybody else, no? I haven’t read the bill but I would be surprised if that’s not in there.
First off, it needs to be noted that the only mechanism to do that on so large a scale is to increase the minimum wage.
Which is how they did it in ‘38 when the work week went to 44, and in ‘40 when it when to what it is today.
The problem is that company are absolutely going to pass that off to customers (aka, the workers… ultimately.) and so really all you’ve done, effectively, is put far more people onto minimum wage.
Anyone who was above that mimimim? Gets the shaft.
And people who now are on minimum? Working two jobs to pay for everything (like most people in the bottom quarter are already doing anyhow,) so they don’t really see reduced hours anyway.
It’s well meaning and it’d be nice, but it needs to be done differently. Unions are strong now. Stronger than they have been since I’ve been working. Join a union. Make the change yourself; eventually it’ll get normalized without the above problems. (Also, better wages, healthcare, workplace safety and everything else Unions get you.)(don’t tell my boss’s boss that. He’s still buthurt from negotiating a new contract.)
News flash, they’re going to be raising prices regardless.
And they won’t tack that on, too, anyhow?
Chances are they’ll pass on the costs, increase the price, anyhow, shrink products, and raise prices even more, and then blame the last three on the first.
Exactly like they’ve been doing.
Point is, they’re going to anyway. So why even take that into consideration?
You’re the one bringing it into consideration…
So… why are you bringing it up?
Dude you’re the one who brought it up
Companies already offer part time retail positions, and they are shitty about it. 39.5 hours a week to avoid the full time line.
So in this 32h future they’d just offer 31 hour positions at a lower rate and still yank people around
Edit: I was off on values. Commenter below pointed out 30 is the mark
The Full time Mark is already 30 hours per week measured monthly so not this would not change anything
https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/employers/identifying-full-time-employees
Sorry off on values, but they would offer part time. This is common.
So 28-29 hours.
I have no idea why you’re being downvoted. How would the government mandate a pay raise across the board? The government only has the federal minimum wage lever to play with. Somehow the law would have to say: all hourly workers must be paid 25% more. Would companies just increase prices by 25%?
Now, I’m all for reducing the work week to 32 hours. I’m tired of spending most of the week working and only having to 2 free days (of which one is usually spent doing home chores). But I’m genuinely curious about how this would be implemented without causing massive inflation.
Raising the minimum wage to account for inflation would give a vast number of people a major raise.
Which has little to do with a 32 hour workweek, and can’t be done on its own even though it really should be done.
Personally the minimum wage should be tied to the cost of living or increased along side CPI or some other useful inflation metric
Simply a one-time jump isn’t going to accomplish all that much in the long run.
Bring it up even to where it was along side inflation, (big jump,) and have an annual little jump baked in each year.
I agree, it has little to do with it. I was just addressing the idea that the federal minimum wage being the only lever to play would not have a massive positive effect on a huge percentage of workers.
The AFL-CIO, which is only demanding a $15/hour minimum wage says that if it kept up with inflation, it would be $24/hour.
https://aflcio.org/what-unions-do/social-economic-justice/minimum-wage
Based on that, the bare minimum someone working full-time should be making is a little less than $50,000 a year. And if the government used that ‘only lever to play,’ and it would still be less than the $68k that is needed to ‘live comfortably.’
https://thehill.com/business/4059025-an-average-american-income-may-no-longer-cut-it/
ive been reading a few things by the AFL-CIO, older stuff, I’d pay attention, though. (And 24 sounds about right.)
I was chatting with the union’s negotiator (technically the enemy, but, whatever. We have a good relationship for that.) now that the new contract is ratified; he’s disappointed because he thought they could get more.
I’m glad the bigwig negotiated they sent out fucked it up every which way. Got my people a much deserved pay raise and stuff.
Seriously, corporations are freaking scared of unions just now. I hope this momentum lasts.
From the article…
Says nothing about loss in hours.
Remember, when you’re paid hourly, you can lose hours and not lose pay.
Unless the employment contract already has guaranteed hours.
I’m assuming that’s covered as a part of this…
And you’d be wrong. Companies would still be paying them at whatever rate they were paid at. Most jobs don’t come with specifically guaranteed hours, however.
It’s a technicality, yes, but it’s also a very important distinction. They’re not losing pay. They’re losing hours. The consequence is the same; but short of minimum wage increases; there’s no mechanism for the US Government to dictate wages to individual companies. Particularly when they were never party to that contract in the first place.
If you are correct, then the bill won’t work, because it won’t have the support of all the hourly workers.
I’m assuming that Bernie and Co are smart enough to realize that, so they would make sure any bill that they wrote would cover that scenario that you’re describing, and not just waste all of our time.
That’s why I believe the part of the article I quoted earlier is factual, and covers what you’re speaking about.
Removed by mod
Slow it down there Thanos, just because you can’t personally see a solution to our current predicament doesn’t mean that genocide is the solution. Do you honestly believe that would fix things? Are you a comic book villain?
You decrie brainwashing by the media and assume that you are unaffected, but you are clearly and dangerously mislead into losing all hope for a better world. The latest shift in climate disinformation is away from denialism and towards doomerism, and you seem to have fallen for it hard.
It is not too late. There are attainable solutions. Political change is possible, perhaps even inevitable. There will be consequences for what has already been done, but we can survive them and we will. What might not survive are the institutions that got us to this point, but we can build a better world in their absence. Don’t lose hope, that’s what the oligarchs want.
I know it’s hard to sympathize with those who refused to see reason and allowed the powers that be to bring us to the point of crisis, but it’s important to remember that they too are victims.
Removed by mod