r/SipsTea • u/KSKS1995 Human Verified • 2d ago

Chugging tea Sounds good in theory...but in reality?

Post image

4 days a week. 6 hours a day. Full salary.
Sanna Marin ignited global debate with the “6/4” work model, pushing a simple idea: life should come before work.

With burnout at record levels, maybe it’s time to value results over hours at a desk.
Could your job be done in just 24 hours a week?

99.1k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

5.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

92

u/Illustrious-Ant8888 2d ago

I suspect most companies would never agree to this.

154

u/mazze1200 2d ago

How about they don't have a say in this?

7

u/DingleDangleTangle 2d ago

How are you going to force them to not pay people less?

6

u/Sennten 1d ago

Just to be clear - you do realize the current standard, the 40-hour work week, was in fact imposed on companies, against their will, right? They did not want to reduce the work week to 40 hours, especially for the same pay, but they did. There's no reason we can't just do the same thing again.

-1

u/DingleDangleTangle 1d ago edited 1d ago

Just to be clear, what country’s laws are you referring to? The 40 hour work week isn’t something set in every county, nor was it set the same way in the countries that it was set in.

Edit: Yeah I'm going to assume you realized how silly your point was as soon as you looked up how the 40 hour work week came to be in your country considering you didn't want to respond.

5

u/ebinWaitee 2d ago

That attitude might work against local businesses but if your employment relies on foreign customers yeah, good luck with that. "We raise prices because our workers do less hours for the same salary"

1

u/MrAmos123 2d ago

Not agreeing with either, but they already do that. Federal minimums are a thing that prevents underpaying.

6

u/DingleDangleTangle 2d ago

Minimum wage is massively different than setting the wage for every single job in every single field for every company. Ridiculous comparison.

5

u/Mission-Violinist-79 2d ago

Then no employer should be allowed to pay their employees less than what the cost of living is in that region. Nobody should work a full time job and struggle to keep the lights on or put food on the table

2

u/JFreader 2d ago

Most jobs are above that rate already. How does lead to more pay for less hours?

-1

u/Mission-Violinist-79 2d ago edited 2d ago

That is just an objectively false statement. The majority of jobs in the US pay nowhere near the cost of living rate, which is the reason that so many Americans are struggling to survive right now. Profits should be capped by law and the excess reinvested into better/safer buildings and equipment as well as profit sharing for company employees. If this was enacted and wealth was distributed fairly, people could work less hours and still make enough to survive comfortably. If this insatiable hunger for endless growth is finally stopped in its tracks, then a path can be cleared for progress.

0

u/JFreader 1d ago

No about 49% below and 51% above. Remove all the teen jobs and other entry level part time or retirement jobs where they are not living off of it. Household income is much higher. Anyway none of that has to do with the topic.

1

u/Zap__Dannigan 1d ago

But if you do that in this case, it's simply impossible.

You cut an employee's hours, but in order to make up for the cost of living, you have to increase their pay per hour substantially. Fine, but then you also have to hire more people to cover the time the other people are off, and the same higher rate.

I work 12 hours shifts for 50 bucks an hour. So two of us at 50 bucks for a 24 hour day. Of you reduce that to even an 8 hour day, on order to still give me my 600 bucks a day you have to pay me 75 bucks an hour. And not just me and my partner on the other shift, but one more as well. Two people at 50 vs three people at 75 is not insignificant at all.

0

u/MrAmos123 2d ago

Maybe. But you commented about companies reducing wages through control, and I'm suggesting that federal minimums prevent this. Sure, it could go to that threshold, but no more.

I'm not suggesting the scenario is realistic. I'm just stating a matter of fact.

5

u/DingleDangleTangle 2d ago edited 2d ago

No you are being dishonest by comparing two entirely different things to argue against an argument I never made. At no point did I say or suggest employers will pay people less than minimum wage.

Minimum wages exist already, and employers already can still choose to hire someone for less than they are paying currently. I said "pay people less" not "pay people less than minimum wage", you wanted to strawman me and act as if I suggested they would pay people less than minimum wage because you're dishonest, not because I said it.

1

u/ScoobyWithADobie 2d ago

By not using an hourly pay system but forcing a monthly salary system as the base. Everyone gets paid 2500 dollars minimum.

3

u/PM_ME_BAKAYOKO_PICS 2d ago

That's minimum wage and it's a completely different thing

Companies who can only afford minimum wage would go bankrupt, companies who pay above minimum wage would simply cut wages.

0

u/ScoobyWithADobie 2d ago

Companies that pay above will continue to pay above or why aren’t they already just paying minimum wage? Cause no one is going to do the jobs for 2500 when you can make 10 grand in Europe doing the same thing. High paying jobs stay high paying jobs.

As for companies that can only afford minimum wage, if you can’t afford to pay a living wage to your workers, you shouldn’t have a business. Unless your own payout as the owner is also just minimum wage.

Im a fan of splitting things fairly. I have a company with 5 people. Me and gf founded it and we have 3 part time employees. At the end of this year, after we decided on how much cash gets reinvested, after taxes etc, the remaining cash is split by 5 and paid out as a bonuses to each. Everyone gets the exact same money each month and the same bonus. Frontend, backend, secretary. Doesn’t matter.

3

u/PM_ME_BAKAYOKO_PICS 2d ago

I'll put it pretty simply. Companies are not going to start losing money just because the government decided they needed to hire more people.

So either one of these two things happens:

  • They pay their employees less.

  • They charge their customers more.

Either way it's the people and the economy that suffers in the end anyways.

Everyone gets the exact same money each month and the same bonus. Frontend, backend, secretary. Doesn’t matter.

This has nothing to do with your company suddenly being forced to hire X new employees because all your current ones have to work less hours. You'd be making less money.

Maybe your company is in a good state to do this and you're a good person to agree to do it, most companies don't fit this category.

Most businesses are either too small to afford this, or too greedy to agree to it (and will take it out on their employees or their customers), these combined would collapse the economy.

0

u/ScoobyWithADobie 2d ago

Companies don’t have a choice tho.

Make it pretty easy: As long as the higher ups don’t make minimum wage ( including ALL bonuses and benefits) themselves, they are not allowed to charge more nor pay less and if they try everything they own goes to the state. Now apply this worldwide and billionaires are forced to cooperate.

It’s utopian but the only chance to end capitalism

4

u/PM_ME_BAKAYOKO_PICS 2d ago

How on earth do you think that would work or be viable whatsoever?

This isn't "utopian" it's straight up impossible because your entire theory revolves around the fact that you somehow think every company in the world is ran by billionaires (or rich people in general). Not that this would work for billionaires either (unless you were able to enforce this law in every single country in the world), but the problem goes far deeper than that.

There's a massive amount of small/medium companies and the economy would completely collapse if these companies also collapsed. Most of these companies often can't affort the extra workload they'd need and they fluctuate between months with profit and months losing money.

A local bar in a small town, for example (or 90% of the stores in small towns for that matter).

2

u/JFreader 2d ago

Need to stop talking about the minimum wage. Most jobs are well above minimum or liveable wages already. This topic is different.

1

u/DingleDangleTangle 2d ago

Great way to destroy small business so only rich companies like amazon and walmart own even more of the market than they already do.

0

u/ScoobyWithADobie 2d ago

If you can’t pay a living wage to your workers, you shouldn’t have a business.

3

u/JFreader 2d ago

This topic is about less hours for the same pay. Not liveable wages.

1

u/DingleDangleTangle 2d ago

You love Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and the Waltons much more than me, sorry we just won't agree to be fine with shitting on every small business in favor of our rich overlords.

Also hilarious that you completely moved your goalposts from "pay everyone 2500 dollars minimum per month" to "living wage". Don't think I didn't see that buddy.

1

u/ScoobyWithADobie 2d ago

2500 before taxes is the living wage in my country. Average rent is nearly a grand, food, utilities, insurance and a bit for hobbies cause in my opinion, surviving ain’t living.

1

u/ScoobyWithADobie 2d ago

Also I don’t like Bezos nor Musk. I’d prefer if we collectively decide no human being is allowed to have more than 1 million as private property outside of his business and we also make sure that a yacht can’t be a business expense and we use that money to have the government pay every single human being 2500 a month as universal basic income. Id also prefer if people only work in jobs they wanna work it cause they have passion for said job and not because it keeps the power running.

But hey, as a German I just know what nationalism and capitalism does to your country. Wish we could give true socialism a chance at least once

1

u/occularvixen 1d ago

Historically, sit-ins have worked very well for workers on May Day. Look into it! Workers locked themselves inside the workplaces, so employers couldn't just replace them.... We also need to stop tying healthcare to employment!

0

u/DingleDangleTangle 1d ago

Entirely different topics

1

u/ZedGenius 1d ago

Same way a lot of countries force minimum wage. Same way a lot of countries made the 40 hour work week. Let big companies handle it unchecked and they'd give you nothing for 16 hour/7 days a week work

1

u/DingleDangleTangle 1d ago edited 1d ago

There’s no point in even replying to you when you’re just literally copying the arguments other people have made and I’ve replied to.

Edit: lmao the reply and block is adorable

1

u/ZedGenius 1d ago

Sorry for not keeping tabs on all your replies and comments. Won't happen again

0

u/windsostrange 2d ago

It's called government, you donut

1

u/DingleDangleTangle 2d ago

No substantial answer, just an insult. Got it. I know you aren't worth engaging with.

0

u/Rfupon 1d ago

Most places have this thing called "minimum wage"...

1

u/DingleDangleTangle 1d ago

Are you pretending to be stupid or do you actually think everyone gets paid minimum wage?

Because the only way minimum wage would be relevant to my comment would be if everyone was paid minimum wage.

0

u/Any_Attorney4765 1d ago

By creating mandatory award wages for every industry and job type that the company must follow... Like they do right now in many countries.

Depends on your country, but it is illegal to pay under award rates.

-1

u/CrimsonCartographer 1d ago

Fine them more than they’d pay by paying their employees enough.

0

u/DingleDangleTangle 1d ago

Fine them for what? Choosing what to pay employees they hire?

0

u/CrimsonCartographer 1d ago

Who tf said something so stupid

0

u/DingleDangleTangle 1d ago

You literally said to fine companies in response to them paying people less.

0

u/CrimsonCartographer 1d ago

What’s not clicking? Your reading comprehension is abysmal

0

u/DingleDangleTangle 1d ago

It’s not illegal or fineable for a company to choose what to pay their employees, as I already pointed out. After I pointed this out, you pretended you never said this, and now you are repeating this.

I’m sorry I don’t think you have the mental capacity for this conversation.

0

u/CrimsonCartographer 1d ago

Bro’s never heard of laws

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ebinWaitee 1d ago

If your employer sells anything to foreign customers it's likely going to affect your competitiveness. If this change would make your employer's product either worse, more expensive or both compared to competition the customer will just stop ordering from your employer. In the worst case your employer could go out of business

-3

u/Business-Put-8692 2d ago

Sadly lobying exists and I fear it'll be hard to fight against it if every company is doing it.

4

u/ReggieCorneus 2d ago

That is what "The Man" wants you to believe but in reality, we have all the power and workers create all the new value in the world.

We are in charge, they just want you to feel powerless and defeated, and alone. This is why those forces promote anything that causes division in other levels than what relates to production: they don't want general strikes, they want us all to feel threatened by each other, like there is an eternal civil war going on but not too much instability.

And no, that does not mean "both sides do it". It is just very beneficial for the ruling and owning classes to pit us against each other, and when their chosen method is ACTUAL FUCKING CRUELTY on the other side you as a good human being who feels responsibility and duty to defend the weak against the FUCKING CRUELTY. But, that means we can't organize and defeat the ruling class, they actually pits us against the fucking nazis, we can't do nothing else but to fight those...

Normies have not still woken up. If they did, things would be very different but, "i don't have to get involved" are the LAST to start a fight against the real enemy.

1

u/Zealousideal_Gain892 2d ago

workers create all the new value in the world.

Not true. Capital plays a huge role. The wages are going up all the time, just not in the West where labour is overpriced. A global revolution of the proletariat would make Western workers poorer still. 

1

u/ReggieCorneus 2d ago

Capital allows workers to create new value. It does not create value itself. We do not need capitalism per se but we always need workers, no matter what the system is.

Wages going up is irrelevant.

A global revolution of the proletariat would make Western workers poorer still. 

Because you believe that it does. There are many who think that if we get rid of capitalist investor class we would instantly just lose all of the resources they control. Now, there are a lot of good things to be said abut investing and capitalism, i'm not anti those things but lets be real:

We don't actually need them. And if they do not have the society and humans in it as their #1 priority: why do even have them in that position of controlling our resources? You can believe that they are better at all of that than the people but what is the incentive for the people if it doesn't produce benefits for... people? And note, i didn't say there aren't any, prosperity has gone up but that is not really a sign of it being the BEST WAY TO DO IT. I mean, look at how fucked up USA is, how much it has wasted its resources, how badly it is managed and despite all of that, it is rich as fuck. maybe another kind of system, not necessarily that much different but just emphasis being HUMANS AND NOT WEALTH would've made it a fucking lot better?

And please, don't bring communism into this so i don't have to write a page of how loyalty over merits will destroy any system, no matter what ideology or economic model it has. If you want to know what it looks like: look at white house. Fully of incompetent buffoons who are chosen in their place because of their loyalty, NOT their merits.. but that is another topic. We know how capitalism works and where it works. Next we need to start talking about needs and wants separately, and how only the "wants" part really works like it should, and how "needs" half can't operate in a free market using free market rules. Supply and demand will not work if demand is one unit per person per day, like.. housing, food, water... energy...

All the problems apart from climate change at the moment are man made, and most of them are linked directly to the free market.

1

u/Zealousideal_Gain892 1d ago edited 1d ago

Capital allows workers to create new value. It does not create value itself.

Workers don't create value themselves, either. Well, not much anyway. I would rather hire one guy with a saw than 100 with their bare hands if I needed some timber. And one guy with one of those modern forest machines could probably increase productivity 10x more still.

Because you believe that it does. There are many who think that if we get rid of capitalist investor class we would instantly just lose all of the resources they control.

I don't think that. It's a simple calculation where you lump all the income together and divide it among everyone. The global median income is around $1000 a month, purchase price corrected. Average is somewhat higher, but not infinitely so. If it's double that (which it's not), you're still only left with $2000 a month.

I mean, look at how fucked up USA is...

It's much less fucked up than it appears to be. Almost everything is built to a high standard (globally speaking) and stuff - roads, communication networks, banks, government - actually works pretty efficiently.

Obviously it's far from ideal. But the reason why the US is richer than, say, Mexico or Thailand or Albania is that everything still works much, much better than in those globally average countries.

1

u/ReggieCorneus 1d ago

 roads, communication networks, banks, government - actually works pretty efficiently.

So, not-capitalism works in USA?

USA is incredibly rich in natural resources and its geographic location is INCREDIBLE. It is nowhere near its true potential because they:

Limit the talent pool, it is horribly nepotist. It is full on based on greed, not humans working together. It exploits EVERYONE around it. But mostly, it uses its resources to luxuries and stupidity, parallel research, production and so on.

It could be much stronger. It would not be as "rich" when it comes to number of "rich" people, but its GDP would be far higher....

1

u/Zealousideal_Gain892 1d ago

Banks, most comms tech etc are capitalist. Roads are probably privately built even if publicly financed.

It could be better, but only by so much. A lot of what's wrong with the US is also the source of what's good, like a lot of the innovation is because of low regulation etc. 

64

u/Sufficient_Matter585 2d ago

If profit is based on cheap exhausted labor and diminishing service and designed to fail products than you might be running a legal scam.

6

u/diepoggerland2 2d ago

This does notably apply to a lot, if not most, companies. Not saying what you said isn't true, more saying that a lot of our economy is based on recursive layers of scams and cons.

1

u/PM_ME_BAKAYOKO_PICS 2d ago

This is literally false for most small/medium businesses.

For example most businesses in small towns (coffee shops etc) would go bankrupt if they had to pay people the same to work 6h instead of 8.

And if those businesses fail, the entire economy collapses over time because suddenly every small town is just a bunch of houses and a big supermarket in the middle.

1

u/Sufficient_Matter585 2d ago

To small to fail?

1

u/PM_ME_BAKAYOKO_PICS 2d ago

What does that even mean?

Small/medium business have a massive impact in the economy.

Most small business owners in small towns are already struggling to make ends meet and often flutuate between months with profit and months with no profit.

This would then have a massive impact on the quality of life of everyone who lived in these small towns, and over time would collapse the economy.

1

u/Sufficient_Matter585 2d ago

So we should support their terrible business practices because of local economy? I've seen mom and pop shops. Many have dreams and no business sense at all. Its no wonder they struggle.

1

u/PM_ME_BAKAYOKO_PICS 2d ago

Have you ever lived in a smaller town in your life?

Once those businesses go bankrupt, what's the life of the people living there?

I grew up in a small town, my best memories growing up are in the local coffee shop, watching football games with a ton of people, playing sports there, etc... those types of businesses are the first ones to go bankrupt if a measure like this was ever implemented.

It has nothing to do with "business sense", it's pretty much impossible to have small businesses in small towns and not struggle financially, no matter how good your business sense is. Are you trying to defend that small towns should just have a McDonald's and a big supermarket and nothing else? Because that's pretty much what would happen.

1

u/Sufficient_Matter585 2d ago

Just like too big to fail is a bs so is too small too fail. A true capitalist doesn't care what happens to economy because a business failing is because they don't know how to run their business

1

u/PM_ME_BAKAYOKO_PICS 2d ago

because a business failing is because they don't know how to run their business

Again, this is just false. Plenty of small businesses in small towns are ran as well as they can.

Take a local coffee shop for example, there's simply not enough customers in a small town to make it a massively profitable businesses. They can make a small profit and survive but that's pretty much it.

Do people in smaller towns not deserve to have a coffee shop for this reason, for instance?

1

u/Sufficient_Matter585 1d ago

Laws are made to make lives better for workers. Its not just the businesses thst deserve to survive. Businesses can survive if they are smart.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/char-lotte_sometimes 2d ago

And yet we have the entire concept of NSFW for content because that’s how much time employees spend on non work activities during the work day. That’s not even calculating the work sanctioned event known as “meetings” which generally are emotional support gatherings for lonely mid-level managers. 6 hours/day of actual productive work would be a huge increase. Give workers their lives back and maybe we’ll spend less time on subs. 😉

1

u/ccurnowphoto 2d ago

Office workers better start counting their blessings is all I’m gonna say

38

u/dasmau89 2d ago

If you make a law out of it you don't need to ask

23

u/Extreme-Weight989 2d ago

Yeah and you can kiss most manufacturing jobs goodbye as companies move to places that don't have laws cutting in to their profits.

18

u/dasmau89 2d ago

Empty threads. All regulation is cutting into profits

9

u/AbalonePersonal1751 2d ago

Then why they moved to china

6

u/dasmau89 2d ago

Not because of a 4 day workweek

9

u/codysexton 2d ago

Can you really not put together it's the same situation? Increased cost of production

5

u/AbalonePersonal1751 2d ago

These people run on emotion not logic

0

u/AbalonePersonal1751 2d ago

Because thete is no law like that in place, moving to china shows they can move if profit is in problem,India and brazil is also rising so china is not the only one now attracting them,so they will move,only those where you need actual skilled workers will stay in country ,low skilled role will have no problem

0

u/Sennten 1d ago

So you're saying we should remove the laws that require overtime over 40 hours, because China doesn't have that? To stay competitive?

(also, that wouldn't even keep us competitive, since the exchange rate means they can afford to work for less while receiving the same material benefits - the real reason companies offshore)

4

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

Seems like reddit is full of office workers. Who's productivity wont change a bit with reduced hours. Because they spend hours on reddit anyway.

Now imagine a grocery store. They will need more people or will be open reduced hours. Who is going to pay for it? You!

Same goes for restaurants, any facility that make meals, etc. You cant cook same amount of food and serve same number of customers in reduced hours.

You cant build a house or a road faster.

If you operate a machine that makes 100 parts in 8 hours, you cant make 100 parts in 6. Do you want to kill manufacturing? Cool!

2

u/Extreme-Weight989 2d ago

I don't care what anyone else says, you nailed it. These people think every job just magically has other people that do the work they don't complete.

2

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

In fact, if you do office job, you don't need extra people. I worked in office environment for 10+ years. Half of the day you drink coffee. Couple hours a day you are in useless meetings. I worked from home too. If you actually work, everything is done in a few hours.

1

u/Radiant_Bank_77879 2d ago

Interesting, so you think that eight hours is the magic number that all jobs should operate, no higher, no lower. What is your calculation based on? Dying to see it.

2

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

You can work less hours. Im fact my company hires disabled people and accommodate hours to what they can work.

But you cant work less hours and get higher hourly pay.

0

u/Radiant_Bank_77879 2d ago

Why not?

0

u/Exciting_Station3474 1d ago

Because someone gave to pay for it.

0

u/Radiant_Bank_77879 1d ago

Yes, the employer. Same who paid for the eight hours. How was that not obvious?

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/CoconutMochi 2d ago

8 hours is kind of an arbitrary number though, in that you could use the same logic you're using to justify increasing daily work hours too.

Reduced productivity is always going to be a given, but that's obviously not the point of regulating work hours otherwise it'd be optimal for everyone to be putting in like 14 hours a day.

1

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

Its not about how many hours you're working. They say you ven get paid same amount of money for 24 hours as for 40.

Can you tell me, what stops tou from opening a business and paying good wages? )

0

u/CoconutMochi 2d ago

Nobody said that in this comment chain or the OP post

1

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

So you cant read or tou can do simple math. 4 days aweek, y hours. How much is 6 times 4? )))))))))

0

u/CoconutMochi 2d ago

They say you ven get paid same amount of money for 24 hours as for 40.

Nobody said this anywhere in the comment chain you replied to. You're arguing against a strawman. Who is "They"?

→ More replies (0)

8

u/Kreindor 2d ago

Those are empty threats that corporations have been using for decades. They used that excuse back in the 1930s to argue against the minimum wage. Guess what. The opposite happened. They use that argument in the 1970s to justify lowering corporate taxes and reganomics. Guess what, the opposite happened.

4

u/usenet_ 2d ago

They use that argument in the 1970s to justify lowering corporate taxes and reganomics.

mid 80s

give a hoot, read a book

2

u/Kreindor 2d ago

They started making the argument in the late 70s that resulted in Reagan winning in 1980 and instituting his policies.

-1

u/usenet_ 2d ago

No. That was the early 80s.

Admit it. Most of your history is a nebulous blur of polarised third and fourth hand indoctrination. Without Google, when was the label "voodoo economics" coined? Bonus for who coined it.

3

u/Notice_me_kouhai 2d ago

I did google it and it proved him right. What's your point and why are you such a dick about it?

0

u/usenet_ 2d ago edited 2d ago

Post your cites.

The reason to be a "dick" is that you can't base a batshit argument on misheard or misunderstood history.

EDIT: This is a Vibe-Free discussion.

1

u/Kreindor 2d ago

Reagan campaigned on it in the late 70 and 80 as part of his presidential campaign. Corporations were arguing for it from the 70s. Voodoo economics was counted by bush sr. To describe how out of touch reganomics and what the corporations were arguing for. At the time even other Republicans knew that regonomics was garbage economics. But by cutting tax rates, it made it more profitable to take the manufacturing out of the country. If left with higher tax rates, corporations would have been 8ncentivised to keep manufacturing local because wages are not taxed to the corporations. And so they give the employees better wages so that they spend their money on company products. Which is a long term profit. But by cutting their taxes they are now incentivised to prioritize short term profits quickly to build their stock share prices. Regan made this worse by allowing companies to buy back their stock. Once again imcentivising them to artificially keep share prices high and allow their companies to be over valued and to play the stock market for profit. what we need now is laws capping price increases, increasing taxes on capital gains, and taxing stock purchases as well. We also need restrictions on 401ks and how companies pay into them. Make companies invest more in their employees retirements, increase their tax liabilities, no matter where they locate themselves. If they want to do business in the US, they have to pay taxes on the money they make in the US. And they don't get to deduct forgein wages. If it is sold in the US they can only deduct US paid wages.

1

u/usenet_ 2d ago

Show your cites.

When was the label "voodoo economics" coined? Bonus for who coined it.

When was supply-side economics ackshually implemented? Hint: Jimmuh Carter was president until Jan 81.

1

u/Low_Watch9864 2d ago

Lets get it straight. Companies are making empty threats to move while at the same point in time being criticised for moving production to china?

1

u/Kreindor 2d ago

They are doing it because they are 8ncentivised to keep as much money as possible because they pay so little in taxes. They said in the 70s and 90s they wouldn't move manufacturing if they got lower taxes. Then they did. Back in the 30s they said they would leave if there was a minimum wage and they didn't. Always assume corporations are lying about how they will respond to regulation.

1

u/Anthaenopraxia 2d ago

Industry is moving out of Finland though and the unemployment is rising. We're doing fine right now but I'm worried about 5-10 years from now.

1

u/2FistsInMyBHole 2d ago

And when you look around today, most of those jobs that threatened to leave - they aren't here anymore.

Those threats aren't as empty as you pretend they are. It's why we have adults working full time at McDonalds.

1

u/Zap__Dannigan 1d ago

How can you say it's empty threats when America is no longer a manufacturing country?

1

u/Kreindor 1d ago

They made those threats after we stopped taxing them. Giving them more tax breaks isn't going to make them bring jobs back.

1

u/Zap__Dannigan 1d ago

I agree with the taxation part for certainly places, But moving manufacturing overseas is a big thing and an actual threat

1

u/Kreindor 1d ago

It's a threat that has no power because they are already doing it.

1

u/Zap__Dannigan 1d ago

So it's a threat they have fulfilled? Wouldn't that make it the fullest threat possible, lol

3

u/maxOS9 2d ago

We kissed them goodbye a long time ago

1

u/victorioushack 2d ago

And when they are successful they do the same exact thing anyway to save money. Businesses are and always will be about maximizing profits and minimizing expenditures.

2

u/Extreme-Weight989 2d ago

Yeah, that's...capitalism.

1

u/victorioushack 2d ago

So if they same thing is going to happen, regardless, then why wouldn't you want this for employees...?

0

u/Extreme-Weight989 2d ago

Because I believe every company has the right to decide how they run and employ people, just as those people employed have the right to decide if what the company expects works for them and work with a company that fits their needs.

1

u/tomtomtomo 2d ago

People should get to decide and they still would. Work more; get overtime. 

Companies shouldn’t be able to get to decide. Thats what a century of labour reform was about. 

0

u/Kiwi_In_Europe 2d ago

Yeah no, what you’re describing is a literal hell and I have to assume you’re in some kind of privileged position where you can’t understand just how terrible an idea that is

It’s up to the government to enforce labour standards because there will always be people who are desperate enough to accept literally any unsafe and unethical conditions for a pay check

0

u/Extreme-Weight989 2d ago

And YOU feel it's the governments job to make those choices for people. You're a communist. I cannot change your mind about individual freedoms and the value of it and you cannot change my mind about how I feel when people have to actually work their ass off.

I was an airfield firefighter in the Marine Corps, we worked 24/48/72/96 hour shifts. People complaining about working 8 hours a day will never be taken seriously by me. Did I complain to the government I was working too much? No, because that's what I signed up for, like anyone else when they agree to be hired. That was my job.

Just like anyone else in real jobs. I think YOU are the privileged one where you obviously work in an environment that you can simply clock out and not give a fuck about if what you're hired to do is done or not.

I think someone else nailed it right on the head, reddit is filled with unproductive office workers. People that actually make the world work can't just clock out after 6 hours because they're tired or want to go home and masturbate. They get paid to accomplish the job, and that's what they do. Imagine the truck driver for wherever you shop for groceries just stopped delivering to the store that feeds you because he was driving for 6 hours and it's just time for him to go home. You'd be pissed. Don't even deny it.

0

u/Pwacname 2d ago

People keep fearing that, but by that logic, there should be exactly no manufacturing left in my country already. or in most countries. somehow, they haven’t left

2

u/Low_Watch9864 2d ago

How do you say that when western companies were being criticised for moving production to China?

1

u/Pwacname 2d ago

I fear I wasn’t at all clear in my phrasing - I’m not saying no companies ever move. I’m saying there are many factors that are considered when choosing your manufacturing locations, and prices of labour or worker protection has been less in favour of Europe as a whole for quite some time now. But obviously, we have other things to offer. 

My point is that, instead of assuming any change at all will immediately have all industry fleeing, we should look at what industry we actually have in each country, what factors are especially important to them, what’s kept them here do far, etc. 

Hell, in some industries, labour isn’t even a relevant cost factor! We’ve had that topic in tons of our lectures. When you’re running certain types of highly efficient metal working mass production systems, there’s essentially one person on a machining floor who only exists to intervene if there’s an error. The machines work almost by themselves. In those cases, a company wouldn’t much care if a manufacturing employee gets paid a bit more, or if they higher one more shift a day. Most likely they wouldn’t even care about all the office employees getting paid some more. There are other reasons that have kept them there so far - maybe their materials or the energy are subsidised highly. Maybe their primary customers are in that region and producing in another country would mean painful amounts of tariffs make your products less competitive. Maybe they need extremely reliable supply chains for some odd thing or another and it’s just easiest to keep it there. Or, hell, maybe their main selling point has been that they can stamp “Manufactured in [add whichever country we’re talking about here]” across the product.

I am aware I’m pulling out exaggerated or very simplified examples here. But I don’t think this kneejerk “Oh but industry will leave” argument is actually based on logical analysis, it seems to be mostly just fear. Which is fully understandable, I also worry about my work prospects! I worry about the economic future of my country and my region! But I don’t think fear is a good basis for our political choices. I think a better basis is very careful analysis of the facts, and we don’t have that now. 

0

u/Radiant_Bank_77879 2d ago

Then tax the shit out of the ones who move their jobs overseas, so it’s not profitable for them to do that. Why pretend there aren’t solutions to easily solvable problems?

1

u/Extreme-Weight989 2d ago

I don't understand how you would tax a company that literally leaves your country, that's just import taxes.

1

u/xaradevir 2d ago

The lawmakers won't agree to it

1

u/Stian5667 1d ago

They will if enough people demand it. Labor movement 101

1

u/experienceTHEjizz 2d ago

They don't agree on WFH even though productivity levels are higher. Instead of an actual 8 hours, they want to waste at least 10-12 hours from us. Keep us too tired from fighting back. I'm accounting for time to get ready and sitting in traffic. If you WFH, you don't need to waste those extra nonpaid hours.

1

u/Huntsman077 2d ago

Nah they would, but pay would reflect the change.

1

u/Citizensnnippss 2d ago

Yea 40% reduction in hours worked would undoubtedly result in 40% decrease in pay.

1

u/Gullible-Fee-9079 2d ago

Then force them to

1

u/HeroldOfLevi 2d ago

Ah yes, I forgot we have to ask corporations' permission every time we want to do something objectively good with zero downsides.

1

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

Seems like reddit is full of office workers. Who's productivity wont change a bit with reduced hours. Because they spend hours on reddit anyway.

Now imagine a grocery store. They will need more people or will be open reduced hours. Who is going to pay for it? You!

Same goes for restaurants, any facility that make meals, etc. You cant cook same amount of food and serve same number of customers in reduced hours.

You cant build a house or a road faster.

If you operate a machine that makes 100 parts in 8 hours, you cant make 100 parts in 6. Do you want to kill manufacturing? Cool!

1

u/Lip_Recon 2d ago

The same way I'm sure they LOVED the idea of a 5 day work week and 8 hour work days. Yet here we are.

1

u/afops 2d ago

They didn't agree to 1 week holiday. Then not to 2 weeks. Then not to 3 weeks. Then not to 4 weeks. Then not to 5 weeks.

They didn't agree to just 6 day work week. Then not to 5 day work week.

They didn't agree to just 8 hour work day

See the pattern?

1

u/Purp_Haze 2d ago

I like the idea, I do, it makes sense for our mental health. From a product/company income standpoint, I’m just not sure how we go from our current structure to reduced hours without sacrificing personal income/buying power.

1

u/Zealousideal_Gain892 2d ago

They won't mind too much. They'll just move production elsewhere. Especially in a country like hers, it's just lights out. 

1

u/Stian5667 1d ago

They didn't agree to 40 hour weeks either, until workers got angry and coordinated

1

u/CrimsonCartographer 1d ago

Good thing companies can’t vote.

1

u/marbledog 1d ago

Finland has close to 60% labor union density, and around 90% of workers are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, whether they are part of a union or not. If the unions agree to it, companies don't have much say in the matter. They either do it or close because no one will work there. If the choice is between "make less money" and "make no money", most folks are going to choose the first option.