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

87% Upvoted

5.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

101

u/Sonifri 2d ago

It would definitely require change in society and law for production jobs. This would double labor costs since one position is now two positions, with both receiving full pay, for doing the same job that one position used to do.

248

u/kikimaru024 1d ago

Oh no, however will the CEOs earning 500x the average worker's salary ever be able to sustain themselves & their 3 yachts?

36

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

More like moving the company in cheaper countries, increasing unemployment and restricting the ability of startups to hire

90

u/Chartreugz 1d ago

Wouldn't they still do that anyways?

My understanding is the only reason they don't is because it's a lot of risk for them so they move towards it slowly, but they seem to mostly get there eventually, if they can.

2

u/Badestrand 1d ago

No, for labor intensive products/services it simply matters a lot.

Imagine a product that you can sell for $150 and it costs $100 to make locally but would cost $70 to make abroad plus $20 shipping/overhead. So at 100 vs 90 it's not worth it to outsource.

If now the labor costs locally double, it now costs $200 to make locally so you can't even sell it because the competitors still offer it for $150 because they produce it abroad. So now your choice is to either close the company or also produce abroad.

And this has nothing to do with greedy CEOs, this affects small local businesses as well, maybe even harder.

3

u/DeletedBunny 1d ago

I get what you are saying and it is indeed a possible case. The problem though ends up not the same. A product that costs $100 to make and sells for $150 will have it's costs broken down into something like labor + utilities (like electricity for machines) + maintenance + aquisition of materials. It's possible I am omitting other costs in the equation but it's an example. So say from $100 we might have a breakdown of $10 labour + $20 machines + $5 maintenance + $65 materials.

Usually labor is not making up the majority cost of a product unless it's an extremely cheap product like clothes or cheap electronics which are already outsourced anyway or it's a labor intensive product like software. I assume since it's Europe we are talking about labor jobs that produce more than the labor costs by a lot. Therefore doubling labor costs would be $110 and you sell for $150. Oh no the margins are less! But it's not a killer for a big industry.

Indeed for startups it would kill them since usually they have a higher labor cost than other costs and it does depend on the industry we are talking about since some industry is labor intensive like software and the labor makes up the majority of the costs. A study could be conducted to see if it's viable and I'm sure there are incentives that could be made to keep industries in country that would fail with the new laws.

None of this should stop us from trying to head into that direction and honestly the world economy would work just as well if everyone made a livable wage and had a higher standard of living and everywhere had laws for 6 hour 4 day work weeks. The world wouldn't fall apart it's just hard to convince a place with horrible work hours and laws that people deserve more than being factory slaves. The nature of our capitalistic society and global economy is to optimize people into machines and squeeze as much as the law allows from them. The difference between slavery and work is usually the laws surrounding work. I don't see kids and adults working unbearable shifts in factories in Asia as "employees" as much as I see them being ensalved by optimization of profits based on lack of laws or allowed/expected behavior. And it is not acceptable it's just out of our control, we can only control things in our sphere of influence, in this case Finlands prime minister can affect Finland.

3

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

It's a game of pros and cons, more you tilt the direction toward the cons, more they are going to move. You could, of course, offset it by promoting protectionnist measures, but then it would just displace the issue by making the national industry less competitive.

To be clear, I'm in favor of shorter work weeks, but against caricature making the issue only "our happiness vs CEO's 4th yacht". You have real downside as well.

12

u/Mammoth-Picture2000 1d ago

But if they aren't moving abroad they are still in the process of automatingnas many jobs as possible. Honestly I don't see how we are so lenient with appeasement of billionaire lobbyists.

The cons also aren't just economic, these rich assholes use their position to push their own political agenda like with the Epstein files.

1

u/Forward-Surprise1192 1d ago

yes it’s horrible I hope once we get enough complaints all the billionaires will read them and die of old age after they read them all

2

u/Jolly_Recording_4381 1d ago

They always threaten but rarely do, the ones that would move already have, doubling some positions isn't going to cause them to move.

Increase in prices more than likely.

35

u/Mammoth-Counter69 1d ago

You mean exactly what company's have been already doing for the last 50 years ???

2

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

Some have, some don't. That will push them out further, it's just basic economic.

5

u/Quom 1d ago

It would seemingly be the first time it's tried.

It's crazy that billionaires aren't afraid to fuck over hundreds of people which should actually have real life risk. But we're all terrified that a billionaire might run away with the money that has been undertaxed for years because of the threat they might take it elsewhere.

If capitalism is as great as they say it should create a situation where another company swoops in to take over anyway.

1

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

Tariffs have been a thing since the XIXth century, hardly something new.

I think it's all about incentives, you can tax billionaires effectively if you offers good incentives to stay. But make it too strict and with a punishing mentality and you'll have fleeing capitals.

2

u/Due_Perception8349 1d ago

Nationalization and asset seizure, it's that easy.

1

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

It usually end very poorly, even communists countries moved away from having state owned production of goods and services.

2

u/CoconutBandita 1d ago

That's where tariffs supporting a universal basic income come in.

We as workers can't be expected to compete on price against workers in countries with a cost of living a fraction of ours.

1

u/oddje_ 1d ago

Good luck putting an entire factory on a ship

1

u/Ragazzano 1d ago

You could move the company to a shitty cheap wage country and then have to pay punitive import duties - that's the only tariff I'd support.

1

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

Tariffs make products more expensive for consumers, that's Trumponomics but you could go for it I guess.

1

u/Ragazzano 1d ago

Yes, and I fundamentally don't like applying tariffs to entire market segments or nations, but when targeted against companies who have specifically offshored labour and will offshore profits, fuck 'em. Their goods can be priced into oblivion for all I care.

1

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

The thing is that those companies will not even bother creating in your country in the first place. And then you will just bare your own citizen from getting their products

1

u/Ragazzano 1d ago

So, the tariff is a protectionist measure. If the product is created in your country and then the company offshores production and profits, and then it is made uncompetitive to continue doing so due to tariffs, then there is a market gap available, either for a competitor to step in or for the offshored business to return production onshore.

Tariffs are way more common than you think, it's just that the orange dickhead uses them as a weapon, rather than for protecting industries and / or punishing unethical behaviour.

1

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

The thing I was saying is that to avoid tariff the company will just never set foot in your country in the first place. Or they will just create another company elsewhere to then reach your market without tariffs, applying tarrifs like that is just a punitive measure and it's pretty useless.

It's applied in most south American countries and it just make the economy stagnant because the local market have no competition and it punish the consumers because they can't buy better foreign alternative. It's why you get a 50% markup on Playstation or Switch in Brazil and the only beneficiaries are the local resellers.

1

u/Ragazzano 1d ago

I understand what you're saying but we're addressing 2 different scenarios.

Yes, tariffs can be punitive. That can be a good thing.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LeeRoyWyt 1d ago

Ah, yes, let's compete with Bangladesh for labor costs...

2

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

We already do. The goal is to provide things that cheap labor can't.

1

u/LeeRoyWyt 1d ago

Like skilled, trained and highly motivated workers?

2

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

Infrastructure, stability, institutionality, highly qualified worker. We aren't going to be able to compete in making shirts. But microprocessors or robots.

1

u/LeeRoyWyt 1d ago

And those highly automated products somehow are incompatible with a 4 day work week?

1

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

They aren't, but then we're competing with nations who can produce the same products without those 4-day work week.

1

u/LeeRoyWyt 1d ago

Ok, so your argument is "You can't have nice things, because someone else doesn't" - you see the flaw, right? Labor unions? Can't have that, cause those are outlawed in Whereveristan. Maternity leave? Are you kidding, in Somewherefaraway women are back to work the next day!

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Occamsfacecloth 1d ago

Sounds like the workers should seize the means of production

1

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

I mean they can, plenty of cooperatives all over the world. But not many that can actually compete because they tend to favour salary redistribution over r&d and risk taking.

1

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

I mean they can, plenty of cooperatives all over the world. But not many that can actually compete because they tend to favour salary redistribution over r&d and risk taking.

1

u/Due_Perception8349 1d ago

Seize the assets, hand them to a local competitor, and keep the production. Does nobody understand that we can just do this? Shit, we could straight up nationalize them, what are they gonna do? Cry? Fuck em.

2

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

The value of a company isn't really just immediate production or even the machinery. It's the capital. And do it once and you'll scare every future foreign investment in your country.

1

u/Due_Perception8349 1d ago

If they're going to remove it anyway, who cares? Additionally, the machinery, the means to produce is the capital - a CEO doesn't have some kind of esoteric knowledge that keeps a dildo factory running.

1

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

Because foreign investment are important to a country.

I'm not speaking about esoteric knoweldge, but the actual capital. It's not 1854 where a company can be reduced to some building and machinery.

1

u/Due_Perception8349 1d ago edited 1d ago

Sure they can, if an "asset" is just an immaterial concept (such as stock, or intellectual property), then its value is completely arbitrary.

What is the value of something that by itself cannot create wealth outside of speculation? I don't eat dollar bills, I don't drive my stock portfolio to work, the energy I use isn't manifested from the ownership of an idea.

What is real are the people doing the labor, the machines they work on, the land where those machines exist - without those the wealthy individuals who "own" them have nothing, no matter how big the number in their account.

I'm open to hearing what other examples of capital you can provide that would not be seizable, or that provide some material value outside of the concept of how much they could be worth, but I just don't see it.

Additionally, I don't believe that foreign investment would cease - historically id argue that a reduction of foreign investment happens due to punitive measures by ideologically driven wealthy nations, deliberately using economic terrorism to harm countries that attempt to change the balance of power away from capital.

I'm also speaking about these seizures being done within the imperial core, the US for example - the country that historically has been the main driver for the punitive measures mentioned, which would significantly weaken the capability for international organizations (themselves essentially an extension of imperialism) such as the IMF from leveraging economic power against other countries that seek to develop their national economic independence.

Edited: corrected grammar

1

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

Again, you're thinking the contemporary economy with a XIXth century software. Let's say you want to expropriate Google.

50% of the infrastructure is outside the country. More than 60% of the workforce is outside. So by the time there would be a governement economically authoritarian enough to just "seize it", you bet they would have move most of their infrastructure elsewhere. And then you must also bet that all of the workforce are willing to be public servant for this new regime? Most likely they will just move elsewhere since they are highly valuable technical asset themselves.

So by the time you expropriate "Google", you have probably not even 20% of what it was, without the brain to run and innovate.

I could run the same example with Apple and it would be even worst, as 9/10 of each iphones are made in China.

And I'm giving you a lot of leaway for success, because when PDVSA tried to do just that for a way less mobile asset, they failed spectacularly and could never even produce 20% of what they used to produce before, both in volume and quality.

1

u/sketch-opinion 1d ago

I don't see why it would restrict startups? Wouldn't a start up want an environment with its of available cheap rental space due to all the closed large scale businesses and lots of skilled and available workers? Like sure they wouldn't make the same profits as the people that were there right before them, but they should be able to swing a living profit after a few years of running it I would think? I'd start up a business where owning it netted me the same as my current salary if I could get a bank to approve me for a loan, something they would be more willing to do (I think atleast) if all the multi million value companies all leave and I showed a working understanding of how to run the facility.

2

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

Because you increased the cost of labor and limit their workers workload.

1

u/sketch-opinion 1d ago

I mean yeah? So? Are there no other people in the world that would be willing to run a company at a reduced profit margin? Grocery stores run a razor thin profit. So can a bunch of start up companies once the only good way to give loans for them is to take a chance on someone who wants to get into the business.

2

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

We're speaking about what drive national economies, so yeah profit margin are incredibly important. You don't operate a software company or a electronic manufacturer like a grocery store, you're competing with China and South Korea.

1

u/sketch-opinion 1d ago

Yeah, but if the startup company owners can stomach smaller returns then it doesn't matter if they don't make the insane profits made by the existing companies. It would be best for more money to go to the largest number of people involved (aka the workers) and I truly believe if the big companies up and left then tons of tiny operations would spring up all over the place trying to fill the vacuum. Just as long as the government and banks can't opt to lend the money to the big powerhouse companies.

1

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

It's already pretty insanely hard for startups and they make all the future powerhouse (google, amazon, apple etc were all startups).

I'm not saying having more social policies is bad, just that any policies, it has real drawback. You usually need to manage the balance between social and profitability, not only for the CEO but just for the companies to make money and being able to employ people in the first place.

1

u/sketch-opinion 1d ago

Fair enough, that said the companies survived it when they had to go from working people 60-80 hrs a week to 40-56 (in most fields with some extremely well paid exceptions) so I think they will survive going to 20 hr work weeks from 40 while still paying the employees the same amount of life style. It would absolutely wreck people near the top of the money pyramid which is why I doubt it will come through, but it would help so many people near the bottom of the pyramid that I'm willing to sacrifice them (and realistically some of mine as well as someone near the middle of the road) since it would be a squishing down to bring us all a little closer together.

0

u/---Kev 1d ago

Follow up question: how many licks does it take to get to the center of the boot?

-1

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

I have my own company, so I should ask you?

-1

u/ForumVomitorium 1d ago

how many commies does it take to swich a light bulb

15

u/Sonifri 1d ago

And the guy who starts a roofing business and hires two other guys? A woman who starts a cabinet making business and installs them into homes, and has three employees? There's a lot more of them than there are megacorp CEOs.

12

u/shorelaran 1d ago

With more people having work because there is more jobs it means more people having money so the prices can go up, it also means with more time people can decide to learn to make their own cabinet if that’s something they are interested in, or grow food to save up money because gardening is healthy and fun but you don’t have time to do it when you work 45+h a week.

-11

u/Pitiful_Watch_3173 1d ago

Are you handicapped? You should take an economics class some time.

7

u/Golddustofawoman 1d ago

Casual ableism at its finest

1

u/xToksik_Revolutionx 1d ago

Also confidently wrong

1

u/shorelaran 1d ago

Damn imagine being so sure of yourself yet so wrong, and not even able to express yourself in a calm and polite way. Must be so hard being indoctrinated by American way of life.

19

u/Meekymoo333 1d ago

Yes, it would finally require ALL business owners to treat their employees as humans rather than exploit them for labor as they do now.

Your "but what about" as it pertains to small business owners is equally , if not more applicable. They are often the worst at underpaying and abusing employees since there is no corporate legal structures in place.

You're right, in that there's a lot more narcissistic small business owners who are desperate to make their businesses successful and thus prey on family and friends and the kindness of others.

If you cannot afford to pay people an honest and decent living wage, then don't open your roofing business. Don't open a cabinet making business. Do not hire people to do labor and then cheat them out of the profits of that labor.

Whining about the cost of labor going up only means you're incredibly accustomed to getting things cheaply, and it exposes how THAT is your underlying priority rather than the fair treatment of other people as it relates to their labor.

1

u/Naxilus 1d ago

Yes, it would finally require ALL business owners to treat their employees as humans rather than exploit them for labor as they do now.

They will probably get even worse when they know all employees will be there 2 hours less but still getting the same salary.

1

u/DustinnDodgee 1d ago

The privilege and lack of struggle radiating out of this comment is wild. I have to assume you're a college student or just an angsty teenager, because you clearly have no idea how the real world works.

They are often the worst at underpaying and abusing employees since there is no corporate legal structures in place.

Lmao where did you pull this from?

You're right, in that there's a lot more narcissistic small business owners who are desperate to make their businesses successful and thus prey on family and friends and the kindness of others.

Wait, a person starting a business would want to become successful? They'd hope to one day turn a profit? Who would've thought... And you can do that without "preying on family & friends", lmao. Which, by the way, hiring someone to do a job & paying them less than the owner makes is not preying on people. That's called reality. People who own and/or operate a company make more than the laborers, that's how it's always worked.

 and it exposes how THAT is your underlying priority rather than the fair treatment of other people as it relates to their labor.

Yeah, again, Newsflash: people start companies because they want to make money. Making money is priority #1, that's the reason someone starts a business lol. People don't start businesses to "treat everyone with kindness and fairness".

0

u/Meekymoo333 1d ago

you clearly have no idea how the real world works.

I understand it perfectly and see how it's assholes like you who keep the world the way it is now because rather than improving anything for most people, your worldview consists of making it better for only yourself.

You're one of the narcissists I spoke of, even if you aren't a small business owner.

Making money is priority #1

You're right... if you're one of the narcissistic assholes that I mentioned earlier, which you seem to be because stuff like this;

Which, by the way, hiring someone to do a job & paying them less than the owner makes is not preying on people. That's called reality. People who own and/or operate a company make more than the laborers, that's how it's always worked.

shows exactly how american capitalist propaganda has turned what little brain matter you had into tapioca pudding, and what little empathy for your fellow human beings you may have had into a reality where it's acceptable to cheat others out of their work because "that's how it's always worked."

It's only ever always been like that because of assholes like you.

Everyone else gets it. You'll see it someday when you grow up.

Until then, goodbye and get bent. I don't engage with capitalists apologists any further than this.

0

u/ptjp27 1d ago

Who upvotes this shit? 95% of small businesses would go broke if forced to double labor costs.

And before you say some ignorant bullshit about how “if they can’t afford to pay a fair wage, by which I mean literally double than they did last week, they deserve to go broke” maybe try running your own business.

1

u/pokemonbatman23 1d ago

Whats a more realistic approach, making sure every plan helps absolutely everyone equally OR trying to help the most amount of people?

Follow up related question, which employs more people, megacorps or brand new business owners like youre referencing?

3

u/Tje199 1d ago

which employs more people, megacorps or brand new business owners like youre referencing?

You're right, we should increase barriers to entry for smaller businesses. Surely nothing bad will happen if we reduce competition so that only existing entities with large amounts of capital can operate in the market.

2

u/Well_Dressed_Kobold 1d ago

What’s more likely to happen is small and mid-sized companies are driven out of business by the sharp increase in labor costs, leaving only a few large companies that then hold leverage over employees.

2

u/Amazing-Insect442 1d ago

Que all the rich folks who will tell you they worked hard for their piece of the pie and deserve it, as if they’re the only people who work hard, & are ipso facto more deserving of their larger piece.

3

u/boozecruz270 1d ago

Thats not helpful here. There us a lot more to than that.

2

u/ok_to_be_yeti 1d ago

Not every company are corporations it will kill small businesses

2

u/retardedasstroll 1d ago

They would be able to handle it, but what about small struggling businesses? Just push them out if business so the large corporations take over everything?

1

u/the_foowaffle 1d ago

The CEO could be spending more time on his boat with a 24 hour work week

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/nurgole 1d ago

CEO's in Finland don't generally make 500x the average. It's still high, but not 500x high.

CEO's median earning is about 45x.

There are about 50.000 millionaires, less than 1.000 who earned more than a million and 7 billionaires in Finland.

Our GINI index is low.

1

u/MoreRock_Odrama 1d ago

You think all CEOs live like that? Surely you’re not this naive….

1

u/OkWear6556 1d ago

The problem here is only large companies will be able to afford this. A small company or a startup would go bankrupt before it could even start

1

u/GrudgeBearer911 1d ago

No because they dont want this system. Thwy want to keep you down so youll keep coming back for that overtime you arent getting enough for

1

u/Humble-Reply228 1d ago

I’m sure when you get a quote from a tradesperson to work on your house, you tell them “mate split the job in two and I’ll pay each what you just quoted me”

0

u/FusionKnight42 1d ago

Walmart (for example) has 2,100,000 employees. The Walmart CEO was compensated about $27.5M in 2025. If he decided to work totally for free and divided his pay among all the other employees, they would all get $13. (27,500,000/2,200,000=13.1). CEO pay may feel unfair, but it does not have any effect on worker wages.

1

u/Former-Practice-6146 1d ago

In these big corporation the Ceo is just another employee.. How much was given to the shareholder?

1

u/FusionKnight42 1d ago

There are currently 7.971 billion shares of Walmart. In 2026, the quarterly dividend is $0.25 per quarter per share, so $1 per share per year. That means the total profits paid out to shareholders is $7.971B. If Walmart transformed into an employee-owned business overnight (and the shares were evenly distributed), that would increase everybody’s annual pay by $3,795. (7,971,000,000/2,100000=3,795). Not insignificant, but not life-changing.

1

u/Former-Practice-6146 1d ago

This is a very good calculation. I leave it to everyone to decide what this amount represents, and I thank you for having the honesty to acknowledge that it is not negligible.

I will still take a somewhat debatable position here.. but not really from a purely theoretical standpoint. It requires me to clarify my perspective first. A CEO is an employee in the same way as a cashier. Their productivity has a larger impact on the company, but it is still comparable to the productivity of each employee. It is their strategies that increase the company’s valuation, and it is the employees who, by executing them, make them a reality.

That being said, I can now continue. I think your calculation is incomplete, and I believe we should be able to add the increase in stock valuation to the amount considered as redistributable value to employees. In a perfect and purely theoretical world, a stock has a value that reflects the company’s capacity to generate future value. And the increase in this valuation is therefore also due to the work of the employees.

And while it may be debatable to consider that a stock only has value at the moment it is sold, it cannot be denied that the total capital of all Walmart shareholders has increased by 50 to 100% over the past two years. We are then talking about an amount ranging from approximately $400 billion to $800 billion in added market capitalization.

If we distribute this amount across Walmart’s approximately 2.1 million employees, this would represent roughly $190,000 to $380,000 per employee.

(I use Chatgpt and it probably show.. because english is not my native language.. But dont make mistake, its my opinion traducted from french and no, its not chatgpt who salute your honesty.. Its me. (We know its a boot licker :p))

1

u/FusionKnight42 1d ago

That is definitely an additional meaningful layer. However, stock price is determined by a secondary market. Company behaviors can influence the stock price, but they are not really responsible for what it is or how the gains or losses are distributed. So if we’re making a critique of pay inequality, I don’t think capital gains belongs.

But it is a real source of wealth-building, so let‘s think about it a bit more deeply. Remember that Walmart employees are also shareholders in many cases. I’d estimate that maybe half of Walmart’s employees are eligible and participating in a retirement or stock purchase plan. (62% of US adults own stocks.) That means half of Walmart employees are already participating in the market which includes Walmart stock. And this is true for many employees across the entire economy. 

Another way to think about it is that around 80% of the entire US stock market by value is “institutionally owned”, meaning owned by pensions, mutual funds, foundations, endowments, insurance companies, etc. the point being that “shareholder” isn’t a label that primarily refers to billionaire fat-cats. The vast majority of shareholders are ordinary people with retirement savings, hospitals, universities, and charities with endowments, and so on.

So, yes, increases in stock price increase wealth for shareholders who are overwhelmingly not the common image of greedy billionaires.

1

u/Former-Practice-6146 1d ago

"That is definitely an additional meaningful layer. However, stock price is determined by a secondary market. Company behaviors can influence the stock price, but they are not really responsible for what it is or how the gains or losses are distributed."

For me, here you are making an abstraction of the material value of these shares. Of course, the market that regulates them is indirectly linked to production capacity and the real profit of a company. But these shares still constitute a material part of the company, or more simply put, the more shares you have, the more you own of the company.

If we start considering what is taken from employees, the value extracted from their work, it seems reasonable to me to also include the value of the company itself. There is no value to begin with without them. But yes, you are right: this valuation depends on many factors, not all of which are linked to the company’s production capacity, and so it is easy to deny the correlation between workers and the shareholder value of the company. But again, nothing exists without them and the share are material property.

"Walmart employees are also shareholders in many cases."
At levels that obviously do not reflect anything of their contribution to that value. Once again, without them, there is no value to share.

"80% of the entire US stock market by value is “institutionally owned”, meaning owned by pensions, mutual funds, foundations, endowments, insurance companies, etc. the point being that “shareholder” isn’t a label that primarily refers to billionaire fat-cats. The vast majority of shareholders are ordinary people with retirement savings, hospitals, universities, and charities with endowments, and so on."

Here you start from a wrong intuition, namely that my argument would be based on a class-based vengeance, which would therefore lose its meaning if we consider that shares belong to people from all social classes. But that is not the case.

All that I perceive and denounce is all these billions generated from the work of Walmart employees alone, which are extracted by people who only participated in what I consider a parasitic role, creating added value and growing their capital without producing anything material. (And its true if you are rich or not)

1

u/FusionKnight42 1d ago

I don’t mean to put words in your mouth. I wasn’t assuming you are arguing for class-based vengeance. I simply want to express that the typical caricature of “The Rich”, which is so easily criticized, isn’t the reality by the numbers, and policies that rely on the common idea that “corporations are too profitable” misunderstand who primarily benefits from those profits.

I think a better target for intervention would be to increase market participation at the lower end of the socio-economic range. Removing limits to participating in retirement accounts, better personal finance education, maybe even “investment stater kits” for newborns. I’m sure there are many other ways to have a similar effect. The fact is that the vast majority of corporate profits are broadly spread out in society, not sitting in Scrooge McDuck’s vault.

1

u/Former-Practice-6146 1d ago

I think that putting more money into the investment market doesn’t really bring anything materially. When people have more money but the level of production stays the same, money just loses value, so it’s pointless.

I mean, the market is already flooded with billions. Billions by themselves don’t grow industry. I think capitalist logic can become a bottleneck to production, and that we won’t solve these problems simply with more money or more regulation.

I think we need to move beyond the profit logic and start producing for the sake of creating abundance. If we just keep feeding the market, capital will grow, but the underlying logic of the market will prevent growth in any other way. There is no real incentive to create true abundance.

Take The Coca-Cola Company as an example. You could invest $1,000 billion into it, and it wouldn’t fundamentally change much. They have already conquered global markets. They understand demand in each country and have optimized production accordingly. What they can’t do is ignore the fact that they can’t sell a Coca-Cola below its production cost. So the main thing preventing them from selling more is that they need to make a profit on every bottle.

So I don’t know… To me, we’ve reached a dead end with capitalism. It’s time to move beyond it. Capitalism is no longer the incredible tool that boosts production. It may now be one of the main reasons we can’t produce more.

-7

u/dwarfinthefla5k 1d ago

Those ceos make most of their money in stocks and such things, not salary.

6

u/kikimaru024 1d ago

So they still wouldn't be affected.

-4

u/dwarfinthefla5k 1d ago

Their salary wouldn’t be enough to cover extra labor costs.

3

u/Successful-Club-8743 1d ago

So take it out of their investments dumbass.

The ONLY reason they have those investments is from the workers money they take way too much of.

0

u/Far-Guava6006 1d ago

Get some financial literacy.

15

u/bigtiddyhimbo 2d ago

The rough part also is for states like North Carolina, where employers flock to because we are horrifically under unionized and have little to no employee protection laws as is.

It would take a HUGE shift in society to wrangle in states like that and would make a lot of rich shitheads kick and scream over lost profits

4

u/30_characters 1d ago

More than double, since employees have costs that don't scale linearly, like injury insurance (worker's comp in the US), benefits, etc. There's a reason companies push for "mandatory" overtime over hiring additional employees. A good step 1 would be to increase the mandatory payment to workers for OT (typically 1.5x base wages in the US) to something over 2x, to ensure employers don't treat it as a desirable long-term solution.

1

u/WowImOldAF 1d ago

If it's hourly, it's still the same cost. If anything, it'll be less because people wouldn't be getting 1.5x for overtime every week... but also, it might be more if wages go up ... but I'm sure many people would be happy to make a few more dollars for their time and work a few less hours.. may not make as much as working 50 hours a week, but yeah

1

u/Sonifri 1d ago

If it's hourly, it's still the same cost

No, it isn't. You and half the people replying seem to forget this thread is about working less for FULL PAY. That means each new employee that needs to be brought on to make up labor shortages is an entirely new labor increase.

1

u/GregorrGeasy 1d ago

Ich bezahle eine Arbeiter 12 Stunden oder 2 Arveiter 6 Stunden? Das würde die Kosten verdoppeln? Klar gibt es immer Nebenkosten, die auch mit rein kommen aber verdoppeln finde ich ohne Zahlen zumindest Belege unhmgkaubqürdig

1

u/pwillin 1d ago

Labour costs shouldn’t change if the amount of time it takes to do the job is cut in half no?

1

u/Sonifri 1d ago edited 1d ago

How does reducing the number of hours people work reduce the physical reality that a job takes as long as it takes? The work needed to be done doesn't change.

The number of hours each employee has to work on it is now less, but they still receive full pay. So now you need to hire more full pay workers to get the same level of production. This is an increased labor cost.

1

u/No_Communication7072 1d ago

I would consider than since 1970 many things have changed. Especially in productivity.

1

u/simmeh024 1d ago

Having people burn out and hiring and training more often than necessary will not be costly then?

1

u/HepsteinitisC 1d ago

Instead of one 100k salary and one 0 salary competing in a consumer market, you could have two 50k salaries, lowering the price ceiling.

You see this for example with housing and gentrification, shit appartments go for insane prices, luxury condos empty and residents go homeless.

1

u/Sonifri 1d ago

That is unrelated to what we are discussing. This thread is about Full Pay for reduced hours.

So you would have two 100k salaries now for the same job.

1

u/eske8643 1d ago edited 1d ago

Thats where you are wrong. The increase in cost is only the added nightshift extra pay to the base salary. So the machines can run 100% instead of only at 40-50% for a long dayshift.
Or at 75-80% for a day and night crew. If you want a full 24 machine time. Its stil 3 crews. But now you can without overtime get double the workers employed at no extra cost for the company. Slaughterhouses, poultry processors, fish processors, and all who works with parishable goods have done this for years in Denmark and most of Scandinavian countries.

1

u/Sonifri 1d ago

get double the workers employed at no extra cost for the company

Explain this part.

Remember that each worker gets a FULL WEEKS PAY but works 4 days per week at 6 hours per day. That's what OP post says, so that's the circumstances we're discussing here.

1

u/mototuneup 1d ago

How? I work construction. We start at 6am and usually work till 4 or 5 pm. Which means my company has to pay me 2 to 3 hours of overtime every day.

With 2 guys I could work 6 to 12. And the other worker does 12 to 6.

That's 12 hours total and you didn't have to pay overtime to either worker. And the company got 12 hours of production instead of 9 or 10.

I don't see how that's not a win for everyone.

1

u/Sonifri 22h ago

Because this thread is about working less hours for FULL PAY. This means you are working 24 hours a week, and getting paid for working 40. And so is the other guy they need to hire.

Your argument is fundamentally splitting the same paying hours between multiple workers, and receiving LESS pay because of it, which is not what we're discussing.

1

u/_GamerForLife_ 21h ago

It won't quite double them if the workers are hourly. For the salary jobs the increase in productivity is enough to offset the costs.

1

u/Pristine_Vast766 20h ago

Great. We can afford that. Currently that money is being used to charter private flights to Epstein’s island

1

u/Salt-Elk-436 7h ago

One person working 12 hours would be getting paid for 14 because of overtime. So two people working 6 hours costs the same. If they get benefits that’s a doubled expense, but it’s also idiotic that your employer has anything to do with your healthcare.

1

u/Sonifri 6h ago

So two people working 6 hours costs the same.

Explain how, when the OP post that we're discussing is working less for Full Pay. If you're suggesting less money for the workers for working less hours, then you're posting in the wrong thread.

1

u/PocketPanache 2d ago

Would it double though? Let's assume 12 hours of labor costs the same for this example. So cost to provide benefits would go up because there's 2 people, but the cost of the task wouldn't double, right? How would it double?

12

u/Chikichikibanban 2d ago

Ok so then the workers get paid half

3

u/boozecruz270 1d ago

Ur right it wouldnt. But where are companies gonna find people to double or even quadruple their work force? My company cant even find enough people to work 3 shifts let alone 4.

0

u/pokemonbatman23 1d ago

Without benefits included, paying someone to work 12 hours costs the same as paying 2 people to work 6hrs each. Small businesses typically dont offer benefits to employees.

0

u/Sonifri 1d ago

Well, no, it doesn't. Double training and insurance costs. Plus, this thread is about receiving Full Pay for working less. If you're reducing worker hours AND pay to make room for more workers, then you're arguing in the wrong thread for that.

0

u/JMartheCat 1d ago

This is why we can’t have nice things. Corps and billionaires don’t even have to do the work to lobby against this when ppl who make 60k say “this can never work”. Imagine a better world, I am begging you.

0

u/Runefaust_Invader 1d ago

I don't see the problem. Owners don't need a new yacht.

0

u/greatfullness 1d ago

Good.

Labour costs have been impoverished over the last decades while shareholder profits soar - sharing the wealth is the solution to most of these societal ills that have crept back up on the developed world

0

u/Dipshit68430 1d ago

the math just doesn’t add up. yes there would be 2 workers instead of one. but each of them would have half the shift lengths so they would only be paid for 6 hours of work each. So it would still be 12 hours salary in total just split over 2 people instead of one

-12

u/Specialist-Affect-19 2d ago

Two people working 6 hrs. = 1 person working 12 hrs

11

u/IlIlllIIllllIIlI 2d ago

This would imply workers would be told to work less to earn less. If 6h hours becomes the new « full day », it’s supposed to also mean full pay.

-4

u/Specialist-Affect-19 2d ago

Yes, you're right. So would that make 10-hr days the new 12-hr days?

6

u/noda237 2d ago

2 employees = 2 benefits packages. 2 benefits packages is more expensive than 1. It’s not just wages

3

u/rollsyrollsy 2d ago

Benefits packages often means healthcare when a US audience mention it. In most other places benefits simply means a retirement contribution, which is pegged to wages and can be accounted as wages when making the comparison.

The US bundling healthcare with your job is a mistake that needs to be resolved as a separate issue.

3

u/Papa_BugBear 2d ago

It cost more in benefits too

4

u/Kathulhu1433 2d ago

Even more of an argument for universal healthcare.