# 4-day work week!



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

IT sector is working on new ways to attract new talents and keep their people. I'd definitely be in for a 4-day work week of 32h at the same salary of a 5-day work week of 40h.









Eidos-Montréal and Eidos-Sherbrooke Shifting to the 4-Day Work Week | Eidos Montréal







www.eidosmontreal.com


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Well that's the trick.

If you make $3k for the company in a week, they can give you $2k, (depending on capex/overhead) and everyone can be happy. Doesn't matter if it's a 8 hour week or a 40 hour week.

That's why the trick is getting people as productive as possible

It's also why a high minimum wage costs jobs. If someone only brings in $20/hr they can only be paid about $14/hr, or the employer is better off not having them.

That's why we need to innovate and push ways to make people "worth" more


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> IT sector is working on new ways to attract new talents and keep their people. I'd definitely be in for a 4-day work week of 32h at the same salary of a 5-day work week of 40h.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 ... can't seem to open up that link (is it behind a paywall?) to verify MrMatt's post ... the "trick".


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... can't seem to open up that link (is it behind a paywall?) to verify MrMatt's post ... the "trick".


If the staff feel more relaxed, maybe they get just as much work done in 4 days as 5, who knows.
As long as the math works out, they can do a lot.

The issue is
1. Some employers are greedy and want to take "too much". 
2. Some employees are greedy and want to take "too much".

Ideally the employers who underpay their staff, lose their staff to better companies, and the employees who take to much kill the company and lose their jobs.
Being too greedy hurts both the employer and employee.

Honestly if I had a company and I could provide good work conditions and still make enough I would.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> ... can't seem to open up that link (is it behind a paywall?) to verify MrMatt's post ... the "trick".


Weird, you should be able. Otherwise I'll paste it here.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Weird, you should be able. Otherwise I'll paste it here.


 ... thanks for the offer. I'm now able to open and read the link. (Not sure why I wasn't able to do it earlier as it just kept loading ... and loading but doesn't. Got a blank page just waiting for more than 5 minutes!)

This "major evolution" of condensing the 5 days work week to 4 days doesn't really change anything (especially for salaried employees) other than the ability to further blur the lines between work and home. The answer is from the bolded part of this question.



> *Does this mean that the workload of the teams will have to be condensed within 4 days? *
> 
> _The idea is not to condense the working hours into 4 days, but rather to review our ways of doing things and our quality time invested, with the aim of working better! _*Above all, we want to increase the productivity and well-being of our employees.*


Since the office will be closed on Fridays (eg), there'll be some operational cost savings to the company. I guess the company will find out if there'll be productivity increases with this 'evolutionary' work model for this IT (gaming) company. 

[IMO: I think they need to focus on creativity first and the productivity should then follow.]


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A 4 day workweek was a dream when I was a young adult. All the media stories were about how people would use their newly acquired leisure time.

The reality became people work more hours to maintain the same standard of living. Overtime and multiple jobs became the norm.

Increased productivity lowered prices so employers could compete but that just maintained the status quo for workers.

Global free trade with impoverished nations not only eliminated a lot of jobs but made the ones remaining less able to increase wages.

After free trade, the companies had to not only compete with each other on price to consumers, but also with countries with the lowest living standards.

There is no longer any doubt that China got the gold mine and we got the shaft. We sold our future for trinkets and trash.

We were warned ..._The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls and whispered in the sounds of silence. 

H. Ross Perot famously had a way with words that galvanized ordinary Americans and helped him become the most successful third-party candidate since 1912.

He hurled one of his most well-known lines during a 1992 debate with Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush when he assailed the North American Free Trade Agreement, which had just been tentatively agreed to by Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

He predicted Americans would soon hear a “giant sucking sound” as production operations and factories packed up in the United States and moved to Mexico. Perot said something similar a year later in a debate with Vice President Al Gore, the most high profile in a series of debates on the trade pact, a few of which I participated in as an adviser to key Democratic leaders in Congress who opposed it.

Economists, business leaders, Clinton and most Republicans dismissed Perot’s worries as overblown. Despite the fact that most had never read the agreement, they argued free trade would create jobs, period. Over the objections of Perot, most Democrats in the House and other critics like me – NAFTA was ratified and went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994.



https://theconversation.com/the-giant-sucking-sound-of-nafta-ross-perot-was-ridiculed-as-alarmist-in-1992-but-his-warning-turned-out-to-be-prescient-120258


_


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

My personal experience was that I was not at maximum productivity when I worked 40 or 50 hours a week. This was the least efficient, in my experience.

In my case (this will depend on the person and nature of the work), when I worked 20 or 30 hours a week, I got virtually the same amount accomplished. This is mainly because I wasn't exhausted. I was better rested, refreshed, and looked forward to wrapping up work so that I could get to my free time.

I suspect it works like this for many people in computer & tech work. But it's not going to be like that in every field.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> A 4 day workweek was a dream when I was a young adult. All the media stories were about how people would use their newly acquired leisure time.
> 
> The reality became people work more hours to maintain the same standard of living. Overtime and multiple jobs became the norm.


Not really, people want ever increasing standards of living.

I remember going to the grocery store and buying food that is "in season", which is almost a laughable concept now.
You can buy fresh strawberries almost 365 days a year.
I grew up "middle class(ish)" with one landline and a single colour TV, and nobody had cable. Now pretty much everyone has multiple high def TV's, each person has their own supercomputer cell phone, and streaming "TV" is normal.

Then forget the massive population explosion, sorry if there is only room for 100k houses in that area, when the population increases by 50%, 50k families who would want to live there, can't.

The biggest problem is that we spend all the productivity improvements, and then some. Being massively in debt or even insolvent is considered the norm.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

james4beach said:


> My personal experience was that I was not at maximum productivity when I worked 40 or 50 hours a week. This was the least efficient, in my experience.


When I was still working, I put in whatever hours it took to meet the objectives. I never ever considered that I had a "Job". I enjoyed what I did and I don't believe productivity was ever a problem.


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

MrMatt said:


> The biggest problem is that we spend all the productivity improvements, and then some. Being massively in debt or even insolvent is considered the norm.


The best way to deal with this problem is to calculate your spending by hours of labour, rather than simply in dollar amount.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Johnny_kar said:


> The best way to deal with this problem is to calculate your spending by hours of labour, rather than simply in dollar amount.


After tax hours of labour. It's depressing.
If you include necessary retirement savings... it's worse.


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

MrMatt said:


> After tax hours of labour. It's depressing.
> If you include necessary retirement savings... it's worse.


Which is the point, consider we are deterring people from spending $.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Johnny_kar said:


> Which the point, consider we are deterring people from spending $.


?
The government is trying to get people to spend as much as they can.


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

MrMatt said:


> ?
> The government is trying to get people to spend as much as they can.


Capitalism rely on people spending, but I am focusing on trying to give solution to spendthrift to deal with their problem.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Johnny_kar said:


> Capitalism rely on people spending, but I am focusing on trying to give solution to spendthrift to deal with their problem.


Capitalism doesn't require excessive spending, in fact I'd argue that prudent money management is to the benefit of the system overall.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Consumer spending drives the economy. That is why rich people getting more money they won't spend is called "dead money".

Government spending directed at the wealthy, either directly or indirectly through tax cuts, doesn't increase the GDP, because they don't spend it.

Government spending directed at those who will spend it, increases GDP. The money circulates through the economy.

The CERB replaced money that was taken out of the economy by loss of income due to the pandemic.

The "positive" effect on GDP was the decline in economic acitivity was less than it would have been without the government intervention.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Capitalism as a system doesn't require excessive spending at all.
Government as a wasteful and fiscally irresponsible institution requires excessive spending


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

MrMatt said:


> Capitalism doesn't require excessive spending, in fact I'd argue that prudent money management is to the benefit of the system overall.


Define excessive.
The economic system do require some saving as a buffer against any type of shock and crisis, but ultimately, everything is build for consumption, including any new investment. This is because only consumption of the society make an investment worthwhile (returns), and not turn it into a giant money sink that eat investor alive, or bed debt in the banking and shadow banking system.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Johnny_kar said:


> Define excessive.


You do know about dictionaries right?
more than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate.



> The economic system do require some saving as a buffer against any type of shock and crisis, but ultimately, everything is build for consumption, including any new investment. This is because only consumption of the society make an investment worthwhile (returns), and not turn it into a giant money sink that eat investor alive, or bed debt in the banking and shadow banking system.


Did you read Brave New World?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> You do know about dictionaries right?
> more than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate.


I think he meant to put numbers to your definition. What is excessive... What is more than normal... What is normal... What is desirable...


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I think he meant to put numbers to your definition. What is excessive... What is more than normal... What is normal... What is desirable...


That's a point of debate.
But capitalism will work just fine with a large amount of economic activity or small amount of economic activity.
It is simply a resource allocation scheme, and one of the more efficient ones we've come up with.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

Here's somebody who's making it work.

Ontario CEO tests four-day work week for employees, says she won't go back

She's the Dan Price of the north.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

I was going to post another one but that's the same company that started this thread.

Can't delete post.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

I was going to post another one but that's the same company that started this thread.

Can't delete post.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Back when I had nothing but a wife, 4 kids & a mortgage at 15% we had 5 day work weeks but I found that 6 day 60 hour weeks was better for my situation. In the long run I was rewarded.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

I had a boss once who enjoyed fun challenges. He would occasionally throw out a productivity challenge…….do “x” by noon, and you can go home. Was surprising and enjoyable to watch people achieve x in a few hours….something normally they did in few days. He did it as a bit of R and R, but it certainly changed how we thought about what was possible.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Money172375 said:


> I had a boss once who enjoyed fun challenges. He would occasionally throw out a productivity challenge…….do “x” by noon, and you can go home. Was surprising and enjoyable to watch people achieve x in a few hours….something normally they did in few days. He did it as a bit of R and R, but it certainly changed how we thought about what was possible.


Yup, that's Parkinson's law.

"_Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion._"


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Yup, that's Parkinson's law.
> 
> "_Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion._"
> 
> View attachment 22277


 ... I had a boss like that (after seeing that graph) who then came up with the idea "hey, why don't we reduce headcounts" since we can get 1 person to do 2 jobs given there's so much time on hand. Saved a ton of money for the company plus earned herself a fat Xmas bonus. Only problem is that person who stayed (survived the downsizing) got burnt out. The boss then moved on to her next scheming idea (which I'll save for another time) to earn her pay.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> ... I had a boss like that (after seeing that graph) who then came up with the idea "hey, why don't we reduce headcounts" since we can get 1 person to do 2 jobs given there's so much time on hand. Saved a ton of money for the company plus earned herself a fat Xmas bonus. Only problem is that person who stayed (survived the downsizing) got burnt out. The boss then moved on to her next scheming idea (which I'll save for another time) to earn her pay.


Yes, that's because that boss only look at the x-axis : you can do the same amount of work in less time. But not the y-axis : in order to do the same amount of work in less time, it requires much more effort, more productivity.

So the right way to interpret Parkinson's law is that every task should have a deadline goal, otherwise it'll take forever, and how to set that deadline should be optimized accordingly to the amount of effort expected to meet the deadline.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Yes, that's because that boss only look at the x-axis : you can do the same amount of work in less time. But not the y-axis : in order to do the same amount of work in less time, it requires much more effort, more productivity.
> 
> So the right way to interpret Parkinson's law is that every task should have a deadline goal, otherwise it'll take forever, and how to set that deadline should be optimized accordingly to the amount of effort expected to meet the deadline.


 ... all tasks have a pre-set deadline for everyone regardless so it does not change whether there're 2 people doing their jobs or 1 person doing his/her job. What does change is the boss' expectation of the same output (if not more) with the least amount of costs (including time) at the expense of the employee's health (aka quality of the work).

Next thing you''ll be hearing "we can get a machine to do your job". Worser (not the worst) was hearing "we can hire from X country a dime by the dozen". [Which sounds very much like what is happening with the call-centers these days of any institution].


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)




----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ I love "I Love Lucy"!!!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Beaver101 said:


> I had a boss like that (after seeing that graph) who then came up with the idea "hey, why don't we reduce headcounts" since we can get 1 person to do 2 jobs given there's so much time on hand. Saved a ton of money for the company plus earned herself a fat Xmas bonus. Only problem is that person who stayed (survived the downsizing) got burnt out.


Who gives a sh** that they got burned out? Workers are disposable. If one drone won't do it, there's another one who will. Especially when society is full of debt-loaded consumers who are desperate to buy a fancy new car, buy a larger house, and renovate their kitchen.

(written satirically)


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Who gives a sh** that they got burned out? Workers are disposable. If one drone won't do it, there's another one who will.


 ... that's what it was, people were being treated like machines, managed by humanoids. 



> Especially when society is full of debt-loaded consumers who are desperate to buy a fancy new car, buy a larger house, and renovate their kitchen.


 ... but it's not for the humanoids to determine/dictate how their earthlings spend their money. 

And then you can't really blame the earthlings wanting "more" there or those who're saving like hell to achieve the slogan of "Freedom 55" or "FIRE" (and whose ideas are/were those)?



> (written satirically)


 ... of course, but that's the truth (above) too.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Who gives a sh** that they got burned out? Workers are disposable. If one drone won't do it, there's another one who will. Especially when society is full of debt-loaded consumers who are desperate to buy a fancy new car, buy a larger house, and renovate their kitchen.
> 
> (written satirically)


I think that's one view of workers, but those companies tend to run into morale problems etc.
It's simpler on a clear job.

However if you want anyone to work with your mind, they're not disposable, and you want to keep them happier, or at least engaged. Plus being a manager where everyone is unhappy is a soulsucking way to spend your day.
When everyone is happy and engaged, it's more pleasant and more productive, I think it's a competitive advantage.

As far as debt-loaded consumers, I think you could do far worse than simply listening to Dave Ramsey.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> I think that's one view of workers, but those companies tend to run into morale problems etc.
> It's simpler on a clear job.


 ... problem is "those" companies including many, particularly the larger insitutions and those with the shield (aka excuse) of "we need to answer to the shareholders". 



> However if you want anyone to work with your mind, they're not disposable, and you want to keep them happier, or at least engaged. Plus being a manager where everyone is unhappy is a soulsucking way to spend your day.
> When everyone is happy and engaged, it's more pleasant and more productive, I think it's a competitive advantage.


 ... in effect, it's the people (management) you employ that makes all the difference. And as to whether he/she can engage his/subordinates to be "happy" becomes a subjective discussion. Which then boils down to the use of numbers with results to dictate. Eg. it's most certain management will keep employee B who produces 100 widgets versus employee A with 10 widgets for the day. And if they can pay employee B a cheaper wage (even with less quality production) that would be a bonus (for mangement that is).

Employees are nothing but "stats" in the eyes of management for all large companies ... been like this for years (aka the reality).


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Buried in after-hours emails? Ontario to propose ‘right-to-disconnect’ laws

Above article is behind a paywall. Such legislation is a good start but sounds too good to be truly effective based on this snippet from the article:



> ...
> _A recent report from a panel of labour experts convened by Ottawa warned that a statutory right to disconnect would be "difficult to operationalize and enforce" and should be left to individual workplaces to navigate.
> _
> ...


----------



## coptzr (Jan 18, 2013)

I have some real experience with this reduced schedule.
Before I explain that though, I'll comment on the more recent posts.
Productivity, hours, effort, engagement, new ideas, lean theories, etc.... I felt I had seen it all from the mute operators on the floor and big head in office to the shared roles and Walmart cheers. COVID chaos said "hold my beer". The past 18months I have seen employees in many industries stay away from eachother and employers ask for nothing above the standard required. The result has been an increase in efficiency and standard production. Leave people alone, let them do their job, don't force them to do more than they signed up for.
With the world calming down, management is starting to gather again. I've seen the old employee issues surface again. Drama, complaining, missed time, unsteady production, and unhappiness. New rules are becoming permanent and warnings are being given that there is lots of work ahead putting strong demands on workers. No manager I know is interested in giving an employee a day off, even if standard hours have been already met.


----------



## coptzr (Jan 18, 2013)

...now the reduced schedule.
I've worked 12hr weekends only, mon-fri day job(8hr and 10hr+), 24/7 shift work, and everything in between from 12hr-60hr/week. A consistent schedule is most important. The 60hr mon-fri day job sucks. The 40hr mon-fri is fine, if proper breaks are given such as 1hr or two 1/2hr(monitored) or similar. The two 15min and one 1/2hr can all be abused over time. The 4 day 10hr shifts is ok. I found employees get too use to the long weekends, then drag their feet on day 1(get motivated) and 4(want to leave to do their other job or personal to do list) on 10-12hr shift. What I've tried recently is a mix of 6hr and 12hr shifts, it works pretty good. It's a little confusing to others to keep track of, but it's not monotonous or exhausting.
I think the 4 day work week is good is properly managed. All tasks are clear on day 1 and complete by end of day 4.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrBlackhill said:


> Yup, that's Parkinson's law.
> 
> "_Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion._"
> 
> View attachment 22277


Not necessarily due to lower effort, but also diminishing returns/non-value added activity/analysis paralysis.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> Buried in after-hours emails? Ontario to propose ‘right-to-disconnect’ laws
> 
> Above article is behind a paywall. Such legislation is a good start but sounds too good to be truly effective based on this snippet from the article:


 ... another "current" article (date October 30, 2021) affirming the status quo (aka lip service) of the "work-life-balance":

Opinion | Work-life balance more talk than walk, survey followup finds


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... another "current" article (date October 30, 2021) affirming the status quo (aka lip service) of the "work-life-balance":
> 
> Opinion | Work-life balance more talk than walk, survey followup finds


The thing is for many jobs, a bit of work from home, or after hours work can be a HUGE productivity booster.

For employers who recognize going above and beyond, it shouldn't be a problem, if you're working a good high pay job, yeah, kicking in a bit more at times is a reasonable expectation. It isn't like the Timmies guy is going to be making coffee in their own kitchen.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> The thing is for many jobs, a bit of work from home, or after hours work can be a HUGE productivity booster.


 ... only if you're your own boss otherwise it's just a blur between "after-hours and family time". Or how about the gym? I think increasing the salary to commensurate with the "after-hours" will also create a HUGE productivity boost too.



> For employers who recognize going above and beyond, it shouldn't be a problem,


 ... "only problem" is employers don't recognize that - it's "expected", especially for non-hourly employees. Oh, I see you realized this with your next comment:



> if you're working a good high pay job, yeah, kicking in a bit more at times is a reasonable expectation. It isn't like the Timmies guy is going to be making coffee in their own kitchen.


 ... nowadays, employers provide "free" coffee/tea to its employees so they don't go and "wasting" time lining up for them over at TH/Starbucks. That's a GREAT BOOST to productivity too, no?

Here's a tip for you to boost productivity and earn your fat year-end bonus: have your employees record what they do every second and minute on the job. If that's too detailed, every 5 minutes to the hour of a 7.5 hours shift (exclude the half-hour paid lunch). If that's not enough, go the extra mile with "after-hours" recording. Eg. 7 pm - email back the proposal to Joe Blow.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... nowadays, employers provide "free" coffee/tea to its employees so they don't go and "wasting" time lining up for them over at TH/Starbucks. That's a GREAT BOOST to productivity too, no?


Yeah, that's why I spend the money on a full slew of beverages, and we paid by the hour.

Better you put in half an hour of OT than spending half an hour running out for a coffee.
Plus free coffee/tea etc is a nice morale booster, happy people do better work.

In many cases the cost/benefit of treating your employees well is positive.

The issue is when they get too demanding, or when employers treat them poorly, that's losing for everyone.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Yeah, that's why I spend the money on a full slew of beverages, and we paid by the hour.


 ... first I heard an engineering firm pay by the hour. 



> Better you put in half an hour of OT than spending half an hour running out for a coffee.


 ... I hope you realize employees are entitled to 15 minutes break in a work day of 8 hours.



> Plus free coffee/tea etc is a nice morale booster, happy people do better work.


 ... whoopie, as if the "free" coffee can't be written off.



> In many cases the cost/benefit of treating your employees well is positive.
> 
> The issue is when they get too demanding, or when employers treat them poorly, that's losing for everyone.


 ... I can think of cheaper methods of boosting moral or treating your employees positively. In fact, some of it is free. I'll let you figure that out.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... first I heard an engineering firm pay by the hour.


Really?
Lots of professions bill by the hours, Lawyers come to mind.



> ... I hope you realize employees are entitled to 15 minutes break in a work day of 8 hours.


Not in Ontario. But it is a common misconception.





Hours of work | Your guide to the Employment Standards Act


Know your rights and obligations under the Employment Standards Act (ESA). This guide describes the rules about minimum wage, hours of work limits, termination of employment, public holidays, pregnancy and parental leave, severance pay, vacation and more.




www.labour.gov.on.ca




You get 1 30 minute break.

My point is that if someone wanted to go out for coffee, they could take half an hour unpaid to go get it, or stay in the office drink our free coffee, and put in half an hour of OT.



> ... whoopie, as if the "free" coffee can't be written off.


You still have to pay for it.



> ... I can think of cheaper methods of boosting moral or treating your employees positively. In fact, some of it is free. I'll let you figure that out.


Free coffee is pretty cheap, and yes there are other methods.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Really?
> Lots of professions bill by the hours, Lawyers come to mind.


 ... the one "lawyers" class ain't exactly considered "alot" here. I was referring to regular 9 to 5 (if there's such a thing anymore) "salaried" employees.

So engineering "employees (aka professional licensed engineers)" (not independent contractors) are paid by the hour as you now confirm. I didn't know that before. Then it's must be gleeful (aside from profitable) to be in management of an engineering firm (such as yourself I would presume) to be "paid by the hours" spent commenting on CMF. LMAO.



> Not in Ontario. But it is a common misconception.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 ... so I'm abit behind but 2 times 15 minutes = 30 minutes which I don't follow either as a salaried employee. If I need 15 minutes in the toilet, better not count it as my break either.



> My point is that if someone wanted to go out for coffee, they could take half an hour unpaid to go get it, or stay in the office drink our free coffee, and put in half an hour of OT.


 ... wow, that coffee ain't really free as you're expecting the employee put in OT for getting their own coffee from their local TH/Starbucks/coffee joint? What if the employee needs a smoke-break? Or does your company have a "non-smoking" employees only mandate? Sounds quite dictatorial there or is it just the management style?



> You still have to pay for it.


 ... yeah, TH/Starbucks employees don't work for free.

Besides company coffee never tastes as good as TH/Starbucks. Company coffee is equivalent to instant - worst than "brew your own". No one is forcing your company to supply the so-called "free coffee". 

Also, I hope you're not expecting your employees to bring their own toilet paper that's costing the company money. [Come to think about it, for WFH employees during this pandemic, the company must be saving a ton there. Can't say the same for the unused real estate though.]



> Free coffee is pretty cheap, and yes there are other methods.


 ... yep, free-coffee = cheap carrot stick trick.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> So engineering "employees (aka professional licensed engineers)"


Never said that. Just like not everyone at a law firm needs to be a lawyer, not everyone at an engineering firm needs to be an engineer.



> (not independent contractors) are paid by the hour as you now confirm.


Never said that either, I said some people in my office are paid by the hour. But when you bill clients by the hour, they often pay by the hour, or provide some other incentive for billable hours, that's the way consulting firms work. Though some do work package deals or fixed cost.



> I didn't know that before. Then it's must be gleeful (aside from profitable) to be in management of an engineering firm (such as yourself I would presume) to be "paid by the hours" spent commenting on CMF. LMAO.


Check the timestamps, most posts are outside business hours.



> ... so I'm abit behind but 2 times 15 minutes = 30 minutes which I don't follow either as a salaried employee. If I need 15 minutes in the toilet, better not count it as my break either.


Salary doesn't exempt you from labour laws.



> ... wow, that coffee ain't really free as you're expecting the employee put in OT for getting their own coffee from their local TH/Starbucks/coffee joint? What if the employee needs a smoke-break? Or does your company have a "non-smoking" employees only mandate? Sounds quite dictatorial there or is it just the management style?


No, we treat them like adults, they go pee when they need to, and take a walk if they need to.
It's one thing to take a 5 minute smoke/pee break, it's another to go offsite for a half hour drive.



> ... yep, free-coffee = cheap carrot stick trick.


Absolutely, and I think any employer should employ cheap carrots.
It's good for the company and the employee.
I don't know what you're trying to get at. Do you actually have a problem with win-win situations?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Check the timestamps, most posts are outside business hours.


 ... moved this up as starting with this one first. Are you kidding me? You posted 25 minutes ago and right now my computer says it's 4:42 pm so in effect that was around 4:10 pm - and that's considered "after-hours" (or the famous cliché now ... "my spare"time")? So what happened to going the extra-mile from the "standard" 8 hours shift assuming you started at 8 am? or did you start at 6 am? In that case, that's wow, a 10 hours work-day. Presuming EST Ontario of course.

[Btw, this is the longest time you're off commenting on CMF. Some (most actually) days, you're functioning here like a regular job from 9 to 5 pm. Have a look at the analytics/stats on the "front-runner=top contributor" for comments ... besides sags (retired). Just got those for this month(likely straddle over from previous), MrMatt: 276 replies beating out sags:236!!!!]



> Never said that. Just like not everyone at a law firm needs to be a lawyer, not everyone at an engineering firm needs to be an engineer.


 ... no but you made it sound like an engineer was paid on the hour. I don't suppose the CEO's administrative assistant is paid by the hour if the engineers ain't.



> Never said that either, I said some people in my office are paid by the hour. But when you bill clients by the hour, they often pay by the hour, or provide some other incentive for billable hours, that's the way consulting firms work. Though some do work package deals or fixed cost.


 ... you specifically said "engineers", didn't say "some people (and who?)" in your office are paid by the hour. I get your engineers as "consultants" can bill by the client by the hour but your firm pay its (professional) engineers by the hour?



> Salary doesn't exempt you from labour laws.


 ... no and neither do labour laws discriminate hourly employees.



> No, we treat them like adults, they go pee when they need to, and take a walk if they need to.
> It's one thing to take a 5 minute smoke/pee break, it's another to go offsite for a half hour drive.


 ... now we're getting somewhere. Seems like you have a leak (for lack of better word) in management control there. Or you *don't trust your employees (a professional engineering firm)*. Or management there wants to micro-task (aka micro-manage) their employees.



> Absolutely, and I think any employer should employ cheap carrots.
> It's good for the company and the employee.
> I don't know what you're trying to get at. Do you actually have a problem with win-win situations?


 ... no that's not a win-win. Okay, that's a win win in your eyes as management. But if you were to survey your employees for their "honest" opinion, don't be surprised. See above, you already are blinded to a main issue. Hey but then I'm not in management so I shouldn't be telling you this. You got your training manual.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... moved this up as starting with this one first. Are you kidding me? You posted 25 minutes ago and right now my computer says it's 4:42 pm so in effect that was around 4:10 pm - and that's considered "after-hours" (or the famous cliché now ... "my spare"time")? So what happened to going the extra-mile from the "standard" 8 hours shift assuming you started at 8 am? or did you start at 6 am? In that case, that's wow, a 10 hours work-day. Presuming EST Ontario of course.


Exactly.
Are you aware that some people, particularly design staff and factory workers, tend to have earlier start times.



> [Btw, this is the longest time you're off commenting on CMF. Some (most actually) days, you're functioning here like a regular job from 9 to 5 pm. Have a look at the analytics/stats on the "front-runner=top contributor" for comments ... besides sags (retired). Just got those for this month(likely straddle over from previous), MrMatt: 276 replies beating out sags:236!!!!]


Yeah, I talk a lot.
But again, look at the timestamps.



> ... no but you made it sound like an engineer was paid on the hour. I don't suppose the CEO's administrative assistant is paid by the hour if the engineers ain't.


Yes, some Engineers and designers are paid by the hour.
I'm not saying this is all places and all industries, but it's pretty common when they bill by the hour.



> ... no that's not a win-win. Okay, that's a win win in your eyes as management.


it's really weird that you think a mutually beneficial situation isn't win-win.



> But if you were to survey your employees for their "honest" opinion, don't be surprised. See above, you already are blinded to a main issue. Hey but then I'm not in management so I shouldn't be telling you this. You got your training manual.


People like free coffee, and when they asked to switch to a different brand, and add in some teas & hot chocolate, they said thank you, that was really nice.

Maybe they were being polite, maybe they were being sarcastic, or maybe they thought it was nice to listen to their concerns. 

You've got a pretty negative attitude. It's a depressing way to go through life.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

I don't understand this discussion at all to be honest.
There are certainly jobs in which productivity is directly proportional with time input.
Then there are some jobs where it isn't.
I am an engineer. Currently paid hourly (although did work on salary as well). Do I worry about taking 10-15min break anytime I want? Not at all. Realistically speaking, I know very few employees who are productive for more than 70-75% of the work day. It is simply incredibly hard when the tasks require maximum focus and high cognitive power. Not many people can sustain it over 8 hours (or 10 if 4 day work week).
Does my employer mind? Not at all. If my productivity justifies being paid hourly wage for entire workday, then he doesn't care whether the productivity is achieved in 4, 5, or 8 hours.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Exactly.
> Are you aware that some people, particularly design staff and factory workers, tend to have earlier start times.


 ... we're talking about "professionals" here ... or specifically "engineers". No need to derail to other occupations as you might as well add the TH's clerks.



> Yeah, I talk a lot.
> But again, look at the timestamps.


 ... you do realize "talking" alot - actually posting takes "time" and that "alot of posting/typing" do take time ... never mind having to taking the time to "think" and "articulate" your posts (sans a bot].



> Yes, some Engineers and designers are paid by the hour.
> I'm not saying this is all places and all industries, but it's pretty common when they bill by the hour.


 ... okay, in which case why were/are you concerned about those "driving offsite for half an hour"? Or going to TH for coffee 'cause they don't want to drink that free-inhouse sludge?



> it's really weird that you think a mutually beneficial situation isn't win-win.
> 
> People like free coffee, and when they asked to switch to a different brand, and add in some teas & hot chocolate, they said thank you, that was really nice.


 ... I get it. They would be most gratuitous to you with the "thanks", paid by the company, represented by you.



> Maybe they were being polite, maybe they were being sarcastic, or maybe they thought it was nice to listen to their concerns.


 ... what concerns? The coffee brands?



> You've got a pretty negative attitude. It's a depressing way to go through life.


 ... you could look at this way or spin it to your way but to say you were "listening" (like honestly, sincerely, geniunely or truly) to their concerns "affirms" management's concern is "farcial".

And you've given another (based on your previous posts) examples there is no equality in the workplace - management is always above subordinates. The "do as I say, not as I do" phenomenon. 

Ie. "I, as management" gets to do what I can get away with [spinned as the right/positive attitude] and "you" who's beneath my management can't break the rules imposed.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> I don't understand this discussion at all to be honest.
> There are certainly jobs in which productivity is directly proportional with time input.
> Then there are some jobs where it isn't.
> I am an engineer. Currently paid hourly (although did work on salary as well). Do I worry about taking 10-15min break anytime I want? Not at all. Realistically speaking, I know very few employees who are productive for more than 70-75% of the work day. It is simply incredibly hard when the tasks require maximum focus and high cognitive power. Not many people can sustain it over 8 hours (or 10 if 4 day work week).
> *Does my employer mind? Not at all. If my productivity justifies being paid hourly wage for entire workday, then he doesn't care whether the productivity is achieved in 4, 5, or 8 hours.*


 ... apparently, not MrMatt's firm or maybe it's just MrMatt's management style.

He does care if you drive offsite for (additional?) half an hour (stated in his post #49). He wants that half an hour accounted for. That's why waaaay earlier when I gave him a tip in my post #44 prior.

His attempt to rosy-tint that kind of management style (hey, you're getting free coffee! + tea&hot choco (any real marshmallows to go with that?) of your choice!!) is not only a fail but a show of dishonesty. Never mind the display of distrust of his employees. Such managerial type is of an abundance in the workplace (ie. yours is rare or a engineering firm is the last place I expect to see this happening).


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... apparently, not MrMatt's firm or maybe it's just MrMatt's management style.
> 
> He does care if you drive offsite for (additional?) half an hour (stated in his post #49). He wants that half an hour accounted for. That's why waaaay earlier when I gave him a tip in my post #44 prior.
> 
> His attempt to rosy-tint that kind of management style (hey, you're getting free coffee! + tea&hot choco (any real marshmallows to go with that?) of your choice!!) is not only a fail but a show of dishonesty. Never mind the display of distrust of his employees. Such managerial type is of an abundance in the workplace (ie. yours is rare or a engineering firm is the last place I expect to see this happening).


Yeah, that just seems to show lack of trust of employees. Agree with you.
Ultimately all it comes down to is economy. As an employee you have to generate higher profit than the cost of your employment. 
That's why generally employees who are more productive have more freedom and flexibility. Of course then there is a question on whether others won't react negatively to seeing their coworker have different work-style, but that is up to HR to make sure they hire right people who can be objective about their own and others' performance.
That's also where unions fail, putting everyone in same basket with same rules. We aren't equal as employees. Couple of my coworkers are less effective so they put in more time. Tons of my coworkers are more effective and smarter so they get more freedom than I do - and that is fine


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We received monthly "report cards" and the supervisor would say.....you are last in your group in these benchmark metrics.

The numbers in the report never reflected all the hours upper management asked me to organize events for charities that took time away from my normal job duties. Upper management didn't bother to inform the low level supervisors to deduct all the hours away from my job so the evaluation report was inaccurate.

I explained this to the supervisors but they didn't like it and kept asking every time, so I finally told them....somebody has to be last and it might as well be me.

One supervisor went to upper management to complain about me and got told "you would be well advised to worry more about your own job performance and less about what Sags is doing." and that was the end of that.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_That's also where unions fail, putting everyone in same basket with same rules. _

Yes, that is exactly what unions do and why some large companies want them. Upper management has no interest in dealing individually with employees.

In our workplace we had 600 hourly employees and 1 HR manager. In a previous location we had 5,000 hourly employees and a handful of HR employees.

They worked closely with the full time union benefits reps to handle the HR needs of that many individuals.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... apparently, not MrMatt's firm or maybe it's just MrMatt's management style.
> 
> He does care if you drive offsite for (additional?) half an hour (stated in his post #49). He wants that half an hour accounted for. That's why waaaay earlier when I gave him a tip in my post #44 prior.


If you are working at a site, and you leave the site for personal reasons, you don't get paid for the hours you're not at work, because YOU'RE NOT AT WORK.

It's not a lack of trust

Let me explain how hourly billed business works.

The employee does X hours of work, the employer bills the customer for X hours of work, and pays the employee for X hours of work. Basic ethics and professionalism require that the hours worked, billed and paid should be the same.

You seem angry.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> If you are working at a site, and you leave the site for personal reasons, you don't get paid for the hours you're not at work, because YOU'RE NOT AT WORK.
> 
> It's not a lack of trust
> 
> ...


 ... so just how do you know your employee left the site for "personal reasons" which you never stated first place? And why would I be angry since I don't work there. You simply the type of management who don't trust their employees. The micro-management type - as said, plenty of these out there as "professional" as they "sound to be". Re the tip from post #44, you could use it. You can get that extra 15 minutes OT work for the coffee-break over at TH's.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

If you are billing your employee time to the customers then it is completely different.
When we hire subcontractors we know when they are on and when they are off site. There is a scanner at entrance, and we will not pay for the time they spend off-site.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> If you are billing your employee time to the customers then it is completely different.
> When we hire subcontractors we know when they are on and when they are off site. There is a scanner at entrance, and we will not pay for the time they spend off-site.


 ... he never referenced that. The clock-in-clock-out (old-fashion method) which is why I gave him that tip in my post #44 of which he still didn't referenced/explained the "offsite" and now for "personal reasons". That must be crimping his management-style and I'm angry. Golly spin-o-matic.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... so just how do you know your employee left the site for "personal reasons" which you never stated first place?


Running out of the office to go to a restaurant is "personal reasons".




> And why would I be angry since I don't work there. You simply the type of management who don't trust their employees.


Where did I say I don't trust them?



> The micro-management type - as said, plenty of these out there as "professional" as they "sound to be". Re the tip from post #44, you could use it. You can get that extra 15 minutes OT work for the coffee-break over at TH's.


It isn't micromanagement to only pay people for the work they do.

Your post #44 is an incoherent rant.


I don't know what your issue is, but I appreciate having coffee available in the office, rather than having to spend half an hour to out and go get a coffee.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Now it's "running out of the office to go to the restaurant is personal reasons" version.

Seems like you're using my tip already from my incoherent rant post #44 by tracking every movement of your employee.

Re the restaurant version - did it ever occur to you that your employee needs to take the client out for a meal? 

Or (gasp!) the employee has drinking problem? That its management is so concerned about and think can resolve by supplying free coffee instead.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Now it's "running out of the office to go to the restaurant is personal reasons" version.
> 
> Seems like you're using my tip already from my incoherent rant post #44 by tracking every movement of your employee.
> 
> ...


Yes, going to a restaurant to get yourself something to eat is leaving the office for "personal reasons"

If they took a client out, that would be business, and they could bill those hours. Because that's how it works.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/business/gen-z-workplace-culture.html



> *The 37-Year-Olds Are Afraid of the 23-Year-Olds Who Work for Them *  Emma Goldberg, October 31, 2021
> 
> _As a millennial with a habit of lurking on TikTok, Jessica Fain understood that skinny jeans and side parts were on the steady march toward extinction. But when Fain, who works as a product manager at a large tech company, heard that some of her favorite emojis might also be confronting retirement — namely that laughing-sobbing face — she decided to seek the counsel of her junior colleagues.
> 
> ...


 ... indeed LOLs ... it just gets better and better with the next GENs of workers. Yo ... LOLOLOLOLOL ...


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

I stumbled upon this.









Identity 101 Index | Okta


Get up to speed with Identity and Access Management topics with our Identity 101 series.




www.okta.com





And I'm also in agreement with NEF's (New Economics Foundation) proposition for the 21-hour workweek. But that was published back in 2010 and obviously the workweek hasn't been gradually changing since then, other than more people in Europe working 35h and some trials of 4-day workweeks.

What I believe doesn’t make sense is how a household used to have the man working 40-50h/week and the woman would stay at home to take care of the kids and the household chores, and they would be able to have many kids and a house, while now a household needs both the man and the woman to work 40h/week, for a total household work of 80h/week to be able to afford a house and just a few kids.

And because both parents work, they have less time left for recreational activities because they still have to do the household chores, whereas back in the day one parent would stay at home and take care of that job while the other parent was out for work.

And also because of that, they have to pay for daycare, they end up paying for a housemaid, they end up buying ready-to-eat meals or take-out. Which all means that the families work more, have less free time and end up spending more due to this.

So that proposition for the 21-hour workweek actually makes sense to me, considering that today both parents work, which would mean a total of 42h/week in total, similar to what was needed in the past, but now split between both parents.

Also, I’m no expert so I don’t know what’s the extent of what we call “the increase in productivity” over the past century, but other than industrial and technological advances, maybe the increase of productivity is also partly due to the women gradually joining the workforce and increasing the total amount of hours worked by households.

If the workweek was more something like 20-25h/week, parents would have a much healthier work-life balance, they wouldn’t need daycare, they would have time for household chores, they would have time to be with their kids, to prepare meals, etc. And with the stress reduction, working until your 70s wouldn’t be an issue, so the country’s productivity wouldn’t decrease even though people work would less per week, because they would be more productive due to that stress reduction and they would work more years.

And the 1-year maternity leave may look like a great benefit, but actually when the woman has 2, 3 or even 4 kids or more, than means they’ve lost those years for career advances and opportunities. Maybe if the salaries for women were truly equal to men and maybe if the women truly had the same job opportunities, and if the workweek was more like 20-25h, there wouldn’t be that issue. With the reduced workweek, the need for a maternity leave would decrease and women could have the same opportunities as men while having kids.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> What I believe doesn’t make sense is how a household used to have the man working 40-50h/week and the woman would stay at home to take care of the kids and the household chores, and they would be able to have many kids and a house, while now a household needs both the man and the woman to work 40h/week, for a total household work of 80h/week to be able to afford a house and just a few kids.


I think for a good comparison you need to look at the lifestyle and material differences between then and now.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

A few years ago I asked my employer to go to a 4 day work week and they agreed. Its worked out for both of us perfectly and have had no issues with getting my work done. A little less pay of course but not issue with that either.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> I think for a good comparison you need to look at the lifestyle and material differences between then and now.


Sure, but I'm a minimalist and I think the lifestyle and material differences are unhealthy.

And since some of those differences are a must-have (like internet), that shouldn't justify that we have to work more to be able to afford today's basic needs. Otherwise, if 100 years from now, there's even more material differences which become a must-have, will to household have to work 120h/week to afford it? Let's say some VR tech becomes a must-have, will that justify the need for the household to work even more? When will this stop?

What are the big material differences? Today, we can't live without internet. We can't live without a cellphone or a computer. Other than that? Yes, I have a washer and a dryer. Oh, I own a microwave oven. Okay, people outside the cities may need two cars. What else? Does that truly justify the need for the household to work twice as many hours?

Is it possible today for a family with a median income to have only one parent working while having two kids while being able to afford today's essentials only? I don't think so.

This materialistic world, this world brainwashing us to always want more is unhealthy. We're not going on the right direction. The society should not "evolve" towards more materialistic techs and travels and activities, the society should be evolving towards less stress and more time. Families should have time to truly take care of their families and should simply be happy to have that time, to have no stress, to be able to afford a house and to enjoy life by simply inviting friends for dinner and simple things like that.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Wealth and income gaps.

A very few people own almost all of the money, and they fight hard to keep it that way.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> Wealth and income gaps.
> 
> A very few people own almost all of the money, and they fight hard to keep it that way.


Wealth gaps are not bad. Those who complain the loudest also think that they are entitled to take someone else's money. They like to call it fairness but it's really just greed.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

MrBlackhill said:


> Is it possible today for a family with a median income to have only one parent working while having two kids while being able to afford today's essentials only? I don't think so.


Depends on your definition of "essentials". If it includes living in a nice urban neighborhood where everyone wants to be, probably not. Same if it includes driving a nice new car.

I think it is possible. But a lot of the work which tends to be contracted out these days will need to be done by the parent at home.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> And since some of those differences are a must-have (like internet), that shouldn't justify that we have to work more to be able to afford today's basic needs. Otherwise, if 100 years from now, there's even more material differences which become a must-have, will to household have to work 120h/week to afford it? Let's say some VR tech becomes a must-have, will that justify the need for the household to work even more? When will this stop?
> 
> What are the big material differences? Today, we can't live without internet. We can't live without a cellphone or a computer. Other than that? Yes, I have a washer and a dryer. Oh, I own a microwave oven. Okay, people outside the cities may need two cars. What else? Does that truly justify the need for the household to work twice as many hours?


The differences are very large, just off the top of my head, I see ...

new houses are much larger
vehicles are filled with tech that is not required to drive (much higher cost)
internet/TV/phone costs are enormous (also, no longer one phone per household)
Large appliance replacement likely two to three times faster now
lots of people don't cook their own food anymore
and the list goes on ...



MrBlackhill said:


> Is it possible today for a family with a median income to have only one parent working while having two kids while being able to afford today's essentials only? I don't think so.


If they did it right, probably. Also, is it a question of both need to work or both want to work? 
If both were higher income earners it'll likely work out fine. If the second jobs (which I do see) are much lower income then they are likely losing money having the second person working if a second car is needed.

BTW, many years ago I'd see one vehicle in a driveway and it would be odd to see a second one. If I walk down my street today I see 2 or 3 in almost every driveway, that's a massive difference.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> Wealth gaps are not bad.* Those who complain the loudest also think that they are entitled to take someone else's money. They like to call it fairness but it's really just greed.*


 ... the irony. For one, why would those who has the most would want to complain the loudest, 'cause they're not greedy, only the fairest. What a joke.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... the irony. For one, why would those who has the most would want to complain the loudest, 'cause they're not greedy, only the fairest. What a joke.


If you want someone else's money then you're greedy or lazy. Or both. Call it fairness if you want but that doesn't make it true.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Is it possible today for a family with a median income to have only one parent working while having two kids while being able to afford today's essentials only? I don't think so.


Absolutely no way for most areas. It wouldn't matter about your definition of essentials, or how many luxuries you cut. The median income for one person is like 55K, I think. That will barely afford a 1-bedroom condo in the suburbs. Forget about a detached house. It was possible when I was growing up in the 80's and 90's because mortgages were barely a quarter of the size they are now, but it hasn't been possible for a long time. It might still be possible in a few very rural areas, though.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

HappilyRetired said:


> If you want someone else's money then you're greedy or lazy. Or both. Call it fairness if you want but that doesn't make it true.


I don't think Jeff Bezos really cares if anyone called him greedy.

But if anybody repeats the old mantra to quit your job if you're not happy with it, then we know why the Great Resignation is taking place.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yup, the covid pandemic has turned the labor market upside down in a hurry.

With over a million job openings today, the Conservatives were screaming in Parliament for more immigration.

It wasn't that long ago they were screaming about too much immigration.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

off.by.10 said:


> I think it is possible.





cainvest said:


> If they did it right, probably.


Do you know the median income of a single person? It's somewhere around $40k *net* income. You think you can feed 2 kids, 2 adults, rent a place, pay for the clothes, for internet, electricity, cell phones, computer, pay for schooling, insurances, maybe own one used car if you live outside the city? Definitely not an easy task.



cainvest said:


> new houses are much larger
> vehicles are filled with tech that is not required to drive (much higher cost)
> internet/TV/phone costs are enormous (also, no longer one phone per household)
> Large appliance replacement likely two to three times faster now
> lots of people don't cook their own food anymore


That's the issue. All things that the industrial and capitalist world are forcing us to spend on that we don't need and they try to justify the prices, but do you think what you listed justify the fact that households now work 80h/week compared to 40-50h/week previously? Does it truly justify working twice as much?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> Also, is it a question of both need to work or both want to work?


What if both worked 20h/week, allowing them to have a career while taking care of the kids without the need for daycare?


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

MrBlackhill said:


> Do you know the median income of a single person? It's somewhere around $40k *net* income. You think you can feed 2 kids, 2 adults, rent a place, pay for the clothes, for internet, electricity, cell phones, computer, pay for schooling, insurances, maybe own one used car if you live outside the city? Definitely not an easy task.


Yes and yes. Back when I was a family of four, our out of pocket budget was under $40k. Granted, that was several years ago but also in a decent suburban neighborhood with a larger house than really "needed" and we weren't really trying to cut costs. The government contributes quite a lot so actual spending was over $40k.

Obviously, no expensive vacation and restaurant is a special event. It helps not to drink coffee too. I think it would still be possible today. Especially as by the time you have actual $40k income, the government contributes a whole lot more.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

off.by.10 said:


> Yes and yes. Back when I was a family of four, our out of pocket budget was under $40k. Granted, that was several years ago but also in a decent suburban neighborhood with a larger house than really "needed" and we weren't really trying to cut costs. The government contributes quite a lot so actual spending was over $40k.
> 
> Obviously, no expensive vacation and restaurant is a special event. It helps not to drink coffee too. I think it would still be possible today. Especially as by the time you have actual $40k income, the government contributes a whole lot more.


And you must be able to save for the retirement of two people with your single net income of $40k.

Which means you better be able to save at the very least $5k per year during 40 years in a very aggressive portfolio.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> Do you know the median income of a single person? It's somewhere around $40k *net* income. You think you can feed 2 kids, 2 adults, rent a place, pay for the clothes, for internet, electricity, cell phones, computer, pay for schooling, insurances, maybe own one used car if you live outside the city? Definitely not an easy task.


First off, when did life have to become easy? Second, wouldn't it be irresponsible to have two kids when you can't afford it? I bet I could find people with a net $40k net income making a go at it ... sure not to comfortable but they'd be doing it without kids. 



MrBlackhill said:


> That's the issue. All things that the industrial and capitalist world are forcing us to spend on that we don't need and they try to justify the prices, but do you think what you listed justify the fact that households now work 80h/week compared to 40-50h/week previously? Does it truly justify working twice as much?


Forcing us? Are people nowadays really that weak of mind? Sure, people want the goodies and most of those things you don't need or you have cheap(er) alternatives ... but only if you choose so.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> What if both worked 20h/week, allowing them to have a career while taking care of the kids without the need for daycare?


At half the pay sure .... don't see how that'll help.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> Second, wouldn't it be irresponsible to have two kids when you can't afford it? I bet I could find people with a net $40k net income making a go at it ... sure not to comfortable but they'd be doing it without kids.


Well, that's the point. Why living with a single median income is now barely feasible for a family, or even irresponsible, whereas back a few decades ago, there was only the man working and the families had 6+ children? How come it's not possible anymore?



cainvest said:


> Forcing us?


Yes, forcing us. Based on everything you've listed. How do I buy a car with no gadgets? How do I live with no internet? How do I find a new built tiny home? How come do I have to change my appliances so often? Why my smart phone can't last 10 years? Why my computer can't last 10 years? How come it's nearly unthinkable to live without having 1 cell phone per family member and 1 computer per family member?

And how come spending for all this justifies having the household working twice as much than back a few decades ago? Actually, the question is not whether we should have those new gadgets are not, the point is that they've become essentials, yet we have to work more in order to afford them. That's where it doesn't make sense.

With that logic of increasing tech being part of the new essential needs, maybe 50 years from now households will have to work 120h/week to be able to afford all those new essential gadgets which can't even last a decade before replacement? When VR gadgets will be an essential need, maybe.

It doesn't make sense to force an increase in spendings which forces working more hours. Those new essential needs should be affordable without having to work 80h/week.



cainvest said:


> At half the pay sure .... don't see how that'll help.


No, that's the point. Working less should be the new norm. People should be able to work say 24h/week and afford all the same essential needs. 24h/week could be the expected full-time week, the expected productivity by the government, instead of 40h/week. The income should not be allowed to drop proportionally.

Look at this:


> During the first two months of 1974, government officials in the United Kingdom limited the workweek to three days in an attempt to save energy. Though people were working two fewer days a week, production only dropped 6%. People worked fewer hours, but they were more productive and less likely to miss work.





> From 2015-2017, a Swedish nursing home conducted a two-year experiment where its nurses switched from working eight-hour days to working six-hour days for the same pay. During this time, sick leave dropped by 10%. Nurses who were part of the trial claimed they were healthier, more energetic, and more alert.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> Well, that's the point. Why living with a single median income is now barely feasible for a family, or even irresponsible, whereas back a few decades ago, there was only the man working and the families had 6+ children? How come it's not possible anymore?


It likely is possible, providing you do it right. And please be realistic, I don't think the average family had 6+ children a few decades ago as you say.



MrBlackhill said:


> Yes, forcing us. Based on everything you've listed. How do I buy a car with no gadgets? How do I live with no internet? How do I find a new built tiny home? How come do I have to change my appliances so often? Why my smart phone can't last 10 years? Why my computer can't last 10 years? How come it's nearly unthinkable to live without having 1 cell phone per family member and 1 computer per family member?
> 
> And how come spending for all this justifies having the household working twice as much than back a few decades ago? Actually, the question is not whether we should have those new gadgets are not, the point is that they've become essentials, yet we have to work more in order to afford them. That's where it doesn't make sense.
> 
> ...


We could go on for days on this ... point being, figure how to cut your own costs and what you deem as an essential thing. Could you get by with one cell phone, yes. Do you even need a computer if you have a smart phone? BTW, I could completely get by without a cell phone (I did for many years, landline only) and a few of my friends didn't even have a cell until a few years ago.



MrBlackhill said:


> No, that's the point. Working less should be the new norm. People should be able to work say 24h/week and afford all the same essential needs. 24h/week could be the expected full-time week, the expected productivity by the government, instead of 40h/week. The income should not be allowed to drop proportionally.


So you expect companies to just pay for this?


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

MrBlackhill said:


> Yes, forcing us. Based on everything you've listed. How do I buy a car with no gadgets? How do I live with no internet? How do I find a new built tiny home? How come do I have to change my appliances so often? Why my smart phone can't last 10 years? Why my computer can't last 10 years? How come it's nearly unthinkable to live without having 1 cell phone per family member and 1 computer per family member?


You don't need a new car, get by with a decent used one. You can buy used fridges and stoves on kijiji for $100 each every day of the week. I upgrade my smart phone every 2 or 3 years (I can easily afford to) and the old one gets handed down to friend or family. Be nice to someone and take the old one off their hands. Your kids can buy a new phone once they get a job and pay for it themselves. Until them give them a hand me down and put them on a cheap phone plan.



> And how come spending for all this justifies having the household working twice as much than back a few decades ago? Actually, the question is not whether we should have those new gadgets are not, the point is that they've become essentials, yet we have to work more in order to afford them. That's where it doesn't make sense.


They're only essential if you consider them essential. I pay $25 a month for my phone plan. My wife's kid pays over $100 (with her own money) but she's young and stupid and thinks she needs to. I've suggested that it's not necessary but she doesn't listen. Not my problem...one day soon she'll be on her own with expenses that she's 100% responsible for and then she'll have to make some tough choices.



> With that logic of increasing tech being part of the new essential needs, maybe 50 years from now households will have to work 120h/week to be able to afford all those new essential gadgets which can't even last a decade before replacement? When VR gadgets will be an essential need, maybe.


Maybe the problem is that you think every new gadget is essential.

get a library card and read books for free
buy a $200 acoustic guitar and learn to play
go for a run, it's free and good exercise
spend $500 on weights and then work out for the rest of your life without spending another penny


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> go for a run, it's free and good exercise




Hahaha, you don't want to know my running shoe budget.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> It likely is possible, providing you do it right. And please be realistic, I don't think the average family had 6+ children a few decades ago as you say.


People I know which were born in the 50s or before are mostly all part of big families.



cainvest said:


> We could go on for days on this ... point being, figure how to cut your own costs and what you deem as an essential thing. Could you get by with one cell phone, yes. Do you even need a computer if you have a smart phone? BTW, I could completely get by without a cell phone (I did for many years, landline only) and a few of my friends didn't even have a cell until a few years ago.





HappilyRetired said:


> You don't need a new car, get by with a decent used one. You can buy used fridges and stoves on kijiji for $100 each every day of the week. I upgrade my smart phone every 2 or 3 years (I can easily afford to) and the old one gets handed down to friend or family. Be nice to someone and take the old one off their hands. Your kids can buy a new phone once they get a job and pay for it themselves. Until them give them a hand me down and put them on a cheap phone plan.





HappilyRetired said:


> Maybe the problem is that you think every new gadget is essential.
> 
> get a library card and read books for free
> buy a $200 acoustic guitar and learn to play
> ...


I'm not talking for me, I'm talking as what the society his being brainwashed to think. I know all what you've just said, but how come the society is complaining about not having enough money? That's because of the social pressure which is going on, that's also because of all the targeted advertisement, profiling, all the social networks, all that industry trying (and succeeding) to make people desire more, to make people compare themselves to those who seem to be their dream life, etc. That's all the reasons why people are less happy, more depressed, more stressed and anxious. That's the reason why the majority of households have both parents working full-time.

All that social pressure is making the society always desire more, more materialistic things, more activities and events. When do you see people living a very simple life, choosing to work part-time and focus on quality time with friends of family?

Also, back in the 50s and before, the expectations from the society and the government were that households would have the man working and the woman taking care of the family and chores. Now, that's not what the society and government expect, they expect both to be working full-time. And, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that women should not work, we had to have that shift in mentality, but now we need the next shift in mentality were the household as a whole shouldn't work more than 40-50h/week, whether both parents work 20h/week or one of them stay at home and that should become the new expectations from the society and the government. But if you try this nowadays, you'll have to be very frugal and the social pressure will be there. Friends and family will look at you as if you had issues, your kids will have issues trying to make friends at school, etc. Again, I'm not saying that's my situation, I'm saying that's the current social pressure that has evolved over the decades.

You know back in the 50s and before when there was advertisement for women about how to take care of the house, which is now very controversial? Well, that's also because it was the expectations of the society. Today we advertise women like a superwoman having a successful career AND taking care of the kids and the house, which is as much controversial. There's no such thing as advertising for less consumption, obviously. But, as a society, we should be against all those social networks, those targeted advertisements which are all trying to suck our time, to make us spend more, desire more, and therefore work more.

Because of all this, there's now a new paradigm shift: the FIRE movement, where most people desire to retire early. That's because they want to gain back their time. And it has become the dream of many. But that's not the right thing to happen for the society, because we certainly don't want to have more and more people retiring early, increasing the workload pressure on the young. What we should want, is simply a society which work less, so that they don't feel like they have to gain back their lost time due to work, because their work-life balance would be healthy and therefore they wouldn't feel the need to retire early, they may even retire past 65. Imagine if working 24h/week was the expectations from the society, you would have much more time for yourself and friends and family, you'd be less stressed out, healthier, your wouldn't be thinking about retiring early.

I created a poll on another forum with options which all had the same amount of hours worked during the lifetime. All the options are better-than-average because it assumes you can retire after only 25 years if you work 40h/week, whereas the situation of the average worker is 40 years of 40h/week.

Yet barely no one selected the current situation with an early retirement after 25 years of 40h/week. The great majority (77%!) selected less than 40h/week. People don't want to retire early, they don't want more time in the future, they want more time in the present. But they can't, because you can't have the same good 40h/week job but ask to work only 24h/week for instance. Employers want 40h/week employees, because that's the current expectations.











cainvest said:


> So you expect companies to just pay for this?


Government if that's required. But it shouldn't be required. And anyways, reducing the amount of worked hours per week doesn't reduce the productivity as much.

And also, why back in the 50s and before, it was possible for households to work only 40-50h whereas now most households work 80h? There has to be a paradigm shift. Stop advertising a desire for more. Start advertising that less is more. Healthier.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> Yup, the covid pandemic has turned the labor market upside down in a hurry.
> 
> *With over a million job openings today, the Conservatives were screaming in Parliament for more immigration.*
> 
> It wasn't that long ago they were screaming about too much immigration.


 ... wow, I would like to read up on that as much as I dislike politics so please post the link. The effing-irony, anything to fit the tight axxes' butts.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

How is it irony?
If we have extremely tight labor market = immigration good
If we don't have tight labor market = immigration bad.

That is extremely logical viewpoint and ability to adjust your conclusion based on different data is great.
Would you rather have rabid zealots who don't look at data and aren't able to draw conclusions, sticking to prejudiced, pre-determined viewpoints?


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> Hahaha, you don't want to know my running shoe budget.


I used to have a running shoe budget when I was younger and fitter. I still buy quality running shoes but they're just used for walking around.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

I spend decent amount on running shoes too. 
When I was younger I didn't really care and used them until they were completely destroyed. Now starting to notice loss of amortization that comes with them.
Just trying to buy ones that are with decent colors so can use running shoes that no longer provide necessary amortization as everyday shoe.

To stay on topic: 4-day workweek definitely destroyed my routing. Extra hours in a day make it impossible to get enough exercise in. Then long weekend every week means more trips and other activities so not exactly a routine either


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

damian13ster said:


> I spend decent amount on running shoes too.
> When I was younger I didn't really care and used them until they were completely destroyed. Now starting to notice loss of amortization that comes with them.
> Just trying to buy ones that are with decent colors so can use running shoes that no longer provide necessary amortization as everyday shoe.
> 
> To stay on topic: 4-day workweek definitely destroyed my routing. Extra hours in a day make it impossible to get enough exercise in. Then long weekend every week means more trips and other activities so not exactly a routine either


One of my good friends is an ultra-runner. He works 4-day weeks and gets his miles in by running to work. He's told me that if he didn't run to work (they have 2 kids) he wouldn't have the time to train.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

damian13ster said:


> How is it irony?
> If we have extremely tight labor market = immigration good
> If we don't have tight labor market = immigration bad.
> 
> ...


Yup.......just like the Liberals have done with their handling of the pandemic.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> Yup.......just like the Liberals have done with their handling of the pandemic.


Rabid zealots who don't look at data and aren't able to draw conclusions, sticking to prejudiced, pre-determined viewpoints? - accurate


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

HappilyRetired said:


> One of my good friends is an ultra-runner. He works 4-day weeks and gets his miles in by running to work. He's told me that if he didn't run to work (they have 2 kids) he wouldn't have the time to train.


There you go, again, the issue with both parents working 40h/week. And yet you said he was working 4 days a week and still lacks free time.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> Rabid zealots who don't look at data and aren't able to draw conclusions, sticking to prejudiced, pre-determined viewpoints? - accurate


 ... WOWWWW, looks who's talking, the same. As usual.

Still time to get your own island and rule anyway, which way you like. Or take up Rittenhouse's invite.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

MrBlackhill said:


> There you go, again, the issue with both parents working 40h/week. And yet you said he was working 4 days a week and still lacks free time.


He has time but family time is more important to him so he schedules his training to maximize that. You can't train for ultra running 3x a week for 30 minutes. It requires long runs of several hours. Running to work helps accomplish his goal. On weekends he does a 3 - 5 hour run but gets up at 5:00 so that he's done early enough to have most of the day with family.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> People I know which were born in the 50s or before are mostly all part of big families.


Being that's my age group I can tell you it wasn't an average of 6 kids but it was very common to have 3 kids back then. Circling back to that point, notice most of those 3 kids families were raised in 900-1100 sq ft houses without garages in the 50s?



MrBlackhill said:


> I'm not talking for me, I'm talking as what the society his being brainwashed to think. I know all what you've just said, but how come the society is complaining about not having enough money?


Best thing for people to do is not to buy into it. People complaining about not enough money (and other things) has been around for a long, long time. The difference now is social media gets it in everyones face, well ... if you read it. So stop wasting so much time on social media garbage. I do laugh when a someone gets a new $1000+ cell phone every other year and complain about money. 



MrBlackhill said:


> Government if that's required. But it shouldn't be required. And anyways, reducing the amount of worked hours per week doesn't reduce the productivity as much.
> 
> And also, why back in the 50s and before, it was possible for households to work only 40-50h whereas now most households work 80h? There has to be a paradigm shift. Stop advertising a desire for more. Start advertising that less is more. Healthier.


Of course reducing hours will reduce productivity of jobs. Best thing is for people to live within their means and stop expecting others to pay their way.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

cainvest said:


> Being that's my age group I can tell you it wasn't an average of 6 kids but it was very common to have 3 kids back then. Circling back to that point, notice most of those 3 kids families were raised in 900-1100 sq ft houses without garages in the 50s?
> 
> ......I do laugh when a someone gets a new $1000+ cell phone every other year and complain about money.


I'm one of 3 kids raised in an 800 sq. ft. house.

New cell phones every year or two plus takeout coffee every day. When I worked I took a thermos of coffee to the office and was in a very small minority. Most other people bought take out coffee a couple times a day. It's only $4 but adds up to $1,000 a year for something you can make for less than $100.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> Being that's my age group I can tell you it wasn't an average of 6 kids but it was very common to have 3 kids back then.


My goal wasn't to be precise on the data, but you get the point that families are getting smaller and smaller, that's the important point. And household hours worked have increased as women joined the workforce.






The shift to smaller households over the past century







www150.statcan.gc.ca







cainvest said:


> Circling back to that point, notice most of those 3 kids families were raised in 900-1100 sq ft houses without garages in the 50s?


Yes, but that's exactly the issue. The social issue. That's my point. The society has learned to want more. And part of that is due to marketing/advertising in towards that desire. And situations where there's no other choices anymore, anyways.



cainvest said:


> Best thing for people to do is not to buy into it.


Again, it's the issue from the society and also from the environment, the advertising manipulating from early age. It's hard to live in an environment and to think outside of that environment. It's also hard to go against the general expectations of the society.

Most of the people part of our society doesn't understand why they want the things they want, they don't understand the issue. You can. I can. But the average people in the society can't.

Try this. Go vegan. How many restaurants can you go that will offer you 100% vegan meals? And now you are invited to your friends and family for dinner, for Christmas, for Thanksgiving, for a big party and tell them you eat vegan only. That's what I call the social pressure of going against the norm.

The issue is how the society has evolved. And now the issue is the society. But the society evolved that way because of industrialisation, globalization, capitalism, all the big companies who would do anything to make you spend more and buy their products, their ideas, the dream they are selling you.

Just watch the documentary "Social Dilemma" to understand how social networks are using AI to optimize the content they show you so that you will stay as long as possible on your phone/computer, because the longer you stay, the better you get manipulated, the better they know you, the better they shape you, the more you will desire the content that has been shown to you, and that content fits perfectly your profile and personality because it's been optimized by the AI and then they can show you tons of targeted advertisements.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> Of course reducing hours will reduce productivity of jobs.


As I quoted previously:


> During the first two months of 1974, government officials in the United Kingdom limited the workweek to three days in an attempt to save energy. *Though people were working two fewer days a week, production only dropped 6%*. People worked fewer hours, but they were more productive and less likely to miss work.


And even if it would reduce productivity a little, what's more important? A stressed-out society with mental health issues, physical health issue, but with an economy in awesome financial health? Or a society well balanced between mental health, physical health and financial health?

We should understand that all those mental health issues and physical health issues, all that stress will lead to a worse economical health on the long run.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Which countries have the least annual labour hours? Germany, Denmark, Norway, Netherland, Iceland. Turns out they are also on the list of the best countries to live in the world. Turns out they are also on the list of the happiest countries in the world. And they are all in the top 20 countries for GDP per Capita. Norway and Denmark are in the top 10. Whereas Canada is 24th.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Societies were built very differently in the 70s. You never heard of post-retirement depression back then. Nowadays people' identity, social life, lifestyle, revolves pretty much entirely around work. 
This is a massive problem that not many people or organizations seem to address. If you take the work factor away, then it becomes a question on whether people are able to adapt and build their life without it, or they feel useless, alone, and depressed


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> Yes, but that's exactly the issue. The social issue. That's my point. The society has learned to want more. And part of that is due to marketing/advertising in towards that desire. And situations where there's no other choices anymore, anyways.
> 
> Again, it's the issue from the society and also from the environment, the advertising manipulating from early age. It's hard to live in an environment and to think outside of that environment. It's also hard to go against the general expectations of the society.
> 
> Most of the people part of our society doesn't understand why they want the things they want, they don't understand the issue. You can. I can. But the average people in the society can't.


So all you can do is spread the word to adjust society in the correct direction. 



MrBlackhill said:


> Try this. Go vegan. How many restaurants can you go that will offer you 100% vegan meals? And now you are invited to your friends and family for dinner, for Christmas, for Thanksgiving, for a big party and tell them you eat vegan only. That's what I call the social pressure of going against the norm.


I see vegan and gluten free offerings, not always but there are there. I have friends on "special diets" and of course we still invite them but tell them to bring their own specific food items (gluten,vegan,etc) to the party. We tell our friends what we're making so they can decide on if they want to eat it or not.



MrBlackhill said:


> The issue is how the society has evolved. And now the issue is the society. But the society evolved that way because of industrialisation, globalization, capitalism, all the big companies who would do anything to make you spend more and buy their products, their ideas, the dream they are selling you.


This has always been the case. Again, comes down to self control ... I can't blame companies from trying to sell me a product but I can blame myself for buying into something I don't need.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> And even if it would reduce productivity a little, what's more important? A stressed-out society with mental health issues, physical health issue, but with an economy in awesome financial health? Or a society well balanced between mental health, physical health and financial health?
> 
> We should understand that all those mental health issues and physical health issues, all that stress will lead to a worse economical health on the long run.


I don't think you'll solve current society issues with just cutting some work hours, it's a complex machine with many moving parts so to speak. One area everyone should start with is stop blaming others for things you can (and should) control yourself.

If obesity rates are climbing should I just say "ah, I'll just get fat because it's the normal thing to do now" or say "no thanks, I prefer to stay fit because I feel better" ?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> I see vegan and gluten free offerings, not always but there are there. I have friends on "special diets" and of course we still invite them but tell them to bring their own specific food items (gluten,vegan,etc) to the party. We tell our friends what we're making so they can decide on if they want to eat it or not.


Yes, because it's becoming more accepted, but have you noticed how people react differently to you whether you say "I have an allergy" vs "I decide that I won't eat this even though I could"?

People understand constraints like allergies and diets due to health issues, but not everybody will respect other people's choice. Well, they will respect it, but they will be judgemental.



cainvest said:


> This has always been the case. Again, comes down to self control ... I can't blame companies from trying to sell me a product but I can blame myself for buying into something I don't need.


I know, that's self-control as an adult, after you've built your personality and character. But lots of kids nowadays are living in families where they've always been used to luxuries and they've been on social networks and computer since a very young age, so that influence, that environment they are living in, will be deep into their unconscious mind. And then bringing that issue to their awareness, to their consciousness, and then starting self-control, and going against the rest of the society will be a very tough journey.



cainvest said:


> One area everyone should start with is stop blaming others for things you can (and should) control yourself.


I wouldn't put too much faith on the society to figure it out by itself. The society needs proper education. You can't change a behaviour without being aware of that behaviour in the first hand.



cainvest said:


> If obesity rates are climbing should I just say "ah, I'll just get fat because it's the normal thing to do now" or say "no thanks, I prefer to stay fit because I feel better" ?


No, because I know the healthy choice and the society knows the healthy choice. The society is aware of this.

But the society still isn't fully aware of the current issue with consumption and working too much and social networks and targeted advertising. And those who are aware are fighting a very powerful opponent. It's all the Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Google of this world.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

MrBlackhill said:


> And you must be able to save for the retirement of two people with your single net income of $40k.
> 
> Which means you better be able to save at the very least $5k per year during 40 years in a very aggressive portfolio.


Hopefully you're raising those kids properly so they won't be under your care for all 40 of those years.


MrBlackhill said:


> Well, that's the point. Why living with a single median income is now barely feasible for a family, or even irresponsible, whereas back a few decades ago, there was only the man working and the families had 6+ children? How come it's not possible anymore?


I suspect that if you were to tell the mother of one of those 6+ children families about "only the man working", you'd find yourself with a large bump on the head from a cast iron skillet.

Beyond that, you might as well ask why we can't live by hunting with sticks and stones anymore. My answer is simple: more people, same planet, fewer resources. You do the math.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

off.by.10 said:


> Hopefully you're raising those kids properly so they won't be under your care for all 40 of those years.


I was saying 40 years because back when the man worked for income and not the woman, the man would work 40+ years, while having kids, while saving for the retirement of both him and his wife.



off.by.10 said:


> I suspect that if you were to tell the mother of one of those 6+ children families about "only the man working", you'd find yourself with a large bump on the head from a cast iron skillet.


"Only the man working" in the sense of working for an income. Obviously the woman was extremely busy at home. But it didn't bring any income. That's what I mean. Back in those days, it was everybody's expectations to be able to provide for a full family with only one income. Nowadays, it's everybody's expectations that you must have two incomes to provide for a full family. Unless one of those incomes is highly above average, obviously.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> Yes, because it's becoming more accepted, but have you noticed how people react differently to you whether you say "I have an allergy" vs "I decide that I won't eat this even though I could"?
> 
> People understand constraints like allergies and diets due to health issues, but not everybody will respect other people's choice. Well, they will respect it, but they will be judgemental.


Nothing new there, been that way for a long time. 



MrBlackhill said:


> I know, that's self-control as an adult, after you've built your personality and character. But lots of kids nowadays are living in families where they've always been used to luxuries and they've been on social networks and computer since a very young age, so that influence, that environment they are living in, will be deep into their unconscious mind. And then bringing that issue to their awareness, to their consciousness, and then starting self-control, and going against the rest of the society will be a very tough journey.
> 
> I wouldn't put too much faith on the society to figure it out by itself. The society needs proper education. You can't change a behaviour without being aware of that behaviour in the first hand.


Yup, may be a tough road for some.



MrBlackhill said:


> No, because I know the healthy choice and the society knows the healthy choice. The society is aware of this.


Seriously ... Over 1 in 4 adults is obese in Canada which IMO is crazy high.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> Seriously ... Over 1 in 4 adults is obese in Canada which IMO is crazy high.


Being aware of an issue doesn't mean you are able to solve the issue. But it's already better than not being aware of an issue.



cainvest said:


> Yup, may be a tough road for some.


For some? For lots! As a society, we need to take action! It's not because we don't feel concerned ourselves by the issue that we shouldn't try to help the society to solve that issue!

That's as if we were in a situation where the whole population had to swim across a river. But not everybody knew there was a river to cross. Lots of families didn't even knew it. And not everybody knows how to swim. And we'd just say "yup, that'll be tough for some". We have to take action to help them and to make sure that the next generations are aware of that river and learn how to swim. And all this while we are working on building a bridge. As a society, we must take actions to make things change, not letting the people figure it out when they aren't aware of it.

But I know that's an idealism.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

MrBlackhill said:


> Obviously the woman was extremely busy at home. But it didn't bring any income. That's what I mean.


My point was that that work replaced a lot of modern day expenses. Clothes were repaired more. Kid clothes were home made. Food is less expensive when you don't buy it ready to eat. etc.

Today, that woman will typically specialize in doing one kind of work and outsource most of the rest.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Are we aware of the issue though?
We are promoting body positivity, promoting unhealthy food, and not raising the issue in the middle of the pandemic that is almost exclusively pandemic of the obese


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

off.by.10 said:


> My point was that that work replaced a lot of modern day expenses. Clothes were repaired more. Kid clothes were home made. Food is less expensive when you don't buy it ready to eat. etc.


Yes, and my points is that this increase in goods and services came with an increase in household worked hours.

So if 50 years from now we have even more goods and services (for things that we don't have time to do ourselves anymore), will that continue to come with an increase in household worked hours? 50 years from now we'll have an AI secretary managing our life because we are so busy working? Smart watches are already telling us what we should do...

You get the point. Either you work more, but because you work more, you have less time to do things yourself, so you spend more for goods and services, either you work less, and because you work less you have more time to do things yourself because anyways you have less money.

Sometimes you'd like to do some things yourself, but because you are working 40h/week you don't have time, so you spend the money on a service. And that service cost you more than if you had done it by yourself, more than your hourly wage. But you couldn't do it by yourself, because you didn't have time to.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

How times change. I could never imagine a 4 day work week, why not work the extra days if you want to get ahead. All through my working career I would work as many days as I could, trying to get ahead but the work was based on hours put in, as opposed to productivity. In the 70's I started a steady 5 day 40hr job, low paying as an apprentice but supplemented that with a part-time evening job. I had a few productivity based jobs going forward but still put in as many days as I could, as it was frequently possible to produce 10-12 billable hours in an 8-10 hr day. My last job in the UK was 5 x 11hr days, 1 x 6hr Saturday at time and a half and a 5hr Sunday at double time. After moving to Canada early 80's it was mostly 5 days with a few spells of 6 and 7 day weeks but the pay was much better, along with increased cost of living. When I first started working for myself in the 90's it was mostly 6 day weeks but even though the operations would be closed on Sundays, a lot of times there would be work needing to be done.


----------

