Okay, well think about this statement
My entire working life (multiple decades) it’s been a pretty common thing to hear co-workers say some variation of
“I feel like my life is on fast forward”
Because they aren’t absorbing their own lives because they spend most of it away from the things that matter, solving problems for other people, in order to benefit a small percentage of people more than they benefit from their own labor.
Everyone has different beliefs. I don’t believe we’re going anywhere after this. This is it. One shot. One blip in a vast universe, then nothing.
That makes me very tired of this bullshit.
I understand the value of work. I understand we wouldn’t have roads or homes or grocery stores without it. But I’ve always advocated for exactly what’s being advocated for here. 4 days. 6 hours a piece. 4 days is still the majority of your week and 6 hours is perfect because studies show productivity tanks after that anyways and those extra 2 hours means actually having dinner with your family or helping them with homework, or mowing the lawn, or whatever.
It’s a solid balance and we should be demanding it, not asking for it.
She is the type of woman I would have liked to have as my cool aunt that snuck me my first beer and then destroy the very foundations of our family via accidental conception.
Now that you mention it, yeah 100%!
Yeah, I’m literally unable to focus on code for a full workday anyway. If everyone was honest, work times could just half without any actual productivity loss.
This is what I did at my company. Just better. Come and go as you please, no matter what. As long as the agreed upon work is somehow done. Come at 3am leave at 4am? Whatever. That plus profit-sharing made fucking happy employees who actually enjoyed working.
Why should anyone care if you’re here 8hrs? Most people just waste probably half of it with procrastination or just strategic incompetence.
That rule was for everyone of course, janitor “upwards”.
Also everyone got double market-average, free food and beverages.
Could’ve made a lot more money, but who needs that? Why me 99% and everyone else shares the 1%? That is an unsustainable model (for people, not for companies though), extremely unfair and unjust. How could I look into a mirror with dignity when ripping off everyone else?
Sadly I seems to be the exception, not the rule 😐
Hiring?
I go with the social contract thing. I am nixe to people until they breach the contract, then it is open bar.
How dare she!!! (/s)
Im sorry but how will this increase shareholder value? hmm? Will anybody think of the shareholders?
Yeah right, and how many trillionaires does Finland have? How can I ever become a trillionaire if we waste money on things like work-life balance? Get that woke dei stuff out of here.
/s since you can never be sure
I indeed was not sure before the “/s”
the /s is becoming more and more necessary as we move into a world where more and more onion articles are becoming actual, factual reality.
So uh…what is the citizenship application process? Finland is worth dying for rn.
Former pm, this wouldn’t actually happen.
Former PM and future wifey for lifey
Why is it that the right ideas only happen before or after holding useful positions?
She did push for such during her time holding the position from what I have seen thus far. She came into office in 2019 and was voted out in 2023 because the economy suffered around the world after COVID, and that was enough to sink many countries into believing they needed change.
Note Finland had the lowest death percentages in the EU, the GDP didn’t collapse hard like some, she pushed for work from home and minimal contact.
Oh and she apparently was focused on getting Ukraine into the EU. Which one could say was hobbled by a couple people, but one of those was recently taken from power. So only time will tell
Because it can’t cost them their career after they already retired. They never do it while still in office. That time is for taking that sweet corporate “lobbyism” money.
Awh!
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.
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.
In some scenarios. Some types of office work in particular, and not for everyone. Some people work best in short spurts, some do not. Those of us who qualify are incredibly privileged, as are the industries we work for.
Now try this with manufacturing, healthcare, etc. 24 hour weeks means that to get the same output, you have to hire nearly twice as many employees, at the same monthly cost per employee. There probably aren’t enough qualified unemployed people around to do that, so it’s easier to just let productivity drop (and do hospitals REALLY need so many people around 24/7? At nearly 2x the cost, perhaps not - can’t just increase pricing to make up for the cost increase in a single-payer system).
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.
Healthcare has its own problems, but the 12 hour shift model was adopted because it improved patient outcomes. Only having 1 shift change per day provided less opportunity for patient context to get lost in the shuffle. In short, overworked doctors/nurses were better (for patients) than uninformed doctors/nurses.
Moving to 6 hour shifts/4 changes per day would quadruple that risk.
Now, there are plenty of ways to imagine changing procedures, policies, and tooling to reduce this risk, but it would require planning.
but for a big business
I’m not worried about big business. They will survive. I’m worried about the small bakery around the corner, about the hair salons down the street, the flower shop in the mall and basically every small, independent shop that exists which is a crucial part of every community it’s part of. And those small businesses make up a significant portion of the job market.
A 6 hour day at the same pay would absolutely annihilate any retail consumer B2C business that exists anywhere in the western world.
Most of that can be fixed with scheduling. Are all of those bakers and barbers fully booked for 8-12 hours every day? They don’t have gaps where they sit around waiting for business? When you offer shorter hours, people will have to schedule within those hours or go without the service. This should translate to less wasted time babysitting an empty store. And it’s totally possible to still accommodate all the customers. I know a chiropractor who is open 6-12 three days a week and 12-6 the other two days. He doesn’t have to work 12 hours a day, and it’s still easy for customers to schedule when they want.
Lmao, have you even remotely thought this through?
As an example: Bakeries. They already compete with large corporations, namely supermarkets. Every supermarket offers a bread section. If you now force consumers to adapt to your worse hours, they will rather go to the supermarket, despite the worse product. Consumers will not change their behaviors for things they can obtain in another way.
And that’s for almost any consumer-facing service that has a “big business competition”. Your local bakery will die, your local butcher will die, your local apothecary will die, your local bookshop will die, and so on.
Your example is pretty bad because it’s a doctor. There’s no large medical corporations that could fill that need. So people will have to adjust their days for doctor visits.
I think it’s worth us paying some tax to support a small business, at the cost of having less things, but more time for ourselves.
The market corrects to match the available income of the consumer, usually. They want you paying, not hoarding.
Less goods and less work is ultimately better, leaves us with more time for people, for self-improvement, for the things that really matter, not the cheap plastics.
This is however, an opinion, and a matter of consensus, the economics are what they are.
As for why I’m suddenly writting entire paragraphs and am more literate, it’s because I got some good news, and the kind of misery knocks your IQ down.
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.
Or just hire one extra, and cut their work hours.
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.
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.
I am quite curious on what the science will say on this.
We need another experiment.
Productivity, but not production. They would still produce less than now, how much less is just not a simple ratio calculation.
Is this the person whose big “scandal” was being photographed at a club?
I think that was the one where she was unreachable by the government (this was still the covid times, 2021) which is a no-no and was seen as dancing with/maybe kissing another man (a celebrity) while her husband was at home with their daughter. (They separated some time after) That soured a lot of people’s view on her. Of course her being a young woman was further incrimination to many of her opponents.
Another similar scandal was the house party video where she was allegedly doing coke. I don’t think anything was proven there. Someone on the video was yelling “powder gang” which is weird but not exactly solid evidence, but it became a huge meme and just solidified her reputation as a “party girl”, something beneath the position of a PM.
I think those were the bigger non-politics scandals.
I wish my leader were only an adulterer and cocaine user.
At least her extramarital affairs are with adults.
We have a different sort of bar here I suppose hah. Then again, she was judged extra hard for being a young woman in that position.
But it also genuinely wasn’t appropriate behaviour (to be videotaped doing) for a PM.
Nah the appropriateness or lack of it was invented. Worst she’s done is join the Tony Blair Institute, just another capitalist
I don’t know what you mean by invented. A lot of people thought partying drunk on video wasn’t really appropriate behaviour for the PM. People don’t mind (at least as much) if it happens behind closed doors, but Marin unfortunately had shitty enough friends that they posted that stuff online. That sort of stuff eroded a lot of respect for her and it was already an uphill battle since she was a young woman, she had to fight double as hard as a middle aged man in her position would’ve had to.
I didn’t really mind her partying and stuff, but it was just a bad look. Her fooling the voters later on was much worse imo than just being drunk on camera. That later thing really soured me on her.
I mean how you said
she was judged extra hard for being a young woman in that position
none of the topics, breakfast, dancing, etc were issues in any other case. Yeah younger generations live with phones and might have stupid friends. It’s not a national crisis without being forced to be one
It would’ve been a scandal with any pm if you have a drunken party on video, with the accusations of drugs and extramarital affairs.
She just got it harder because she was a young woman pm. But it’s wasn’t a thing just because of that
It depends on the culture I guess. It would be less of a problem in France (source : am French).
“powder gang”
I would like to add that it’s very likely they were not yelling this, “jauhojengi”, at all but “jallujengi” which would be about drinking Jaloviina, Finnish cut brandy. Link to a wikipedia page. I fucking love Jallu and will always spread the Gospel of Jaloviina.
I don’t know about likely, most heard “jauhojengi” and at the time I listened to it a bunch too and couldn’t hear “jallujengi” myself. And I was her supporter so I had a reason to hear it that way hah
I couldn’t hear the “jauho” at all, did a blind hearing once the videos came out. Blue dress, gold dress I guess. :D
This is even closer
I was looking for that from my memory lol!
Yes!
I bet she probably even had an alcoholic beverage too!
Curious question, did she push for this when she was PM?
No
Fuck outta here with your bullshit. She just didn’t get the backing needed for it.
https://gpa.net/blogs/emea-1/finland-new-prime-minister-s-four-day-working-week-plan
She made a supportive claim in a party meeting, didn’t do action about it. Nothing bullshit unless the story is deeper behind public eyes
https://www.is.fi/politiikka/art-2000006208835.html
For this topic, native or primary sources are better
Also we could deep dive on the “during PM” slice. she said she supports it in Aug 2019, Cabinet forms in December. Believe me (or not) I tried to stay sharp if the topic gains any official action during the time
Edit: this I can’t get a link to because twitter but apparently: Finnish Government, using the handle @FinGovernment. January 7, 2020:
“In the Finnish Government´s program there is no mention about 4-day week. Issue is not on the Finnish Government’s agenda. PM @marinsanna envisioned idea briefly in a panel discussion last August while she was the Minister of Transport, and there hasn’t been any recent activity.”
They had to officially declare this because the urban legend was spreading.
After leaving office? Sure, she’s said she still supports the idea. Hope this helps
GOP: she’s basically Stalin.
Politicians can’t just pass laws to give us shorter workweeks. We actually get more free time when businesses & voluntary associations invest in better tools & technology. This increases efficiency, making goods and services cheaper to produce & allowing prices to drop.
However, big government programs drain the resources needed to develop an economy. When the government pays for massive spending by printing money & running up debt, it shrinks the value of your dollars and distorts the economy. Add in high taxes, government promises it can’t afford (like public pensions with runaway obligations), & red tape that makes it hard to produce goods, and society ends up poorer.
Instead of making life more affordable, printing money & discouraging investment force you to work longer and harder just to stay where you are.
We actually get more free time when businesses & voluntary associations invest in better tools & technology. This increases efficiency, making goods and services cheaper to produce & allowing prices to drop.
The problem we have in late-stage-capitalism is that instead of passing the time and money savings onto employees and consumers, the owning class passes these savings onto themselves instead and tell us to work twice as hard for half the pay.
I think your boogeyman, “the owning class,” is very similar to my boogeyman, “the borrower class.” Both are critiques of groups that benefit from particular economic structures. Although we think about economics in totally different ways, there is an interesting parallel between the two ideas.
I’m probably a handmaiden to the fascist class in your eyes, while I think you’re economically illiterate.
My borrower class - Refers to those who gain privileged access to newly created credit or monetary expansion.
Your owning class - Usually refers to capital owners (bourgeoisie) who own productive assets & employ labor.
When, WHEN did we actually see these efficiency gains translate in real life? They usually use it as leverage to force us to work MORE hours, not less.
They just take the difference as profit, then spend it lobbying anti-human laws again!
That just means we are getting less for more, which means the productivity gains are going somewhere…and I don’t think it’s just that we are making more different kinds of stuff, and that people are buying more.
I think it’s a combination of wage stagnation, price gouging, and tax dollar missallocation, leading to someone wasting precuous resources out of tax money, to build a data center.
I mean if you look at inflation vs productivity gains, those gains are completely erased several fold in the US and have been since the 70’s.
Erm, the US has 4 hour work days? I am not in the loop here.
We actually get more free time when businesses & voluntary associations invest in better tools & technology. This increases efficiency,
This is the same stupid train of thought every second manager has. Your tool can be amazing, als long as your processes are shit nothing will improve.
I do believe that if there aren’t artificial barriers to production or the supply of goods, humans will end up producing more. As more goods are produced and compete in the marketplace, prices will fall. Democratic socialists, however, tend to micromanage or take over production, which will slow the creation of goods and cause prices to rise.
An interesting digression/aside would be the Jevons paradox: when technological improvements increase the efficiency of a resource’s use, this can lead to a rise, rather than a fall, in total consumption of that resource. This is often used as a critique of capitalism by environmentalists.
P.S. I don’t think I’ve talked to a single right-winger on this website yet. Maybe right-wingers are a dying breed, at least in the Fediverse. I don’t know. I’m so alone.
This is what we should be fighting for. That and 25 dollars minimum wage. Even fucking Bernie Sanders misses the boat on this. He fights for the minimum wage but 40 hour work week and the "return of overtime " fucking hate it when mentions that. No one should have to or want to work longer hours. Bullshit!
6 hour 4 day work week is the way and the fight that unfortunately America will never adopt.
$25/hr is not a livable wage if you’re only gonna get 24 hours a week.
One would still need to work 40-50 hrs a week, it would just be more livable due to getting OT sooner.
Why I believe in the work 6 hours 4 days a week but get paid as working 40 hours.
Works out to ~$42/hr
No minimum wage (at least in Oklahoma) can be $25 an hour. But you work 6 hours 4 days a week. But get paid as if you worked 8 hours 5 days a week. Roughly 1000 dollars a week gross pay.
If you want to work over 6 hours then you should be paid time and half for any work over the 24 hours you work.
That should be how it handled. And minimum wage should not only be tied to inflation, but should be higher depending on where you live. Example New York state should have much higher minimum wage the 25.
You’re suggesting the most convoluted system one can imagine lmao.
Pretty much every software that calculates and processes payroll would have to be rewritten. Just Intuit alone would instantly have that proposal taken out back and shot.
$25 is more politically palatable than $42 though.
Let’s tie it to c-suite wage-flation
Sounds like a plan, but no matter how we are paid we should be working less not more. Maybe a basic income to make up for short fall paid by Wallstreet and billionaires.
I mean I can believe in sky daddy as well, but doesn’t mean it’s reality. Know how we went from 80 hour weeks to 40 hour weeks? A lot of people died, and a whole lot of immigrants were needed to make up the hours, oh and women were now needed in the workforce as well, because pay certainly wasn’t going to raise high enough to keep up with costs. I’m not sure forcing more people to work ultimately for less is a great idea. Seems easier to push minimum wages up, or better yet, to unionize so minimum wages aren’t needed as companies wouldn’t be able to hire for less than the labor is worth (or simply wouldn’t exist as a business).
That’s cool but, what is she doing as a former politician to further this goal?
Using the power of celebrity which is probably the most useful thing to do in that situation.
It would’ve been useful to stay to lead the social democrats but she bailed on that right after the elections. A lot of people voted for her, leaving them feel like they’ve been cheated
Im not familiar with the governmental structure there.
Is there legislation or a reform that she’s pursuing?
Or is this like a general statement on spending more time with family?
I doubt there’s some legislation, I haven’t heard about her in quite some time. It seems she’s largely left national politics
She was treated so shitty by the media and all, that I do not wonder why. Comparing how she and how our PM right now are talked about, is like misogyny laid bare. Her “scandals” were being filmed partying, and that considered inappropriate, and using breakfast bonus thing, other PM’s were using before; he is in the middle of a big corruption scandal right now (involving 35 million €).
I understand why she left but I do hate the way she did it. A lot of her and social democrat supporters overall felt pretty betrayed, me included
I totally agree with that. It was in poor taste.
Nothing, she does not even live in NZ any more.
Why would a Finnish politician live in New Zealand?
I mean… technically they are not wrong…
