Discussion
What are these people on?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8513783.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8513783.stm
Naive fools said:
The working week should be cut to 21 hours to help boost the economy and improve quality of life, a left-wing think tank has said.
The New Economics Foundation claimed in a report the reduction in hours would help to ease unemployment and overwork.
The think tank said people were working longer hours now than 30 years ago even though unemployment was at 2.5 million.
The foundation admitted people would earn less, but said they would have more time to carry out worthy tasks.
They would have better scope to look after children or other dependants, there would be more opportunity for civic duties, and older people could even delay retirement, it said.
'Better employees'
Anna Coote, co-author of the 21 Hours report, said: "So many of us live to work, work to earn, and earn to consume, and our consumption habits are squandering the earth's natural resources.
"Spending less time in paid work could help us to break this pattern. We'd have more time to be better parents, better citizens, better carers and better neighbours.
"We could even become better employees - less stressed, more in control, happier in our jobs and more productive.
"It is time to break the power of the old industrial clock, take back our lives and work for a sustainable future."
The foundation's policy director Andrew Simms added: "A cultural shift will throw up real challenges, but there could also be massive benefits for our economy, our quality of life and our planet.
"After all, hands up who wouldn't like a four day weekend?"
The New Economics Foundation claimed in a report the reduction in hours would help to ease unemployment and overwork.
The think tank said people were working longer hours now than 30 years ago even though unemployment was at 2.5 million.
The foundation admitted people would earn less, but said they would have more time to carry out worthy tasks.
They would have better scope to look after children or other dependants, there would be more opportunity for civic duties, and older people could even delay retirement, it said.
'Better employees'
Anna Coote, co-author of the 21 Hours report, said: "So many of us live to work, work to earn, and earn to consume, and our consumption habits are squandering the earth's natural resources.
"Spending less time in paid work could help us to break this pattern. We'd have more time to be better parents, better citizens, better carers and better neighbours.
"We could even become better employees - less stressed, more in control, happier in our jobs and more productive.
"It is time to break the power of the old industrial clock, take back our lives and work for a sustainable future."
The foundation's policy director Andrew Simms added: "A cultural shift will throw up real challenges, but there could also be massive benefits for our economy, our quality of life and our planet.
"After all, hands up who wouldn't like a four day weekend?"
I'm not convinced about it saving the world, but for the last couple of years Ive probably been doing 21 hour weeks.
The positive side is that Ive been able to spend loads of time with the kids which has been fab. I spend 10 years or so working 6 days a week and after a while it all becomes a bit of a chore. Working part time means that I actually enjoy work more and can approach it with a good deal more enthusiasm.
The only disadvantage is that I earn less and so that poses some different issues.
The positive side is that Ive been able to spend loads of time with the kids which has been fab. I spend 10 years or so working 6 days a week and after a while it all becomes a bit of a chore. Working part time means that I actually enjoy work more and can approach it with a good deal more enthusiasm.
The only disadvantage is that I earn less and so that poses some different issues.
I like the idea and see the reasoning behind it. Simply put, for most people, you work less hours which makes you less stressed (less time at work), happier (more time at home) and more able to do things at home or good causes - volunteering etc. Most of the people I know were happier as students when we worked less, earned less but had a lot more social time. However, most people simply cannot afford to effectively work 1/2 time - could you live on half your current salary? The main downside of course is that this less stress/happier home life would have to come at the expense of material goods you would no longer be able to afford - that nice car, the exotic holidays etc.
I have a seperate view.
I'm currently working 55 hour weeks. This is enabling me to make huge inroads on my mortgage via overpayments that I simply could not afford to do if I worked a standard 35 hour week. I am also able to save a good amount of cash every month which I put away rather than spend. I try to live reasonably economically, to a point. My target is to have my mortgage paid off and a good amount of savings by the time I am 35. This will then allow me - should I wish - to cut down on my working hours and have a much more relaxed pace of life. What is more likely, though, is that I will contine to work at this pace well into my 40's in order for me to take early retirement which is my major life target.
I have a seperate view.
I'm currently working 55 hour weeks. This is enabling me to make huge inroads on my mortgage via overpayments that I simply could not afford to do if I worked a standard 35 hour week. I am also able to save a good amount of cash every month which I put away rather than spend. I try to live reasonably economically, to a point. My target is to have my mortgage paid off and a good amount of savings by the time I am 35. This will then allow me - should I wish - to cut down on my working hours and have a much more relaxed pace of life. What is more likely, though, is that I will contine to work at this pace well into my 40's in order for me to take early retirement which is my major life target.
nef said:
nef works to construct a new economy centered on people and the environment...
We work in partnership and put people and the planet first...
People meaning who exactly? 'People' are just pollution to these greenwashed people. The whole site and their reports are full of redgreenspeak...sustainable this and that, economic growth no longer possible for rich countries (so Brown's vaunted economic recovery of +0.1% in GDP was fake then, either that or we're already a poor country so allowed to grow), climate change driven by bad economic models - ho ho ho - their 'model' is built on equality and diversity, naturally, everything is 'social' such as social audits and social accounting and social enterprise and social accountability and not forgetting their 'tool' SROI, to calculate social return on investment. As well as a Head of Envron Mental Economics they also have a Carbon Markets Coordinator in their fifty strong cabal which also includes a 'Head of Valuing What Matters' wow everybody there has prizes even those who value junkscience. We work in partnership and put people and the planet first...
Creating a new kind of economy is crucial if we want to tackle climate change and avoid the mounting social problems associated with the rise of economic inequality. The Great Transition provides the first comprehensive blueprint for building an economy based on stability, sustainability and equality.
But we still have a chance to make things right. If we are willing to give up pursuing economic growth for the sake of something much better, for ourselves, for society and for our planet, we can tackle climate change and create a more equal and happy society.
It would be interesting to see how much funding this 'think tank' gets from places such as the UK plc and the EU.
Merlot said:
I like the idea and see the reasoning behind it. Simply put, for most people, you work less hours which makes you less stressed (less time at work), happier (more time at home) and more able to do things at home or good causes - volunteering etc. Most of the people I know were happier as students when we worked less, earned less but had a lot more social time. However, most people simply cannot afford to effectively work 1/2 time - could you live on half your current salary? The main downside of course is that this less stress/happier home life would have to come at the expense of material goods you would no longer be able to afford - that nice car, the exotic holidays etc.
I have a seperate view.
I'm currently working 55 hour weeks. This is enabling me to make huge inroads on my mortgage via overpayments that I simply could not afford to do if I worked a standard 35 hour week. I am also able to save a good amount of cash every month which I put away rather than spend. I try to live reasonably economically, to a point. My target is to have my mortgage paid off and a good amount of savings by the time I am 35. This will then allow me - should I wish - to cut down on my working hours and have a much more relaxed pace of life. What is more likely, though, is that I will contine to work at this pace well into my 40's in order for me to take early retirement which is my major life target.
But no life until you are 35...?I have a seperate view.
I'm currently working 55 hour weeks. This is enabling me to make huge inroads on my mortgage via overpayments that I simply could not afford to do if I worked a standard 35 hour week. I am also able to save a good amount of cash every month which I put away rather than spend. I try to live reasonably economically, to a point. My target is to have my mortgage paid off and a good amount of savings by the time I am 35. This will then allow me - should I wish - to cut down on my working hours and have a much more relaxed pace of life. What is more likely, though, is that I will contine to work at this pace well into my 40's in order for me to take early retirement which is my major life target.
No there's a logic at work, it however fails to take account of human nature, consumerism, and the aspirations of the normal working classes. Work 21 hours a week... see your income reduce by say 40%, could you survive, possibly. But "survive"? And settle for one car per family, perhaps no car, public transport, one tv per household, no wide screen plasma tv, no Sky, no gadgets, no aeroplane flights, no holidays abroad, no more than one child per couple, etc, etc. They fail to see that people do not want to go back to early 50's style austerity lifestyle and the aspirations of our parents or grandparents.
I'm toying with going part time 24hours at my day job... but only to make time to also start my own business...
I'm toying with going part time 24hours at my day job... but only to make time to also start my own business...
Edited by Northern Munkee on Saturday 13th February 10:49
Anna Coote said:
Anna Coote, co-author of the 21 Hours report, said: "So many of us live to work, work to earn, and earn to consume, and our consumption habits are squandering the earth's natural resources
"Spending less time in paid work could help us to break this pattern."
NO IT BLOODY WON'T !"Spending less time in paid work could help us to break this pattern."
Less time working means less put into the economy. Unless she expects people to be the paid the same for a 21hr week, in which case if you give workers more spare time with the same money they will have more time to consume more things, using up more of her precious natural resources.
The New Economics Foundation calls itself independent, so hopefully they haven't been given any government funding to come up with this and will soon disappear up their own organic arses before too long.
Have a look at their vacancies page - http://neweconomics.org/about/vacancies/media-offi...
Media Officer
Type: Part time
Salary: £31, 000 - £34,000 p.a. pro rata (21 hours a week)
The words "Gravy train" and "money for old rope" spring to mind.
What we need is a good cull.
"Culling is the process of removing animals from a group based on specific criteria. This is done in order to either reinforce certain desirable characteristics or to remove certain undesirable characteristics from the group. For livestock and wildlife, the process of culling usually implies the killing of animals with undesirable characteristics."
f
king good idea IMO.
"Culling is the process of removing animals from a group based on specific criteria. This is done in order to either reinforce certain desirable characteristics or to remove certain undesirable characteristics from the group. For livestock and wildlife, the process of culling usually implies the killing of animals with undesirable characteristics."
f
king good idea IMO. Edited by Tangent Police on Saturday 13th February 15:43
so does this mean that everyone has to take a 40% pay cut or employers have to figure out how to pay for 40% more workforce?
TBH as a project manager i need more hours than that just to get into and start accomplishing something, if i had to down tools every 4 hours, or have a 4 day gap every week i would not eb able to accomplish anything, and if its job sharing the 21 hours would get burnt in handover.
Daft idea!!!
TBH as a project manager i need more hours than that just to get into and start accomplishing something, if i had to down tools every 4 hours, or have a 4 day gap every week i would not eb able to accomplish anything, and if its job sharing the 21 hours would get burnt in handover.
Daft idea!!!
Don't forget these people who work in these "think tanks" have never had a proper job in their life or worked a full working day, they have no concept of it.
They most likely think everyone has the kind of working day that they have.
Firstly no doubt they drive Tarquin and Tamara the half mile to school in their Touareg TDi before going off to the office, arriving at 10:10am after stopping off at Starbucks to pick up a Latte. First thing they do (after drinking their Latte) when they get in is chat about the horrendous traffic outside the school and suggesting at the next meeting they should advise people not to drive their children to school. They then go into a meeting, where they discuss the horrendous traffic outside school and suggest they write a paper about it, they order in some Starbucks and all agree how clever they all are. At 11:45 they leave the meeting and wander off down the road to the absolutely best little Michelin star boutique restaurant you could ever see that do the finest Menu du Jour Luncheon you could try. They arrive back at the office at 2:30pm after picking up a Latte at Starbucks before having another meeting to discuss how clever they are and how everyone should do what they say because they are right. Out of the office by 3pm to pick up Tarquin and Tamara from school before arriving home. What a hectic day, no wonder they think we should all work only 21hrs a week.
They most likely think everyone has the kind of working day that they have.
Firstly no doubt they drive Tarquin and Tamara the half mile to school in their Touareg TDi before going off to the office, arriving at 10:10am after stopping off at Starbucks to pick up a Latte. First thing they do (after drinking their Latte) when they get in is chat about the horrendous traffic outside the school and suggesting at the next meeting they should advise people not to drive their children to school. They then go into a meeting, where they discuss the horrendous traffic outside school and suggest they write a paper about it, they order in some Starbucks and all agree how clever they all are. At 11:45 they leave the meeting and wander off down the road to the absolutely best little Michelin star boutique restaurant you could ever see that do the finest Menu du Jour Luncheon you could try. They arrive back at the office at 2:30pm after picking up a Latte at Starbucks before having another meeting to discuss how clever they are and how everyone should do what they say because they are right. Out of the office by 3pm to pick up Tarquin and Tamara from school before arriving home. What a hectic day, no wonder they think we should all work only 21hrs a week.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff