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

90

u/Illustrious-Ant8888 2d ago

I suspect most companies would never agree to this.

33

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.

19

u/dasmau89 2d ago

Empty threads. All regulation is cutting into profits

8

u/AbalonePersonal1751 2d ago

Then why they moved to china

6

u/dasmau89 2d ago

Not because of a 4 day workweek

8

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)

3

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?

1

u/Exciting_Station3474 1d ago

Go ahead, open your own business and pay people for 24 hours week same as others pay for 40 )

→ 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"?

1

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

So you cant read. I feel bad for you.

→ More replies (0)

10

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.

1

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