California considers a 4 day work week

[RVonse]

California Considers the Four-Day Workweek

A proposal in the California State Legislature would define the workweek in the state as 32 hours, not 40, for larger companies.

www.wsj.com

On another forum I visit, people who live in California seem to be up in arms over this because they think such a liberal law will cause a huge exodus of industry in California as employers will move to other nearby states. But this is one liberal proposed law I think I agree with. What is wrong with a 4 day 8 hour work week? If you take the average amount of productivity versus time and look at the graph, US productivity has gone steadily upward (because of technology) since the 1800's. And by now (in a fair world), all of us should be able to provide the same goods and services we did in the 1950's (on average) by working 1 day less. I see this as a good thing..... let the average person actually enjoy more of their lifetime doing what they want to do. After all, we are all mortal and our time is limited. Do you want to spend your time doing what you want to do or do you want to spend it doing what some boss tells you to do?

And for the Californians who think their industry might (at first) want to leave the state......so what if they do? California already has too many wealthy people and industry in one location. California's GDP is higher than some countries....can't California can afford to spread some of that around to other states that are slacking? Just what has caused the cost of living in California to be so high in the first place?... too many f'n people making way too much money! The law of supply and demand. Take down average income and average home price will follow. Some of the ultra high wage earners NEED to move to another state and real estate values will actual become reasonable again. Then they will have it all....the best weather in the US close to the beaches, low housing prices, .....and a 4 day a week job!

What say you?

 

[Politesse]

On another forum I visit, people who live in California seem to be up in arms over this because they think such a liberal law will cause a huge exodus of industry in California as employers will move to other nearby states.

They've been making that threat every time some proposed "liberal" legislation comes down the pipe, at least since the 1970s. It's never actually happened, and I certainly don't think this legislation would have that effect. We have the largest economy of any US state with a GDP nearly double that of any other, and along with NYC our tax dollars are almost singlehandedly fueling the welfare blanket that keeps the failing rural conservative regions of the country afloat. As the studies in the article note, the companies affected would make their money back immediately in increased productivity and things would continue much as they are now for better and for worse.

But I also don't think this bill stands a chance of passing. California also is not nearly as "liberal" as outsiders seem to imagine. Not if you think "liberal" is a synonym for "socialist", anyway. If the big money truly opposes this, and I think it does, it will never make it to the governor's desk, and he won't sign it if it does. California politicians are as performative as politicians everywhere; Evan Low and the others are enjoying the free press that comes with looking like they're being audacious progressives, even though they aren't truly expecting it to succeed. That's not the point, putting their name on the effort is the point.

Luckily, I already have a four day work week, at least on paper.

 

[TSwizzle]

Evan Low, enough said. This is what you get with a full time legislature.

Meanwhile, the “fifth biggest economy in the world” has people living in squalor on the sidewalk in a worsening “homeless” problem.

 

[Politesse]

Meanwhile, the “fifth biggest economy in the world” has people living in squalor on the sidewalk in a worsening “homeless” problem.

Those two facts are directly, even deterministically, connected. Extreme wealth disparity makes this country an unliveable hell for those who aren't invited to the table.

 

[TSwizzle]

Meanwhile, the “fifth biggest economy in the world” has people living in squalor on the sidewalk in a worsening “homeless” problem.

Those two facts are directly, even deterministically, connected. Extreme wealth disparity makes this country an unliveable hell for those who aren't invited to the table.

It can’t be that bad. Hundreds of thousands of people just walk across the southern border into the USA.

 

[Politesse]

Meanwhile, the “fifth biggest economy in the world” has people living in squalor on the sidewalk in a worsening “homeless” problem.

Those two facts are directly, even deterministically, connected. Extreme wealth disparity makes this country an unliveable hell for those who aren't invited to the table.

It can’t be that bad. Hundreds of thousands of people just walk across the southern border into the USA.

That is because the exact same problem exists in Mexico, and arguably to a worse degree. Our GINI index rating is usually very similar to Mexico's, hovering within a few tenth points around .5 (this is bad; it indicates a limited wealthy class holding more than half of a nation's wealth) but it's harder for the poor to actually survive in Mexico, due to an even more deteriorated network of social welfare and a much more limited pool of quality jobs and educational opportunities across broad swaths of that nation. This generally works to the overall benefit of California, which therefore profits from the borrowed talents and productivity of the skilled laborers of both nations, but does not do anything to lessen the sting of wealth inequality in either Mexico or California.

 

[TSwizzle]

You think it’s just Mexicans? Silly goose.

 

[bilby]

You think it’s just Mexicans? Silly goose.

Well, I always thought that USAians were bad at geography, but now I have to eat my words as I discover that there's a country other than Mexico from which you can "just walk across the southern border into the USA".

How embarrassing.

 

[Politesse]

You think it’s just Mexicans? Silly goose.

No, of course not. In California's case, the majority of the new immigrants who arrive via transit across our southern border come from Mexico. But, the situation is much worse in the rest of Central America, and much of my analysis applies even more so to the situation of Guatemala, Honduras, and others.

 

[TSwizzle]

The vast majority of them are not immigrants.

 

[Toni]

You think it’s just Mexicans? Silly goose.

Well, I always thought that USAians were bad at geography, but now I have to eat my words as I discover that there's a country other than Mexico from which you can "just walk across the southern border into the USA".

How embarrassing.

We’re Americans. Had a revolution and everything.

 

[bilby]

You think it’s just Mexicans? Silly goose.

Well, I always thought that USAians were bad at geography, but now I have to eat my words as I discover that there's a country other than Mexico from which you can "just walk across the southern border into the USA".

How embarrassing.

We’re Americans. Had a revolution and everything.

Brazilians, Canadians and Mexicans are Americans too.

The USA is a subset of the Americas. The "A" in "USAian" even stands for "America".

 

[Toni]

You think it’s just Mexicans? Silly goose.

Well, I always thought that USAians were bad at geography, but now I have to eat my words as I discover that there's a country other than Mexico from which you can "just walk across the southern border into the USA".

How embarrassing.

We’re Americans. Had a revolution and everything.

Brazilians, Canadians and Mexicans are Americans too.

The USA is a subset of the Americas.

Canadians are North Americans. So are Mexicans. So are citizens of the USA , aka Americans. Brazilians are South Americans. Guatemalans are Central Americans. The USA is in North America, along with Canada and Mexico. Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, etc. refer to citizens if the United States as Americans. We started calling ourselves Americans before Canada was called Canada or Mexico was called Mexico.

 

[Politesse]

You think it’s just Mexicans? Silly goose.

Well, I always thought that USAians were bad at geography, but now I have to eat my words as I discover that there's a country other than Mexico from which you can "just walk across the southern border into the USA".

How embarrassing.

We’re Americans. Had a revolution and everything.

Brazilians are Americans too.

The USA is a subset of the Americas.

Eh, even the Brazilians call us "americanos" 99% of the time (And I have never heard a brasileiro call themselves an americano). We've well and duly taken over the demonym at this point. But that's okay, the whole America thing is European nonsense anyway. Who the hell was Amerigo Vespucci, that anyone should yearn to adopt his personal name into their identity? That we couldn't come up with a better name for our country is a testament to the ethnic plurality and characteristic political libertarianism of our pugnacious union. There was a time early on when we considered "Columbia" as an alternative, but that's not much better, and would absolutely have caused some international confusion after 1819. I can't imagine Bolivar changing his mind about the Gran Colombia thing just because we sort of scooped him.

 

[Toni]

You think it’s just Mexicans? Silly goose.

Well, I always thought that USAians were bad at geography, but now I have to eat my words as I discover that there's a country other than Mexico from which you can "just walk across the southern border into the USA".

How embarrassing.

We’re Americans. Had a revolution and everything.

Brazilians are Americans too.

The USA is a subset of the Americas.

Eh, even the Brazilians call us "americanos" 99% of the time (And I have never heard a brasileiro call themselves an americano). We've well and duly taken over the demonym at this point. But that's okay, the whole America thing is European nonsense anyway. Who the hell was Amerigo Vespucci, that anyone should yearn to adopt his personal name into their identity? That we couldn't come up with a better name for our country is a testament to the ethnic plurality and characteristic political libertarianism of our pugnacious union. There was a time early on when we considered "Columbia" as an alternative, but that's not much better, and would absolutely have caused some international confusion later on.

Exactly. No one I have met from anywhere on this planet has referred to US citizens as anything but Americans —or an occasional epithet. I never knew anyone to consider it at all controversial before bilby.

 

[bilby]

You think it’s just Mexicans? Silly goose.

Well, I always thought that USAians were bad at geography, but now I have to eat my words as I discover that there's a country other than Mexico from which you can "just walk across the southern border into the USA".

How embarrassing.

We’re Americans. Had a revolution and everything.

Brazilians, Canadians and Mexicans are Americans too.

The USA is a subset of the Americas.

Canadians are North Americans. So are Mexicans. So are citizens of the USA , aka Americans. Brazilians are South Americans. Guatemalans are Central Americans. The USA is in North America, along with Canada and Mexico. Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, etc. refer to citizens if the United States as Americans. We started calling ourselves Americans before Canada was called Canada or Mexico was called Mexico.

Well done. I knew that there had to be some USAians who understood geography.

 

[Toni]

You think it’s just Mexicans? Silly goose.

Well, I always thought that USAians were bad at geography, but now I have to eat my words as I discover that there's a country other than Mexico from which you can "just walk across the southern border into the USA".

How embarrassing.

We’re Americans. Had a revolution and everything.

Brazilians, Canadians and Mexicans are Americans too.

The USA is a subset of the Americas.

Canadians are North Americans. So are Mexicans. So are citizens of the USA , aka Americans. Brazilians are South Americans. Guatemalans are Central Americans. The USA is in North America, along with Canada and Mexico. Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, etc. refer to citizens if the United States as Americans. We started calling ourselves Americans before Canada was called Canada or Mexico was called Mexico.

Well done. I knew that there had to be some USAians who understood geography.

Whatever those are?

Come on. You know that USAians looks way too close to USAsians for that to be allowed.

I'm piss poor at history and geography but I do know most of the North and South American continents as well as the land bridge joining them, AKA Central America.

 

[Politesse]

Central America is very inconsistently defined by various geographers, let alone the public. It's a bit weird.

 

[bilby]

You know that USAians looks way too close to USAsians for that to be allowed.

I have literally never seen "USAsians" before reading your post, though having seen it, it might make a good neologism for people of Asian background now living in the US.

Regardless, I am absolutely certain that all words are allowed, including brand new ones. There's no central prescriptivism authority that can or will penalise me for the use of disallowed words.

The only valid argument against a word is that its meaning is not understood by its audience; Yet nobody here is in any doubt as to what or whom I am referring as "USAians".

It's a useful word that unequivocally differentiates between inhabitants of the Americas, and inhabitants of the United States; In this context, that difference is critical.

If you have a better word to achieve that, by all means recommend it. If I like it, I will adopt it (which is exactly how it works - nobody needs to 'allow' anything, vocabulary is a pure and self administered democracy).

 

[Toni]

You know that USAians looks way too close to USAsians for that to be allowed.

I have literally never seen "USAsians" before reading your post, though having seen it, it might make a good neologism for people of Asian background now living in the US.

Regardless, I am absolutely certain that all words are allowed, including brand new ones. There's no central prescriptivism authority that can or will penalise me for the use of disallowed words.

The only valid argument against a word is that its meaning is not understood by its audience; Yet nobody here is in any doubt as to what or whom I am referring as "USAians".

It's a useful word that unequivocally differentiates between inhabitants of the Americas, and inhabitants of the United States; In this context, that difference is critical.

If you have a better word to achieve that, by all means recommend it. If I like it, I will adopt it (which is exactly how it works - nobody needs to 'allow' anything, vocabulary is a pure and self administered democracy).

Sure, there’s nothing wrong with new words. I like words, including new ones.

In theory, there’s nothing wrong with people calling each other by names which are not theirs. Unless it causes offense. Most people resent being mis-named.

As for USAsians, as far as I know, I coined the phrase in my post above. I consider this my notice of copyright and expect full credit henceforth. Unless Asian Americans take offense in which case, it’s your fault.