ephiroll wrote:Then how do you explain the US being the richest country in the world? You think that just happened by chance? The US also has the highest number of privately owned companies. Lazy people don't pull that off. Meanwhile other countries, France comes to mind and I know there are others, which are lowerering the number of hours in the average workweek therefore lowing the average income of the workers which results in a lower standard of living.
Ok, let's go...
The US
may be the richest country in the world...but that didn't happen recently, and is draing away quickly. We have a massively negative balance of trade. Which means that the sum total of american workers, american business, and american government are spending way beyond their means.
Largest number of privately owned companies is neither inherently good not a clear indicator of non-lazyness...it might have something to do with huge population and low regulation... (as I pointed out on another topic, straight counts don't mean much. You need to scale to something appropriate).
Meanwhile, lowering the workweek doesn't necesarily lower incomes. In such an environment you could mandate that incomes be unchanged, for example. It might put a squeeze on companies, perhaps. Almost certainly lower the GDP. But you could redistribute wealth to keep the workers at the same income level.
ephiroll wrote:Also, many states in the US have "right to work" clauses, Florida is one of them, and that means that you can be fired at any time for any reason, so if your productivity isn't up to par they find someone else to fill your shoes, therefore resulting in increased productivity simply because thats what people have to do to keep their jobs. There's no way to measure a countries "productivity" but I know that the US has to be at the top of the list because unproductive people don't keep their jobs over here because there's always someone else willing to take your job. If we started yelling for a 35 hour work week, government mandatory vacation time, and higher pay on top of it then we'd simply be laughed at and replaced.
By 'right to work' we mean right to be fired, of course...got to love republican law-naming (wow I hope I'm not making a false assumption). That would, in a theoretical world where it was competantly and reasonably used, be certain to increase productivity. In the real world, it still might, though probably not enough to be worth the abuse that it would cause (if the law actually means what you say it does).
You can in fact measure a country's productivity quite easily. Divide GDP by total hours worked in the country in the year. Obviously, that will usually have to be an estimate...but the term does have a precise meaning. And incidentally, not one likely to be enhanced by increasing the work week.
As for your last point...likely, if you went to your employer. If you tried using the political approach, which is how one usually gets 'government mandated' anything...also likely, since in the US business interests tend to beat workers interests in the polls. I'd like to claim that that's because people know (or believe) that cutting down on the amount they produce isn't going to be good for maintaining the GDP that supports their standard of living, but I would say that since this is the american public in question it's just a reflex carefully programmed by businesses.
Meanwhile, the longer hours <> more industrious is a legitimate point. It isn't how long you sit at your workplace that matters, it's how much you get done.
And of course, if americans were as non-lazy and non-sociallist as you seem to be saying, why have nearly all the manufacturing jobs and most of the services that can fled oveerseas? Answer: Minimum wages and refusal to work to the desires of the employer.
Maybe we should take this to the off-topic forum.
