|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 31 2016 01:03 Falling wrote:
I don't really see the advantage of reducing the work week, especially if the goal is to deal with inequality. Unless the country is at full employment, it seems to me more people will be hired rather than more over time will be paid. But considering so many people just had their hours reduced and are therefore making less, but still need to make ends meet, might not the additional hours be filled by other people that had their hours reduced? In effect, we've just created a forced job swap so more people need to hold multiple jobs?
That is the goal of reducing the work week. Upward wage pressure happens significantly more at full employment. It also opens up higher quality jobs further up the chain so the career oriented workers will vacate the minimum wage jobs for those who should be filling them like students and a households second income.
|
Canada11584 Posts
Ah. You are in effect creating a demand by reducing the excess supply of workers, which would hopefully drive up wages over time? I guess you'd also have to make sure temporary foreign workers doesn't also increase at the same time, else you simply have a greater amount of employment held by temps without moving towards full employment.
|
On March 31 2016 01:03 Falling wrote:
I don't really see the advantage of reducing the work week, especially if the goal is to deal with inequality. Unless the country is at full employment, it seems to me more people will be hired rather than more over time will be paid. But considering so many people just had their hours reduced and are therefore making less, but still need to make ends meet, might not the additional hours be filled by other people that had their hours reduced? In effect, we've just created a forced job swap so more people need to hold multiple jobs?
As hinted at in oneofthem's posts many employers would rather pay overtime to fewer employees because hiring new employees and paying benefits reduces their flexibility. They would rather pay overtime during boomtimes than risk having too many full-timers with not enough demand to fill.
|
On March 31 2016 01:16 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2016 01:03 Falling wrote:
I don't really see the advantage of reducing the work week, especially if the goal is to deal with inequality. Unless the country is at full employment, it seems to me more people will be hired rather than more over time will be paid. But considering so many people just had their hours reduced and are therefore making less, but still need to make ends meet, might not the additional hours be filled by other people that had their hours reduced? In effect, we've just created a forced job swap so more people need to hold multiple jobs? That is the goal of reducing the work week. Upward wage pressure happens significantly more at full employment. It also opens up higher quality jobs further up the chain so the career oriented workers will vacate the minimum wage jobs for those who should be filling them like students and a households second income.
this is a mirage
we will not get towards full employment and there will not be more higher quality jobs.
the only thing changing the workweek will do is shuffle around people in the lower quintile of earnings, above that nothing of import will happen and inequality will still continue to increase
|
I'm confused. If there's a fairly static number of hours (or is the argument more employment -> more wages -> more spending -> more growth -> more labor needed?) then why would reducing the number of hours/ employee help? More people have "jobs" but wouldn't they just be underemployed? Beyond that, training and managing employees is expensive, not to mention benefits and all that.
|
On March 30 2016 18:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
What a silly example. Of course they don't have to work. Their families are paying the tuition instead.
|
On March 31 2016 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:What a silly example. Of course they don't have to work. Their families are paying the tuition instead.
Yeah that tweet made no sense to me either.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
integrating some work experience in college isnt terrible. kids need to grow the fk up
|
"poor kids who can't afford to focus solely on school* need to grow the fk up" is more like it.
|
On March 31 2016 03:35 farvacola wrote:
"poor kids who can't afford to focus solely on school* need to grow the fk up" is more like it.
As a STEM dude, the idiots not working in research labs or industry during school are struggling a lot compared to me now that we've graduated. The Clinton plan does more to empower our work force rather than waiving the charge and giving us a bunch of meaningless degrees. Those years of experience needed for entry level jobs? You were supposed to be doing that while you're in school. If you didn't, you're not the kind of person I am interested in hiring.
|
career specific work experience is not the same thing as having to work during school. Take a look at the proportions of work-study programs relative to career versus service related work and that fact becomes even more clear.
|
I thought everyone worked during school. Or at least tried to. Our program required you to work for at least 1 semester in your last 2 years, but almost everyone ended up starting as Jrs and keeping the job (and working summer) until graduation. So much cows' blood.
|
On March 31 2016 03:39 cLutZ wrote:
I thought everyone worked during school. Or at least tried to. Our program required you to work for at least 1 semester in your last 2 years, but almost everyone ended up starting as Jrs and keeping the job (and working summer) until graduation. So much cows' blood.
There is a huge difference between having a part time job for spending money and working to be able to make rent and be able to go to school. The second group isn’t getting “work experience”, but just taking whatever is required to pay the bills.
|
On March 31 2016 03:39 cLutZ wrote:
I thought everyone worked during school. Or at least tried to. Our program required you to work for at least 1 semester in your last 2 years, but almost everyone ended up starting as Jrs and keeping the job (and working summer) until graduation. So much cows' blood.
Well, 1 semester is approximately nothing. That's not gonna help a lot, but 2 years is fine. A lot of professors won't even want to take juniors because they don't get as much return on investment. Takes a bit to be totally autonomous and contributing good work. But this is purely from the perspective of a chemist. I have no idea what you do or how that industry may be different.
|
On March 31 2016 03:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2016 03:39 cLutZ wrote:
I thought everyone worked during school. Or at least tried to. Our program required you to work for at least 1 semester in your last 2 years, but almost everyone ended up starting as Jrs and keeping the job (and working summer) until graduation. So much cows' blood. Well, 1 semester is approximately nothing. That's not gonna help a lot, but 2 years is fine. A lot of professors won't even want to take juniors because they don't get as much return on investment. Takes a bit to be totally autonomous and contributing good work. But this is purely from the perspective of a chemist. I have no idea what you do or how that industry may be different.
I was in Biomedical engineering. I worked from Summer before Jr. year through graduation and until I got a different job in 2 different labs/hospital co-ops working with artificial hearts, stents, and dialysis. Then I eventually went to law school and had clerkships/internships for 4 of 6 semesters (you are banned 1st semester by the ABA so 4 of 5 eligible) + 2 summers.
The 1 semester requirement is a minimum that the school obviously hopes you do more than. Also they like it because it helps their research professors figure out who they want to try and get as PhD candidates. .
Edit: Also I would point out that people who are saying, "Well STEM research is different than waiting tables to survive, etc." That is only true in the narrowest of respects. Any work exp always reflects well, and on top of that it probably helps doubly in fields where there aren't a lot of research jobs to be had (like if you are a Philosophy Major). During law school I had interviewers asking me about the refereeing I did for High School sports as a Frosh/Soph in college.
|
As a bio major-- if you weren't doing related extra-curricular work like research or something in a hospital, you were screwing around. Also as a business major, you might get away until sophomore year, but you were pretty much required to have a junior year internship/ go to full-time with some sort of work experience. Nothing was mandatory or required persay, but if you had your shit together you did these things.
Rich kids don't need to work b/c they don't take assistance, yes, but it's wrong to look at it from that angle. The disadvantaged kids are getting the same education as these privileged kids... and 10 hours a week is very little to pay for it IMO. You save all this money and its 10 hours of qualified work, you don't have to worry about finding a job that pays enough to cover rent or whatever.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 31 2016 03:35 farvacola wrote:
"poor kids who can't afford to focus solely on school* need to grow the fk up" is more like it.
working fast food is not the same as integrating work experience into education. i'm rather restricting the type of work experience we are talking about here.
|
Hillary's plan isn't really that bad, granted, but the point that students who are forced to take shitty service jobs are less likely to have the time and resources needed to get the most out of their education still stands. Simply asserting that disadvantaged kids are getting the same education as privileged kids is some pretty terrible question begging.
As an aside, all of these "well I did it this way" stories are really not a meaningful way of addressing the very real concern raised by that Bernie tweet. I could relay stories of folks I know who literally failed out of college because of their inability to devote the needed time to their studies as they were forced to work upwards of 20, 30, 40 hours a week on top of classes, but that wouldn't mean anything beyond the anecdotes themselves.
Edit: and like puerk mentions, there are a host of peripheral concerns that necessarily impact the discussion, such as job availability, the adjunct professor/PHD candidate purgatory phenomena, etc.
|
also, talking about the competition among college graduates (who has best work experience etc) still does in no way address the issue that there are not enough jobs at the end of the pipeline.
|
I don't think these 10 hours are gonna be shitty service jobs... if anything it'll be replacing those. It'll probably be stuff like the Federal Workstudy Program.
I have immense sympathy for those who have to work insane hours to just pay for college. Hillary's plan means they won't have to, they just need 10 hours.
I'd like to hear the exact circumstances for not being able to do 10 hours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
