Do we still have a 40 hour work week?

[Guest Derek L]

The problem is that it's impossible for a viable economic return to exist for everyone. There's not enough resources, as long as they're being hoarded at the top.

To your first point, I agree, there will always be "winners" and "losers".........but to the second, it's not as clear cut as you and Karl Marx purport……..What of the honours student that knocks up his girlfriend and has to leave school? What of the student that chooses an economically invalid educational path? Or the student that leaves University to help deal with a family illness? Etc………

Ultimately there are stupid “rich kids” and brilliant “poor kids”, I think framing this as a discussion solely over economic class is folly, fore the implication that those economically comfortable today all were born from the “horded resources at the top” is to commit a great disservice to future generations well also allowing a false sense of apathy for those that just don’t have what it takes…….In other words, if you’re a turnip, just blame the rich.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

And its not education that dictates employment and wages its the market for labor. If we trained a million new engineers then they would also have a hard time finding work, and they would get paid less.

What happens to the labour market if we don’t have enough educated people? Clearly there is some sort of harmony to be found here.

What we really need is broad vocational schooling in partnership with the private sector, and it should start in k12 not university or college.

I agree, like the German school system.

[Guest Derek L]

Not sure how this/these would apply to Canada, and infrastructure investment is being made in the U.S., with new transportation spending.

Or British Columbia.......We’ve had in the Lower Mainland a constant drumbeat of new or improved highways, bridges, mass transit lines etc…….but one common compliant, lack of skilled trades, all the while the local Universities keep churning out future un/underemployed arts degree graduates………Of course said students being unemployed are free to protest further infrastructure spending in the oil and gas sector….

Edited January 2, 2014 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

Do you have any evidence/stats/links to support that?

I agree with dre that this really isn't much of a problem, if at all.

.

Yes, posted on the previous page(s)

[Guest Derek L]

Some of it is luck. I'll take credit for making the best of some of the opportunities that came my way but for a few of them, I just happened to be in the right place at the right time. No planning on my part, they just came along and I managed to grab onto them before they got away.

But is it luck? Or did you have the intelligence and drive to seize upon those opportunities that came your way?

[Wilber]

But many others see opportunity come and go, never grabbing anything but bad choices. Failure to act is an act of failure.

Yes but there is a huge area in between. I respect anyone who tries to do a job well, no matter what it is.

[Guest Derek L]

But many others see opportunity come and go, never grabbing anything but bad choices. Failure to act is an act of failure.

Agreed 100% percent.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes but there is a huge area in between. I respect anyone who tries to do a job well, no matter what it is.

For sure, as has been said, there are plenty of hard working people, of all levels of intelligence and economic worth.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes but there is a huge area in between. I respect anyone who tries to do a job well, no matter what it is.

It's not that huge....absent true hardship, I live in a country with huge opportunities. Can't be much worse in Canada given growth in the energy sector and related services. I have seen far too many immigrants with absolutely nothing do far better than citizen whiners who think that somebody else owes them something.

The OP bemoans the loss of a "40 hour work week". Back in the 80's, we would say that "lunch is for wimps".

Edited January 2, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

I don't see the 40 hour week as sacred but neither do I see a return to 12 hour days with a half day off Sunday as something to aspire to or admirable.

I think the OP is pointing to an increasing trend to more for less when it comes to time spent versus compensation for salaried employees. I don't know how true that is but a race to the bottom is not a good thing in the long run. Bad things are likely to happen if things get too far out of whack in either direction.

A large, reasonably prosperous working middle class is what sets developed countries apart from others. They should be the economy's largest market and source of tax revenue.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

....I think the OP is pointing to an increasing trend to more for less when it comes to time spent versus compensation for salaried employees. I don't know how true that is but a race to the bottom is not a good thing in the long run. Bad things are likely to happen if things get too far out of whack in either direction.

That might be true at the macro level, but "salaried professionals" use to mean something above and beyond hourly / union labour that mostly didn't give a damn once the shift ended, unless they successfully sandbagged enough all week to get OVERTIME PAY! As a salaried employee (now), I will do whatever it takes to get the job done, and if I disagree with the conditions or compensation, then I will seek employment elsewhere.

A large, reasonably prosperous working middle class is what sets developed countries apart from others. They should be the economy's largest market and source of tax revenue.

The middle class is still growing, but such growth is not confined to the countries who have always had the historical economic advantages.

[Wilber]

That might be true at the macro level, but "salaried professionals" use to mean something above and beyond hourly / union labour that mostly didn't give a damn once the shift ended, unless they successfully sandbagged enough all week to get OVERTIME PAY! As a salaried employee (now), I will do whatever it takes to get the job done, and if I disagree with the conditions or compensation, then I will seek employment elsewhere.

How is it the employees are always the bad guys?

You can always seek employment elsewhere but if a race to the bottom makes all your options just as bad, what's the point?

[Shady]

How is it the employees are always the bad guys?

You can always seek employment elsewhere but if a race to the bottom makes all your options just as bad, what's the point?

Businesses exist to produce goods and/or services, not hire people. If they do hire people, the compensation they provide is based on supply (of that particular type of labour) and demand (of that particular type of labour). If you don't like what's offered in terms of compensation, seek employment elsewhere, or become self employed. You can pay your self whatever you'd like, as well as whatever benefits package you like. But just like other employers, your salary and benefits will eventually have to be based on reality, not what you'd prefer it to be.

[bush_cheney2004]

How is it the employees are always the bad guys?

You can always seek employment elsewhere but if a race to the bottom makes all your options just as bad, what's the point?

Not always, but often that's the case. 75% of a loaf of bread is more than 0%. Labour is a cost, and unless employees directly contribute capital they are not entitled to the lion's share of profits. They sure as hell want very little to do with the losses.

It's never a race to the bottom...just a race to something different. There is no bottom economically speaking...that's a myth.

[Wilber]

Businesses exist to produce goods and/or services, not hire people. If they do hire people, the compensation they provide is based on supply (of that particular type of labour) and demand (of that particular type of labour). If you don't like what's offered in terms of compensation, seek employment elsewhere, or become self employed. You can pay your self whatever you'd like, as well as whatever benefits package you like. But just like other employers, your salary and benefits will eventually have to be based on reality, not what you'd prefer it to be.

"Reality" as determined by who? One side having total control over the "reality" is not a good thing. A healthy system needs a balance.

[bush_cheney2004]

"Reality" as determined by who? One side having total control over the "reality" is not a good thing. A healthy system needs a balance.

OK...how much more are you willing to contribute besides 40 hours of labour ? How much risk will you finance ?

[Wilber]

OK...how much more are you willing to contribute besides 40 hours of labour ? How much risk will you finance ?

That would be up to me. All I am saying is that being able to grind the last little bit out of your employees is not a good situation and not something we should aspire to as a society.

[bush_cheney2004]

That would be up to me. All I am saying is that being able to grind the last little bit out of your employees is not a good situation and not something we should aspire to as a society.

That's fine, but "society" includes people who will grind harder for less pay, and labour markets cannot simply ignore that when faced with global competition. "Society" could aspire to providing riches for all, but it would not be reality. Instead we get lottery tickets.

[Shady]

"Reality" as determined by who? One side having total control over the "reality" is not a good thing. A healthy system needs a balance.

Reality is determined by market forces, ie supply and demand.

[Wilber]

Reality is determined by market forces, ie supply and demand.

Not entirely, it is often determined by regulations made necessary by market forces that have caused working conditions to become unsafe and or exploitive.

[Shady]

Not entirely, it is often determined by regulations made necessary by market forces that have caused working conditions to become unsafe and or exploitive.

Which ones?

[BubberMiley]

If they do hire people, the compensation they provide is based on supply (of that particular type of labour) and demand (of that particular type of labour). If you don't like what's offered in terms of compensation, seek employment elsewhere, or become self employed. .

Ask the Joads how well that worked for them. Unions were created for a reason.

[Shady]

Ask the Joads how well that worked for them. Unions were created for a reason.

Ask GM how unions worked out for them. Turned them into a healthcare company that makes cars on the side. Turned them into the largest private purchaser of Viagra in the world. You'd think with the wages they negotiated, they could at least pay for their own boner medication themselves. But no. Union greed.

[BubberMiley]

Negotiations are a two-way street. But GM's problems stemmed from mismanagement and producing an inferior product. I don't agree that we should go back to pre-union worker slavery just because some people got their Viagra covered.

[Wilber]

Which ones?

Come on Shady. Never heard of the Canadian Labour Code? Your own Ontario Employment Standards Act? Statutory Holidays? Minimum annual vacation? Transport Canada regulations regarding maximum duty and minimum rest periods for people in the transport industry? Just to name a few. You think they exist because industry asked for them?