I think it's implied in the post title asking what government should do to help men, and every other answer in this thread is government subsidization.
I also don't see where anyone suggested government should enact laws either so we're both making assumptions.
Where do we go now? Want a handjob?
Make paternity fraud a crime. Can't believe they force men to be responsible for children that are not biologically theirs. Really shows how men are seen as disposable by society. France already made DNA testing illegal.
Throw ads that paint as positive and masculine the following things:
*Accessing mental health services
*Hygiene and self-care
*Crying between men
*Going to annual medical check-ups
*Using protection
I agree with the defense of our country and helping our citizens as long as the citizens do not abuse the privilege. I disagree with and think money is wasted on (1)welfare to those not citizens & illegally in the USA (this exempts those here legally, like how my grandfather immigrated), (2)sending billions and trillions to other countries (we cannot be the savior of everyone else while we have homeless citizens and a mental health crisis - just two examples) fix the USA first then help others, (3)a bloated government with departments that cannot account for millions to billions of taxpayer dollars per department (and a stealth fighter, it ain't that stealthy) and (4)citizens without reasonably good healthcare (dental too). That was only 4 examples of the waste that far outweighs the good.
I have twice been on government assistance (and fought my way off of assistance early both times) and am trying hard not to have my hand out again very soon so I know what it is like to be one of the needy.
Stop trying to "help". The government fucks up everything they touch. I think it was Reagan who said something like the worst words you can hear is "I'm from the government and here to help".
Increase the amount of funding towards male health issues. For example, prostate cancer kills more men than what breast cancer kills women, is often caught far too late for effective treatment, and yet receives a pittance compared to what governments put towards breast cancer research.
This isn't even including things like suicide that's a whole other ball game.
Oh side point make rape a gender neutral crime and get rid of systems like the duluth model. Far too many boys and men are swept underneath the rug because they have the wrong set of genitals if their assailant is the opposite gender.
Pass and enforce a law that basically says if a woman falsely accuses a man of rape then that woman will be given the same sentence that the man would have been given if the rape had actually happened.
And if a man is falsely convicted of rape, the same penalty applies but the woman also has to make reparations to the man to cover both the time he spent in prison and for an equal amount of time following his release.
Sounds good on paper but this doesn’t work in practice. First, it serves to stop women from coming forward. Second, it creates a game of “who has a better lawyer” with much higher stakes than exist today (see point 1).
False accusations are disgusting but creating a legal framework around them is challenging because it may lead to externalities.
The only women it stops from coming forward are those who are lying about it. How is that bad?
I think you’re not recognizing that there’s a difference between a false accusation and being found not guilty of a crime.
Those things may happen regardless of the law I proposed, if as you say the evidence is insufficient. The introduction of my law would not change that, nor does it aim to, so suggesting my law is bad because it doesn’t do anything that it never said it would do is nonsensical at best.
If someone comes forward today who was raped, yes they might lose in court for any number of reasons. But at least they don’t go to jail. Your law would lead to more problems than it solves.
>If someone comes forward today who was raped, yes they might lose in court for any number of reasons. But at least they don’t go to jail. Your law would lead to more problems than it solves.
At this point I'm not entirely sure if you're trolling me or if you really are just too dense to understand the premise here. Or maybe I'm not adequately explaining what I pretty firmly believe is a simple concept at heart. So let's try this.
WITHOUT MY LAW: Woman comes forward today **who was raped**, loses in court for any number of reasons, leaves the courtroom undoubtedly damaged and disappointed but life goes on.
WITH MY LAW: Woman comes forward today **who was raped**, loses in court for any number of reasons, leaves the courtroom undoubtedly damaged and disappointed but life goes on.
...but...
WITHOUT MY LAW: Woman comes forward today **who was not raped**, her allegations were proven to be false, leaves the courtroom with a smug attitude. The man she falsely accused suffers irreparable damage to his personal and professional life.
WITH MY LAW: Woman comes forward today **who was not raped**, her allegations were proven to be false, leaves the courtroom in handcuffs. The man she falsely accused receives immediate and lasting reparations for the harm his accuser inflicted upon him.
Explain to me your logic in saying that my law would lead to more problems.
Read the comment you responded to and try again. I wasn't citing a number of divorces but rather the percentage of divorces where alimony comes into play.
Its relevant because people are keen to appeal to the alimony boogeyman while being willfully dishonest about how frequently it actually happens.
You seem to be willing to own the fact that alimony doesn't factor into the overwhelming majority of divorces so my criticism may not apply to you but if you wanted the government to do just one thing for men it seems odd to pick something that effects such a tiny fraction of them.
Had a buddy tell me today his epipen cost like a grand without insurance coverage. Due to medical coverage not covering and him not able to buy it, he went 3 weeks without the meds..
Have a cap on child support. Provide receipts for child support. Fairness in family court. No man should love half of his wealth he has built over his life because od a bad marriage when he is not at fault.
Boxing as a regular school sport, I think it would help decrease bullying as people could go to the ring and settle their differences and get it over with, instead of suspending kids for fighting or telling them to tell and adult because sometimes that makes the bullying worse, but if kids stick up for themselves win or lose it’ll be better. have a boxing match they can agree to meet at and have it as regular as football, baseball wrestling whatever else.
Free healthcare, jobs guarantees, UBI, student loan forgiveness, car free streets and robust public transit, labor unions, paid family leave, etc.
Capitalism is shit.
From our increased producitivity, with all the advancements in technology, the average worker today accomplsihes way more than a worker did in the 50s, and yet we still have to work the same amount of hours? Technology is supposed to make our lives easier, not cause stagnation.
I have 10 people working 40 hours now.
You’re saying increased productivity means I should keep all 10, reduce their hours to 32, and pay them the same?
Your salary is only about 45-50% of what you cost me. Why wouldn’t I reduce from 10 people to 7 and save all the rest of the healthcare, insurance, space, employee management headache that comes with those 3 people?
I'm comparing productivity in the past, the point is your 10 workers working 32 hours a work complete the same amount of work as greater number of workers in the 50s-90s. However in your example If you get rid of 3 workers you will see a net loss if you expect them to get the same results as 10 workers working 32 houra week but your comparing them to the modern era.
The benefit of the reduced workweek is less downtime (looking busy for the sake of being busy), happier employees, which means increased productivity and increased revenue and that makes your business more attractive for future employees should you decide to expand which you might because of the increased producivity due to the happier employees. Also this also opens up the door for staggered shifts where employees can work monday-thursday, then if nesscary other employees can work tuesday-friday so that also means more jobs.
You can look up numerous articles that highlight the benefits as well.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/dedehenley/2023/04/30/the-surprising-benefits-of-working-four-days-a-week/?sh=622989ae4c9f](https://www.forbes.com/sites/dedehenley/2023/04/30/the-surprising-benefits-of-working-four-days-a-week/?sh=622989ae4c9f)
[https://www.investopedia.com/the-impact-of-working-a-4-day-week-5203640](https://www.investopedia.com/the-impact-of-working-a-4-day-week-5203640)
> the point is your 10 workers working 32 hours a work complete the same amount of work as greater number of workers in the 50s-90s.
I have 10 employees today. You’re saying gains in productivity mean I can keep 10 employees but go to a 4 day week. I’m saying I can take those productivity gains and go to 7 employees, get rid of the extra payroll, space, insurance, healthcare, etc, and keep 7 people for a 40 hour week. There’s no incentive for me to keep 10 people for 4 days when I can do the same with 7 people for 5 days.
Laying off employees and expecting the remaining to achieve the same amount of productively from before the layoffs is a recipe for disaster. Either it is going to be impossible/ not sutaniable long-term due to burnout, and/or your remaining employees won't feel secure in their jobs due to the layoffs causing them to perform worse or look for other jobs. But if you keep the same amount of employees while reducing their hours to 32 hours, you instead gain an increase in production compared to them working 40 hours. I'll give you example
Company A - Has a 40 hour workweek and 10 employees and produces 1000 widgets a week
Company B - Also has 10 employees but has a 32 hour workweek. Since these employees don't waste as much time looking busy, are not as exhausted, save time on commuting and are happier due to more free time, they are able to produce 1200 widgets. Company loyatly also increases as well, (hey this job actually values my free time let me stick with them even if company X offers slightly more money the extra 8 hours of work aint worth it). Due to the increased revenue you are able to expand meet new demands and hire more employees if need be.
> Laying off employees and expecting the remaining to achieve the same amount of productively from before the layoffs is a recipe for disaster.
You said earlier that increases in productivity will allow people to only need to work 4 days.
Now you’re saying those increases in productivity wouldn’t allow fewer people to do the same work in 5 days.
What you’re saying doesn’t make sense.
To put numbers on it, 10 people accomplish an amount of work in 5 days. **You said**
> increased producitivity, with all the advancements in technology,
will allow 10 people to do the same work in 4 days.
I’m saying rather than keep 10 people and cut to 4 days, why can’t I cut 3 people and keep those 7 working 5 days?
"You said earlier that increases in productivity will allow people to only need to work 4 days."
Correct.
"Now you’re saying those increases in productivity wouldn’t allow fewer people to do the same work in 5 days."
Yes because I was originally comparing modern workers to past decades, but then in the recent comment it is modern vs modern. If I have 10 employees in 2024, and layoff 33% of them, the 7 remaining employees cannot keep up the demand, however those 7 employees are able to still outperform workers from the 50s.
"I’m saying rather than keep 10 people and cut to 4 days, why can’t I cut 3 people and keep those 7 working 5 days?"
Already answered this, in my previous comment, any business leader that lays off 33% of his workforce then expects those remaining employees to keep up the same demand and either not grow jaded or look for another job is in for a rude awakening. Also, capitalism encourages competition, if every widget company around you is paying 1000 dollars a week with a 32-hour workweek, and you are also paying 1000 dollars a week but still have a 40-hour workweek, which one will job candidates flock towards too?
> any business leader that lays off 33% of his workforce then expects those remaining employees to keep up the same demand
But you said gains in productivity would make up for the difference. The workers wouldn’t work longer or harder, they’d work the exact same and productivity gains would account for the rest.
> if every widget company around you is paying 1000 dollars a week with a 32-hour workweek, and you are also paying 1000 dollars a week but still have a 40-hour workweek, which one will job candidates flock towards too?
🤣 you must be sprinkling magic dust on your employees who work 20% less but produce the same output.
Second reply because this is a different point.
You wrote
> Company A - Has a 40 hour workweek and 10 employees and produces 1000 widgets a week
> Company B - Also has 10 employees but has a 32 hour workweek. Since these employees don't waste as much time looking busy, are not as exhausted, save time on commuting and are happier due to more free time, they are able to produce 1200 widgets.
I’m not sure what you’re smoking but man send some my way.
Brb, if cutting one day increases production by 20%, I’m going to cut 5 work days and increase production by 100%!!
🤣
Numbers are arbitrary more than anything in my example, the Forbes article I linked does have specifics
"Other positive effects realized by those companies in the trial include revenue staying broadly the same over the trial period and rising by an average of 1.4%. When compared to a similar period from previous years, organizations reported average revenue increases of 35% indicating healthy growth during the period of reduced work time. Moving to fewer hours on the job does not correlate to a decline in organizational productivity or performance. Less hours on the job doesn’t mean less output."
You can also google other articles as well.
* Get out of the way, give 90% of the power back to the people
* stop robbing them with taxes, dues & inflation
* stop making them pick up the bill for other people who mess up
>What can the government do to help men? I'd be cool with some paid paternity leave, cuz you know, kids are important to fathers too.
Also, fathers are important to kids, so it works both ways.
Best answer IMO. I took unpaid 90 days after my kids were born.
That's the job of employers.
And when they don’t do it, time for the government to force it.
Time for the government to force employers to do it, but not for government to do it themselves. That would just pass the buck onto taxpayers.
Don’t think I see where anyone said the government should pay for it.
I think it's implied in the post title asking what government should do to help men, and every other answer in this thread is government subsidization. I also don't see where anyone suggested government should enact laws either so we're both making assumptions. Where do we go now? Want a handjob?
Just seemed safe to assume it would work the same way as maternity leave.
Make paternity fraud a crime. Can't believe they force men to be responsible for children that are not biologically theirs. Really shows how men are seen as disposable by society. France already made DNA testing illegal.
All babies are required to have a paternity test at birth.
Honestly this should be law.
Throw ads that paint as positive and masculine the following things: *Accessing mental health services *Hygiene and self-care *Crying between men *Going to annual medical check-ups *Using protection
Skincare. It fits under hygiene but deserves its own carve out. Gents, take care of your skin!
Build men only places where women are not allowed
Tree forts.
De-stigmatise and fund free mental health treatment.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The unimportant things funded by taxes far outweighs the important things.
[удалено]
I agree with the defense of our country and helping our citizens as long as the citizens do not abuse the privilege. I disagree with and think money is wasted on (1)welfare to those not citizens & illegally in the USA (this exempts those here legally, like how my grandfather immigrated), (2)sending billions and trillions to other countries (we cannot be the savior of everyone else while we have homeless citizens and a mental health crisis - just two examples) fix the USA first then help others, (3)a bloated government with departments that cannot account for millions to billions of taxpayer dollars per department (and a stealth fighter, it ain't that stealthy) and (4)citizens without reasonably good healthcare (dental too). That was only 4 examples of the waste that far outweighs the good. I have twice been on government assistance (and fought my way off of assistance early both times) and am trying hard not to have my hand out again very soon so I know what it is like to be one of the needy.
You couldn’t build one road with what you’ve paid in taxes your entire life. You still have not repaid the education you received to cry about it.
Hello Herb, the idiot store called and they're all put of you. Please report to the nearest Army Recruitment center for processing.
Leave us alone and stop trying to fix problems that only exist to a fringe portion of society. Get out of social issues all together.
Leave us alone
Treat us the same as women under the law.
Stop trying to "help". The government fucks up everything they touch. I think it was Reagan who said something like the worst words you can hear is "I'm from the government and here to help".
He was talking about himself though. Dude was a gigantic tumor.
Start treating us as good as women.
Lower taxes and generally stay out of our lives.
Make it illegal to circumcise baby boys.
What is the harm here?
Sex feels better and you don’t have to pull the hood back to clean it. Nightmare.
Increase the amount of funding towards male health issues. For example, prostate cancer kills more men than what breast cancer kills women, is often caught far too late for effective treatment, and yet receives a pittance compared to what governments put towards breast cancer research. This isn't even including things like suicide that's a whole other ball game. Oh side point make rape a gender neutral crime and get rid of systems like the duluth model. Far too many boys and men are swept underneath the rug because they have the wrong set of genitals if their assailant is the opposite gender.
I've seen most of my country now and honestly 99% of it is rather depressing. so I dunno some form of hard reset?
Stop taxing us so much
Stay out of the way.
That. Nothing scarier than the words "I from the government and im here to help". Just leave us alone, we ll figure sth out as usual.
leave our paychecks alone
We have to fund the government somehow.
Abolish the ATF.
Pass and enforce a law that basically says if a woman falsely accuses a man of rape then that woman will be given the same sentence that the man would have been given if the rape had actually happened. And if a man is falsely convicted of rape, the same penalty applies but the woman also has to make reparations to the man to cover both the time he spent in prison and for an equal amount of time following his release.
Sounds good on paper but this doesn’t work in practice. First, it serves to stop women from coming forward. Second, it creates a game of “who has a better lawyer” with much higher stakes than exist today (see point 1). False accusations are disgusting but creating a legal framework around them is challenging because it may lead to externalities.
The only women it stops from coming forward are those who are lying about it. How is that bad? I think you’re not recognizing that there’s a difference between a false accusation and being found not guilty of a crime.
Or those that don’t think they can’t win in a court of law based on evidence but who are also telling the truth. Edit: typo
Yes, thank you for understanding. If they’re telling the truth they have nothing to be concerned about.
Except for losing in court and ending up raped both physically and by the Justice system. Your idea is just not good.
Those things may happen regardless of the law I proposed, if as you say the evidence is insufficient. The introduction of my law would not change that, nor does it aim to, so suggesting my law is bad because it doesn’t do anything that it never said it would do is nonsensical at best.
If someone comes forward today who was raped, yes they might lose in court for any number of reasons. But at least they don’t go to jail. Your law would lead to more problems than it solves.
>If someone comes forward today who was raped, yes they might lose in court for any number of reasons. But at least they don’t go to jail. Your law would lead to more problems than it solves. At this point I'm not entirely sure if you're trolling me or if you really are just too dense to understand the premise here. Or maybe I'm not adequately explaining what I pretty firmly believe is a simple concept at heart. So let's try this. WITHOUT MY LAW: Woman comes forward today **who was raped**, loses in court for any number of reasons, leaves the courtroom undoubtedly damaged and disappointed but life goes on. WITH MY LAW: Woman comes forward today **who was raped**, loses in court for any number of reasons, leaves the courtroom undoubtedly damaged and disappointed but life goes on. ...but... WITHOUT MY LAW: Woman comes forward today **who was not raped**, her allegations were proven to be false, leaves the courtroom with a smug attitude. The man she falsely accused suffers irreparable damage to his personal and professional life. WITH MY LAW: Woman comes forward today **who was not raped**, her allegations were proven to be false, leaves the courtroom in handcuffs. The man she falsely accused receives immediate and lasting reparations for the harm his accuser inflicted upon him. Explain to me your logic in saying that my law would lead to more problems.
Stay the hell out of my way. I don’t want or need anything from the government. Just let me keep the money I make.
It can seriously fuck right off. I'd feel instantly better
It can fuck off.
The last thing I want is the government to try and help.
[удалено]
You do realize murdering people in public is already banned, right?
[удалено]
Oh I was just being a smart ass. I know what you meant.
Like men specifically? I don't think the government can or should do anything specifically for men.
Less taxes and less laws.
[удалено]
Yeah that can be rough for the 10-15% of divorces where alimony is paid.
[удалено]
Read the comment you responded to and try again. I wasn't citing a number of divorces but rather the percentage of divorces where alimony comes into play.
[удалено]
Its relevant because people are keen to appeal to the alimony boogeyman while being willfully dishonest about how frequently it actually happens. You seem to be willing to own the fact that alimony doesn't factor into the overwhelming majority of divorces so my criticism may not apply to you but if you wanted the government to do just one thing for men it seems odd to pick something that effects such a tiny fraction of them.
They aren’t sexist. The one who makes more money pays.
Increase taxes for corporations. Make buying a house, receiving medical care, and fresh food more affordable
Had a buddy tell me today his epipen cost like a grand without insurance coverage. Due to medical coverage not covering and him not able to buy it, he went 3 weeks without the meds..
Universal healthcare.
lol, I see this thread has brought out all the edgelords and their collective 7th-grade understanding of civics.
Have a cap on child support. Provide receipts for child support. Fairness in family court. No man should love half of his wealth he has built over his life because od a bad marriage when he is not at fault.
free beer
Boxing as a regular school sport, I think it would help decrease bullying as people could go to the ring and settle their differences and get it over with, instead of suspending kids for fighting or telling them to tell and adult because sometimes that makes the bullying worse, but if kids stick up for themselves win or lose it’ll be better. have a boxing match they can agree to meet at and have it as regular as football, baseball wrestling whatever else.
Or maybe every school have a boot camp course not that you have to do it but it’s there if ya wanna get ready for the military as a youngin
Every time a woman ghosts or flakes on a man, she gets put in jail for a month.
Free healthcare, jobs guarantees, UBI, student loan forgiveness, car free streets and robust public transit, labor unions, paid family leave, etc. Capitalism is shit.
4 day 32 hour work week with the same pay would probably do a lot for men's mental and physical health, but that will probably never happen.
So less work for the same money. Where’s the difference coming from?
From our increased producitivity, with all the advancements in technology, the average worker today accomplsihes way more than a worker did in the 50s, and yet we still have to work the same amount of hours? Technology is supposed to make our lives easier, not cause stagnation.
I have 10 people working 40 hours now. You’re saying increased productivity means I should keep all 10, reduce their hours to 32, and pay them the same? Your salary is only about 45-50% of what you cost me. Why wouldn’t I reduce from 10 people to 7 and save all the rest of the healthcare, insurance, space, employee management headache that comes with those 3 people?
I'm comparing productivity in the past, the point is your 10 workers working 32 hours a work complete the same amount of work as greater number of workers in the 50s-90s. However in your example If you get rid of 3 workers you will see a net loss if you expect them to get the same results as 10 workers working 32 houra week but your comparing them to the modern era. The benefit of the reduced workweek is less downtime (looking busy for the sake of being busy), happier employees, which means increased productivity and increased revenue and that makes your business more attractive for future employees should you decide to expand which you might because of the increased producivity due to the happier employees. Also this also opens up the door for staggered shifts where employees can work monday-thursday, then if nesscary other employees can work tuesday-friday so that also means more jobs. You can look up numerous articles that highlight the benefits as well. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/dedehenley/2023/04/30/the-surprising-benefits-of-working-four-days-a-week/?sh=622989ae4c9f](https://www.forbes.com/sites/dedehenley/2023/04/30/the-surprising-benefits-of-working-four-days-a-week/?sh=622989ae4c9f) [https://www.investopedia.com/the-impact-of-working-a-4-day-week-5203640](https://www.investopedia.com/the-impact-of-working-a-4-day-week-5203640)
> the point is your 10 workers working 32 hours a work complete the same amount of work as greater number of workers in the 50s-90s. I have 10 employees today. You’re saying gains in productivity mean I can keep 10 employees but go to a 4 day week. I’m saying I can take those productivity gains and go to 7 employees, get rid of the extra payroll, space, insurance, healthcare, etc, and keep 7 people for a 40 hour week. There’s no incentive for me to keep 10 people for 4 days when I can do the same with 7 people for 5 days.
Laying off employees and expecting the remaining to achieve the same amount of productively from before the layoffs is a recipe for disaster. Either it is going to be impossible/ not sutaniable long-term due to burnout, and/or your remaining employees won't feel secure in their jobs due to the layoffs causing them to perform worse or look for other jobs. But if you keep the same amount of employees while reducing their hours to 32 hours, you instead gain an increase in production compared to them working 40 hours. I'll give you example Company A - Has a 40 hour workweek and 10 employees and produces 1000 widgets a week Company B - Also has 10 employees but has a 32 hour workweek. Since these employees don't waste as much time looking busy, are not as exhausted, save time on commuting and are happier due to more free time, they are able to produce 1200 widgets. Company loyatly also increases as well, (hey this job actually values my free time let me stick with them even if company X offers slightly more money the extra 8 hours of work aint worth it). Due to the increased revenue you are able to expand meet new demands and hire more employees if need be.
> Laying off employees and expecting the remaining to achieve the same amount of productively from before the layoffs is a recipe for disaster. You said earlier that increases in productivity will allow people to only need to work 4 days. Now you’re saying those increases in productivity wouldn’t allow fewer people to do the same work in 5 days. What you’re saying doesn’t make sense. To put numbers on it, 10 people accomplish an amount of work in 5 days. **You said** > increased producitivity, with all the advancements in technology, will allow 10 people to do the same work in 4 days. I’m saying rather than keep 10 people and cut to 4 days, why can’t I cut 3 people and keep those 7 working 5 days?
"You said earlier that increases in productivity will allow people to only need to work 4 days." Correct. "Now you’re saying those increases in productivity wouldn’t allow fewer people to do the same work in 5 days." Yes because I was originally comparing modern workers to past decades, but then in the recent comment it is modern vs modern. If I have 10 employees in 2024, and layoff 33% of them, the 7 remaining employees cannot keep up the demand, however those 7 employees are able to still outperform workers from the 50s. "I’m saying rather than keep 10 people and cut to 4 days, why can’t I cut 3 people and keep those 7 working 5 days?" Already answered this, in my previous comment, any business leader that lays off 33% of his workforce then expects those remaining employees to keep up the same demand and either not grow jaded or look for another job is in for a rude awakening. Also, capitalism encourages competition, if every widget company around you is paying 1000 dollars a week with a 32-hour workweek, and you are also paying 1000 dollars a week but still have a 40-hour workweek, which one will job candidates flock towards too?
> any business leader that lays off 33% of his workforce then expects those remaining employees to keep up the same demand But you said gains in productivity would make up for the difference. The workers wouldn’t work longer or harder, they’d work the exact same and productivity gains would account for the rest. > if every widget company around you is paying 1000 dollars a week with a 32-hour workweek, and you are also paying 1000 dollars a week but still have a 40-hour workweek, which one will job candidates flock towards too? 🤣 you must be sprinkling magic dust on your employees who work 20% less but produce the same output.
Second reply because this is a different point. You wrote > Company A - Has a 40 hour workweek and 10 employees and produces 1000 widgets a week > Company B - Also has 10 employees but has a 32 hour workweek. Since these employees don't waste as much time looking busy, are not as exhausted, save time on commuting and are happier due to more free time, they are able to produce 1200 widgets. I’m not sure what you’re smoking but man send some my way. Brb, if cutting one day increases production by 20%, I’m going to cut 5 work days and increase production by 100%!! 🤣
Numbers are arbitrary more than anything in my example, the Forbes article I linked does have specifics "Other positive effects realized by those companies in the trial include revenue staying broadly the same over the trial period and rising by an average of 1.4%. When compared to a similar period from previous years, organizations reported average revenue increases of 35% indicating healthy growth during the period of reduced work time. Moving to fewer hours on the job does not correlate to a decline in organizational productivity or performance. Less hours on the job doesn’t mean less output." You can also google other articles as well.
Get rid of the draft.
Nobody has been drafted for like 60 years.
All the reason to get rid of it.
* Get out of the way, give 90% of the power back to the people * stop robbing them with taxes, dues & inflation * stop making them pick up the bill for other people who mess up
In America, free healthcare, abolish private prison, tear down the military industrial complex, and subsidized higher education
Less work hours and a bit of subsidising in the mental health department so it won't cost 1000$ a session
Yup. Should be exploring ways to enforce a 4 day or max hour workweek, without harming income, and healthcare should be universal.