Now that 100% is an arbitrary number because GDP is an annual number and debt is not, but overall the ratio is still an useful number because it essentially measures how big a % of the entire GDP needs to be paid as interest on bonds and whatnot (multiply debt to GDP ratio by average bond interest)
Depends on the situation. Suddenly going to 60% of the work load isn’t suddenly going to make the country or it’s people more productive. You’d need to hire more people to get the work done and Finland’s unemployment rate is already at 13%. So this would be a pretty poor solution when it comes to economics for everyone, unless you pay people less because they are working less hours.
I have thought of this. Paying people less could work out alright if you bring down their living costs. Housing is most of that and a lot of that cost goes to profit for banks.
Bring the cost of housing down and a lot of people will probably be happy to reduce hours worked. If you have a high unemployment rate there should be plenty of people to cover those extra hours too.
Bring down the costs of housing, food, oh, and entertainment as well. Guess you could bring down restaurant costs if you pay people less, but then you have the same exact problem being asked here.
Is that food or is that takeaway fees? I know a depressing number of people who live off takeaways, it must cost a fortune and I don’t know if they will live to 40.
Even if people are more productive in less time, that doesn’t mean you can earn the same money. Many businesses operate on “hours spend” per task. As an example, let’s take hairdressers. If your hairdresser is now working only 6 hours instead of 8, that’s a potential 25% loss in revenue. And they won’t be magically faster now just because they work less. So if salary reduction is not an option, the only option is increasing prices.
What you’re saying is fine for office jobs, but just not an option for most service jobs. Waiters aren’t magically going to serve tables faster, cashiers won’t make customers move faster, etc.
You don’t see the long-term effects on Health, Education, and so on. Less mistakes are made. Yes, I understand that it’s harder for a small business to make up for the lost hours, but for a big business, the cost of an extra employee is nothing compared to the gains of extra productivity.
FORMER…always nice when they come up with great ideas AFTER they’ve left office.
Achually she had this idea before she was PM.
Had this idea before, has this idea after, it seems the “during” part is the problem somehow.
You do realize that outside of a literal dictatorship, a prime minister can’t enact such a change on her own, right?
Sure. So what did she do to make it happen?
Finland’s debt to GDP ratio is pretty high, they probably couldn’t actually afford this anymore without increasing taxes. 10 years ago maybe. At 86% debt to GDP they’re the 7th highest in the EU and I read a while ago that it it was projected to surpass 100% soon.
Now that 100% is an arbitrary number because GDP is an annual number and debt is not, but overall the ratio is still an useful number because it essentially measures how big a % of the entire GDP needs to be paid as interest on bonds and whatnot (multiply debt to GDP ratio by average bond interest)
The catch is that less work time actually INCREASES productivity.
Depends on the situation. Suddenly going to 60% of the work load isn’t suddenly going to make the country or it’s people more productive. You’d need to hire more people to get the work done and Finland’s unemployment rate is already at 13%. So this would be a pretty poor solution when it comes to economics for everyone, unless you pay people less because they are working less hours.
I am quite curious on what the science will say on this.
We need another experiment.
What exeriment would you propose then?
60% work hours for ALL jobs in a small town, to measure how it actually affects productivity.
But this includes things like healthcare, opinions of the people working there, opinions of the business workers, etc.
See where it helps and where it makes things worse.
I have a feeling that many people would choose time ober money though.
I have thought of this. Paying people less could work out alright if you bring down their living costs. Housing is most of that and a lot of that cost goes to profit for banks.
Bring the cost of housing down and a lot of people will probably be happy to reduce hours worked. If you have a high unemployment rate there should be plenty of people to cover those extra hours too.
Bring down the costs of housing, food, oh, and entertainment as well. Guess you could bring down restaurant costs if you pay people less, but then you have the same exact problem being asked here.
Food is pocket change compared to housing.
Having a house: £1300/month Food: £40/month if I eat a lot of cheese
At least in the US, food expenditures are roughly 15-20% of income. Housing is 30%.
Is that food or is that takeaway fees? I know a depressing number of people who live off takeaways, it must cost a fortune and I don’t know if they will live to 40.
Erm, this will either cut profits for the sellers, or the pay will go down way more than the housing price.
But I also see there being hidden economic benefits to having more free time.
More time to stitch, repair, learn, take care of yourself.
Less medical costs and damages.
Its not that simple
Even if people are more productive in less time, that doesn’t mean you can earn the same money. Many businesses operate on “hours spend” per task. As an example, let’s take hairdressers. If your hairdresser is now working only 6 hours instead of 8, that’s a potential 25% loss in revenue. And they won’t be magically faster now just because they work less. So if salary reduction is not an option, the only option is increasing prices.
What you’re saying is fine for office jobs, but just not an option for most service jobs. Waiters aren’t magically going to serve tables faster, cashiers won’t make customers move faster, etc.
You don’t see the long-term effects on Health, Education, and so on. Less mistakes are made. Yes, I understand that it’s harder for a small business to make up for the lost hours, but for a big business, the cost of an extra employee is nothing compared to the gains of extra productivity.
You don’t see health care outcomes improve when you remove 40% of hours. Come on now.
Yeah just continue to overwork doctors and nurses, I am sure its fine.
Then perhaps figure out ways to train and teach them quicker, better, and pay them all less, because that’s what you are suggesting.