Day 92: Korea, South

[John Dibble]

It was a nice country back in . . . . ummmm, I guess it was 1985 when I was there last.  My favorite memory was staying in Seoul, looking out my window, and watching the S. Korean army doing morning exercises on the rooftops next door to my hotel room.  It was very unique.   

I'm sure it was a lot better than, MODU - it was poorer, and had a more open and tolerated sex industry.  Nowadays it really isn't my kind of place - ridiculously prosperous and fairly prudish.

Yeah, I know . . . people working, making money, living longer . . . it just sucks. 

They work a ridiculous amount here.. similar to the US.  When will people stop being stupid and demand a 30 hour work week?

When employers are willing to pay them for 40 hours of work only doing 30, of course. But seeing as that won't ever happen, you might want to come up with a better plan.

[John Dibble]

It was a nice country back in . . . . ummmm, I guess it was 1985 when I was there last.  My favorite memory was staying in Seoul, looking out my window, and watching the S. Korean army doing morning exercises on the rooftops next door to my hotel room.  It was very unique.   

I'm sure it was a lot better than, MODU - it was poorer, and had a more open and tolerated sex industry.  Nowadays it really isn't my kind of place - ridiculously prosperous and fairly prudish.

Yeah, I know . . . people working, making money, living longer . . . it just sucks. 

They work a ridiculous amount here.. similar to the US.  When will people stop being stupid and demand a 30 hour work week?

When employers are willing to pay them for 40 hours of work only doing 30, of course. But seeing as that won't ever happen, you might want to come up with a better plan.

How do you suppose, Dibble, you simpleton, that we ever got to 40 hours a week instead of some other figure, such as all day every day?  The answer is political action.

Does that solve the problem of employers being unwilling to pay for 40 hours worth of work for only 30? No.

[John Dibble]

Apparently the problem of them not being willing to pay for 80 hours of work for only 40 was solved sometime in the early 20th century.  Naturally employers were just as reluctant then to offer any kind of increased pay or better working conditions, and only did so when they were forced to.

Your economic views are laughable, Dibble. 

Then please explain it to me, oh wise and all knowing one, where exactly the money will come from to pay for the 10 hours of lost productivity per worker every week in order to pay them for those 10 hours of non-work. What magical source that won't destroy profits or cause job losses will generate this money?

[John Dibble]

Apparently the problem of them not being willing to pay for 80 hours of work for only 40 was solved sometime in the early 20th century.  Naturally employers were just as reluctant then to offer any kind of increased pay or better working conditions, and only did so when they were forced to.

Your economic views are laughable, Dibble. 

Then please explain it to me, oh wise and all knowing one, where exactly the money will come from to pay for the 10 hours of lost productivity per worker every week in order to pay them for those 10 hours of non-work. What magical source that won't destroy profits or cause job losses will generate this money?

I don't see why I should bother, since we have the excellent historical example of the reduction of the work week to fourty hours, from which only benefits flowed.

You are vastly oversimplifying things. There were other factors that brought about the higher pay per hour - for instance newly invented machinery allowed higher productivity per hour, but this machinery took more training so wages were made higher to keep good workers from leaving since it took time and resources to train new ones. However in most of today's industries we already have machines and it would be more difficult to bridge the gap in productivity vs time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The owner wants profits - even you understand this. If you can't increase productivity in 30 hours to the level it was at in 40, then you aren't producing as much thus giving you less to sell, thus decreasing profit. Or you could hire more workers, but since their wages are again at the rate of 40 hours of work for only 30 hours of productivity the cost is still prohibitive and will cut into profits. The owner will thusly try to find a way to restore profits. The owner can't simply sell goods at the same rate anymore: either costs will have to be cut or prices will have to rise. Cost cutting would mean firing workers, in which case your 30 hour week doesn't help the fired workers. Prices rising would mean higher prices for the consumers - primarily the workers. Again, this is harmful to them.

Your opinion on this issue is based on your own sloth, not any serious understanding of economic consequences.

[John Dibble]

That is ridiculous, Dibble.  You right-wingers are always trumpeting the 'high productivity gains' of the last 10 years or so, and the generally high gains under capitalism.  Of course reducing the work week and increasing pay through political action are simply the only way to distribute a little of these gains down to the servile classes.

The productivity gains were largely due to the mass introduction of computers into the workplace. Since it's pretty much already done, you'd need something else to increase that productivity - unless you can come up with that something, your point doesn't hold much weight. There's only so much the computers can do without humans taking time to do things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It doesn't change the fact that you are increasing wages and prices while more than likely decreasing productivity levels which could make there be shortages. You're just equally screwing over everyone. Your plan will also likely increase outsourcing costing the people in this country even more - why bother hiring a lazy American worker to program your software for 30 hours a week at 40 hours pay(thus slowing the development process) when you can hire some guy from India to work 40-60 hours a week, or even more, for half that?
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah your usual lazy answer to everything - steal as much as you can. Why bother working when you can live off the dole, right? Of course, it'll only be a matter of time before the rich leave for greener pastures and you've got no teat to leech off of.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Try for once using your brain to think instead of your penis. You're an arrogant little sh*t, you know that? Of course not - arrogant blowhards like you don't even consider the possibility that they're wrong.


EDIT - I'm moving this discussion to it's own thread since we're getting off topic. Look in the political debate forum for it in a bit.