back
6 comments
I think that while labor regulations like this can sometimes create little bubbles of prosperity for a middle and working class, they will inevitably pop. It's just too weak a lever with which to correct the disparity in power between individual workers and their employers, increasingly giant monopolies or ostensibly separate collectives of companies orchestrated by vast networks of capital and obsessed with extractive efficiency

If we can't act to break up companies and diminish their power, we should act directly to remove the threats of destitution that form the alternative in a negotiation where workers are offered a bad deal, create a strong social safety net, including a basic income. These well-resourced actors have been figuring out how to work around the fiddly little rules about how their arrangements with employees can work for decades. A salaried employee won't work 32 hours any more than they currently work 40, workers will continue to be misclassified as contractors, etc

Isn't this effectively - more or less - giving everyone a 20% pay increase? At the very least, it's increasing days off from two to three, a 50% increase. More time off means more time to spend, usually, yes?

Ultimately, I'm asking, won't this increase demand, at least for certain goods/services? And that's going to make prices higher, correct? Won't it be a "double whammy" for goods/services that increase in demand but production falls due to less hours being worked? Or if the company hires more bodies, doesn't that drive up costs?

The issue here seems to be, this is trying to put a bandaid on a symptom. It's not going to fix housing supply. It's not going to fix the monetary and fiscal policy (that devalues worker's pay / savings).

How is this going to be any different from other gov manipulations (e.g., home loans, student loans)?

Seems like grandstanding. Why go nationwide? Why not try it at the state level (like Sanders’ home of Vermont), and see how it goes?
I don't dislike Bernie per se. But his shtick seems to be, "Government is the problem...the answer is more government." I have a difficult time following that line of reasoning.
Iggy Pop once said that the week contains two days for bingeing, two days for recovery, and three days for productive purposes.
It would have a better chance of passing if it offered some financial benefit to employers. Maybe a reduction in payroll taxes?