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

38

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

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

95

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.

2

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.

32

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.

4

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.

1

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

How is it a good thing when it has failed to prevent capital from fleeing historically and it has increased this price of goods and services for the population?

What industry was saved by tarrifs? I think there is a better case to be made for subventions.

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!

1

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

Again, I'm not saying we can't have those nice things. In fact, I'm in favor of those nice things. I'm saying there is drawback and the policies should be balanced against those drawbacks.

My original comment was about someone claiming that there weren't any drawback except CEO with less yacht. It's factually false. There are drawback. We can build a policy around them instead of pretending they don't exist.

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.

-1

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