Prominent UK loonynomics outfit proposes a 21 hour week

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
The New Economics Foundation, a loonynomics think tank with connections to Feasta has proposed a 21 hour working week

BBC News - Cut working week to 21 hours, urges think tank
The working week should be cut to 21 hours to help boost the economy and improve quality of life, a left-wing think tank has said.

...Anna Coote, co-author of the 21 Hours report, said: "So many of us live to work, work to earn, and earn to consume, and our consumption habits are squandering the earth's natural resources."Spending less time in paid work could help us to break this pattern.
Here's the full report:
21 hours | the new economics foundation

So anyone here want a 21 hour week ?



cYp
 


rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
7,998
Website
www.sinnfein.ie

DeGaulle 2.0

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,994
Website
ga.wikipedia.org
How many people job-share? Many people are already following their policies.
 

yehbut_nobut

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
520
Stupid thread, where the OP has already decided to close down the debate.
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
Hell yeah.. if I could survive on a 21 hour week I'd be there in the morning

Exactly what is your problem with more leisure time
It is a "Having your cake and eating it" style argument

21 hour week=massive drop in standard of living... anyone who wants to is free to do 21 hours now.. most choose to do 35-50.

This loonynomics outfit is seeking legislative change that would start the slippery slope to the Stone Age

cYp
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
Stupid thread, where the OP has already decided to close down the debate.
Feel free to make their case .. I provided links to their report ... I have to say I find them a pretty weird outfit:

Just Bond | the new economics foundation
The Just Bond
The Just Bond is a bond with a difference. It will give an interest rate of 0% and the bond cannot be redeemed. On financial performance alone, you might say the bond has nothing to recommend it. But by buying a Just Bond you will be helping to create a more sustainable future.
Do they have serious backing ?Anyone willing to stand up for them ?

cYp
 

yehbut_nobut

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
520
Actually, I will thank you for the "loonynomics" tag.

I'm going to start using more often, as a perfect description of the type of economics that's brought us the mess we're in now.

FF - the party of loonynomics!
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
Actually, I will thank you for the "loonynomics" tag.

I'm going to start using more often, as perfect description of the type of economics that's brought us the mess we're in now.

FF - the party of loonynomics!
I'd sooner tag FF as "bubblenomics"

cYp
 

yehbut_nobut

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
520
Naw, Loonynomics is pretty much what we've had up to now.



Not just here, it's been all over.
 

Raketemensch

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
3,075
I'd sooner tag FF as "bubblenomics"

cYp
It is a "Having your cake and eating it" style argument

21 hour week=massive drop in standard of living... anyone who wants to is free to do 21 hours now.. most choose to do 35-50.

This loonynomics outfit is seeking legislative change that would start the slippery slope to the Stone Age

cYp
Absolute cr4p. If most people actually did jobs that produced real goods and services I would probably agree with you. But many people produce absolutely feck all in their jobs (what are all those bank workers doing right now?) and we still have the standard of living that we do. If resources and systems were coordinated more effectively we could easily halve the amount of time we spend in formal employment without a loss in the standard of living.
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
Absolute cr4p. If most people actually did jobs that produced real goods and services I would probably agree with you. But many people produce absolutely feck all in their jobs (what are all those bank workers doing right now?) and we still have the standard of living that we do. If resources and systems were coordinated more effectively we could easily halve the amount of time we spend in formal employment without a loss in the standard of living.
Sounds like you've a very good business idea there: half the work for the same output ? I presume you're going to make a very successful startup company to illustrate this ?

Or do you have sound econometric analysis showing how it would work on a larger scale ?

I'd also note that even the loonynomics foundation itself says that there'd be a drop in consumption associated with their proposal.

cYp
 

consultant

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,010
Go into any hotel or restaurant in the land and you will find a lot of people working a 20- or less-hours week. The same ones who a few short years ago were working 40+ hours a week.

Go to building sites and see all those working 0-hours weeks.

This is what 'economics' means to these and many other industries - retail etc.

Whether here or not, there are thousands who don't want short-time working but are very glad to have it right now.

Maybe the 'loonies' see inspiration in FFailonomics.
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
It depends what we mean by "work". 40 hours a week producing something that people actually need or 40 hours sitting on your arse playing Solitaire on a PC in a government Quango.

Its all about productivity. It would be ideal and indeed possible if we could produce everything we need within a 21 hour week and spend the rest of the week pursuing hobbies and leisure etc. That was the Tomorrows World back in the 70s they promised us with the evolution of robots.

But then again that type of world would involve people being happy and the psychopaths who are in control of our society do not want that.
 

PAD1OH

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
2,732
the ex chief exec of the NEF has in the past advised HM treasury and a number of their ideas have been built into mainstream policies of the UK Government.

Only loony to narrow minded fools, maybe.
 

Christel

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
659
Sounds like you've a very good business idea there: half the work for the same output ? I presume you're going to make a very successful startup company to illustrate this ?

Or do you have sound econometric analysis showing how it would work on a larger scale ?

I'd also note that even the loonynomics foundation itself says that there'd be a drop in consumption associated with their proposal.

cYp
If a company needs the hours worked it could employ just more people, couldn't it?

Drop in consumption as such is not bad, is it? Consumption may widen in spectrum?
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
Or do you have sound econometric analysis showing how it would work on a larger scale ?


cYp
Yeah them Markov chains saved the day back in 2006 and 2007 when the correctly predicted that there was going to be the biggest recession since World War 2. THankfully because of econometrics the corrective response was taken then and the Second Great Depression was averted. Its now 2010 and its happy days thanks to the wonders of government intervention.
 

rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
7,998
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
Sounds like you've a very good business idea there: half the work for the same output ? I presume you're going to make a very successful startup company to illustrate this ?

Or do you have sound econometric analysis showing how it would work on a larger scale ?

I'd also note that even the loonynomics foundation itself says that there'd be a drop in consumption associated with their proposal.

cYp
Problem is Cyber.. if you actually told most companies that you could do the same work as you do at present, in half the time.. instead of letting you get on with it, they'd sack half the workforce.

There are huge ineffciencies in every job. How many people can honestly say, they work for 39 hours a week, rather than they are "in work" for 39 hours a week

I used to work on building sites when I was an apprenctice. Now and again, we'd get a job "on knock" we'd call it. Emergency work, or dirty work. Foreman would tell us it needed to be done by 2 pm tomorrow, and if we could go when it was finsihed and still get paid till 2 pm tomorrow. I've never seen one of those take the amount of time alloted.

However, I remember on particularly dirty job.. filling charcoal into a scrubber. Qualified guys refused to do it, so all the appys were told on Thursday morning, that they could do it until it was finished and be paid till Saturday lunchtime. They were finshed the job by Thursday evening. Then supervisor felt he was being screwed so only paid up till Friday evening. Appy's never did job "on knock" again, just punched in the hours and got paid for the time
 

Bobert

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
1,071
My uncle, being serious, once told me we could solve unemployment by hiring people in receipt of social welfare for jobs in the public sector. I told him if he did that we'd have classic examples of "building walls one day and knocking them the following day" tow hich he replied "And so what?"

I fear we're dealing with a similar style of economic mindset here.

Also, my aunt's partner once suggested that the state give everybody a million euro to get spending going again. I'll leave that one alone.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
The criticism also begs a couple of questions - how much of our standard of living is based on the stuff and services that we're currently producing? And for how many of us? We probably don't need half the stuff we currently have, and we certainly don't need to throw half of it away every year when it wears out.

If you think about "planned obsolescence" (now a feature of most industries' products) from the simplest point of view, it's a case of "hey, let's make something shoddy so that it wears out quickly, and then we'll make it again". There's a sense in which much of what modern industry does is make-work.
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,968
It is a "Having your cake and eating it" style argument
21 hour week=massive drop in standard of living... anyone who wants to is free to do 21 hours now.. most choose to do 35-50.
This loonynomics outfit is seeking legislative change that would start the slippery slope to the Stone Age
"standard of living" is a bit of a joke, economically.

And even if we accept the misnomer of "standard of living" a reduction to 21hrs means a massive reduction in childcare costs, so a flat or even rising standard of living for parents of pre-school kids.

Also, there is a clear correlation between long working hours and failure to adopt efficient practices. Why would any manager bother himself creating better, leaner ways to get the job done when he can simply order his underlings to do 10 hour days. Sweden isn't the best in the business for nothing: the unions won't allow the managers to be lazy, they force the managers to fins efficiencies.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top