Explanation/tl;dr: {Those who feel they have 'sufficient' income will not agree to employment under terms that require them to work more than X hours, for high income occupations. Those who do not feel they have sufficient income will work longer than X, and either not accept jobs or will lobby for pay increases in occupations where the marginal compensation for working beyond X hours is not 'fair'. Even when the multiplier is no where near the size of income disparity, the contraction would affect all levels of the economy where choices are made to forgo expensive goods in favor of cheap goods of the same benefit regardless of the income or wealth of the purchaser.
Cannot be done instantly from the inverse of working hour limitations and overtime that addressed the working conditions during the time of the industrial revolution, because spending habits, item price leveling, wage normalization, and creation of new production and employment niches can only happen from market forces that need time to take effect.}
Cannot be done instantly from the inverse of working hour limitations and overtime that addressed the working conditions during the time of the industrial revolution, because spending habits, item price leveling, wage normalization, and creation of new production and employment niches can only happen from market forces that need time to take effect.}
No pressure for this to happen until world resource depletion lowers 'standard of living' in developed countries, since currently survival and comfort is easily possible at less than 1/10th of per-capita income.
***
Protip from Amazon: silk or satin pillowcases prevent 'bed hair' for people with long hair.
It looks like you're proposing a sort of reverse overtime, where you get paid LESS after working past the cap. I see two complications, one being that the high-end wage earners whom I suspect you are targeting already have such a cap (since they are on salary, working extra hours results in zero extra pay). The other is of course choosing and enforcing the cap. -Max
ReplyDeleteWorking a reduced number of hours is not an expectation for people in higher-income occupations. People don't go to college so they can spend just 4 hours per day working, or 2~3 days per week, because it would be an unusual job request. Working less hours just means someone else has to work more, and the assumption is that someone who is willing to work more is more effective than someone who is unwilling to work, so neither the company, society, or another individual would benefit from working less, only yourself. This change, along with spending pattern and lifestyle changes would mean all of those would benefit.
ReplyDeleteCollege would cost less, because people would be less willing to go into debt as an investment. More people would be able to afford college due to less inequality. People with high income would have more time to make spending choices, causing marketing tactics to be less effective than having a quality product and increasing overall efficiency of production. Less wealth would funnel into corporation owners due to lower profit margins from competition for producing high-end goods.
The consumption of high-end goods would go up, and the US already has more than enough cars compared to use of the same resources by developing countries.