work less ...are you working to much

ok are you working to much and what can you do about it , do we has a society work to much or for two many hours .
The more you spend the more hours you need to work to pay for that spending , so what can people do to limit their spending .
do you see yourself ending up working all the time in the future , would you move to another country for more free time ?

http://www.worklessparty.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

 

i work too much, still dont make enough money and then maintain my right to be young and foolish and do things i want to do regardless will work to pay back my bank balance when ebay picks up in summer

 

40 hours a week seems a fair trade

 

thoreau worked I think 2 hours a day but he did live a very simple lifestyle , he thought anyone could support themselves on 40 days a year as a day labourer .

and that earning a living was more of a pastime than a occupation 2 hours a day is a 14 hour week .

isnt it strange that we have all this automation and people are still working 40 hour weeks

 

Currently just a few voluntary hours.... So, I'm not working very ard at all

 

depends on what lifestyle you choose though jonny. if you go for a self sustainable option then the work you undertake is different. also depends on occupation. like DJs, performers etc all earn a much higher rate in an overall fee, rather than an hourly rate. If you work for an hourly rate then you'll needta work more hours as the hourly rate doesnt tend to be too high. Salary jobs come with set hour contracts. So its all dependant on your profession. At the end of the day, we all need to pay bills if we live in a property and as such need to work as many hours as required in order to do the necessary and a little more to enjoy our hobbies.

 

not working at the mo, just lazing. I really need to get back into work. I just can't decide what to do...go back to Prague...go to London...go to Brazil? Tis a toughie!

 

heh i wish that was my decision nayhem

 

I think the working week should be reduced so that people can spend more time with their families and not working themselves to death. In turn, this will mean that more people will be employed to fill the gap, thus reducing unemployment. And, under Keynesianism, we might recognise that full employment drives up wages, thus a reduction in the working week should not mean a reduction in pay. Sounds like a tight little theory to me....

 

sal for prime minister

 

It sounds good to me, too, but it'd never work in modern England. We owe too much money, and there are too many spunkers in the benefits system toaallow the Ordinary Working Man any kind of a lean-up. One of the main reasons I gave up work was because I refuse to feed the lazy idlers, the pregnant teens, and the dole bludgers.

Personally, I think it things get much worse here economically, we're going to find ourselves back on 3-day-weeks etc before long...

 

Reducing the working week would be a way to encourage more people into work, as would raising the minimum wage. There is a tiny minority who are happy to be economically inactive for most of their lives. However, given the choice, studies have shown that most people living on benefits and capable of work would take a job....

 

Yes, maybe so, but that wouldn't alter the fact that we'd be killing poverty with one hand, and causing more with the other; people like my Father suffered so bad economically in Heath's 1970s, they had to quit London, and move here, where the cost of living and wages were more in line.

I can envisage overflowing garbage, power blackouts, large-scale redundancies etc all over again.

 

Oh I'm not suggesting we reduce the working week in terms of having a three day week. I'm suggesting the individual working week is reduced, that everyone take fewer hours. The national working week would remain the same, it would just take in more people to fill the positions....

 

Give it a few years, and we'll all be having a siesta anyway, like the French and Spanish, so the working day may actually get longer...

 

Let's not beat up those on benefits. One thing is for sure income support doesn't provide enough money to see you through the week. I sympathize with the notion of why they shouldn't get a penny if they do nothing for it but when low income jobs are of less value than being on benefits only those with wide open eyes wouldn't dream of working,(that's why I'm short sighted and squint a lot). I don't have stats or figues to back this up but I'm sure more is paid out in subsidies to our landowners and power brokers than is paid out in certain benefits like income support. Let's not argue for the return of the poor law rate and the workhouse system, because as far as I'm concerned we are not far from such events.

After all as we were told unemployment is a necessity to keep those in work keen, or fearfull. Full employment and the strengthening of the unions mean that the plebs begin to develop a voice and answer back, we cant have that!!!

 

You're quite right, I agree

 

Let's be clear here; I'm not beating up those n benefits that deserve them - I am one of those people! However, why is it fair that people like myself should struggle to live on a paltry sum, on account of the sheer number of people in the system, knowing full well that a large percentage of them have no right to be there, claiming a single red cent?

As for low paid jobs being less lucrative than claiming benefits; I hear this line of argument a lot, and it is almost always rubbish. I have done very low paid jopbs, and I've always still been better off than I'd be on benefits. It's just an excuse for laziness from most people.

The only way to be richer on benefits than in work is if you have a rake of kids and are claiming for all of them, too; I'm sure I don't have to tell you just how many idle tarts get themselves pregnant on purpose in order to be given a free house, a stack of benefits (little of which actually gets spent on the kids), and a fat arse which they then remain sat on for evermore?

These are the people I have a problem with, and they are the ones that should be being forced back to work, not those on incapacity.

 

Two decades ago the talk was with all the new advancements in technology and time saving machinery that the half week employment was a sure thing. Now that we are here the UK work the longest hours and have the highets stress levels in europe, how's that happened? Also the working week one time was commonly 35 hours, now we talk of 40 hours in the same tone.

 

The trouble is, it's not a large percentage, it's a small percentage. It's a sort of a myth that has arisen during the Thatcher-Regan era, during which time idea that there is a culture of dependecy became fashionable. The foremost proponent of this idea was American author Charles Murray. Murray contends that there is a growing section of young, healthy males of working age who are voluntarily opting out of finding work. Murray argues that attitudes to work have changed from as little as a generation ago. Where in the past, working class men might have considered it humiliating to rely on benefits and seen their job as a source of pride, today’s underclass youths have no such qualms. Such attitudes can lead to the degradation of communities. Men who do not work are unable to support families and are therefore less likely to marry, feeding the rise in illegitimacy. And in the absence of playing the role of breadwinner, men turn to violent crime as an alternate means to prove their masculinity.


However, and this is a big however, Murray's argument is baseless. Murray consistently bases his hypothesis on sketchy evidence, personal experience and loose anecdotes. For example, to ‘prove’ his theory that attempts to change attitudes to work by providing employment will have no effect on economic inactivity, he suggests that the Government or a private foundation should conduct an experiment by offering a homeless person a skilled job with training and predicts that if you “measure the results after 2 years against the experience of similar youths who received no such help… you, too, will find ‘no effect’”. This is not sociology, it's pseudo-sociology. A study conducted by Heath found that 86% of those Murray considered to be in the underclass reported that they would like to find paid employment. Yes, you will always have some people who would rather accept hand outs than work, but this is a pretty small percentage. Moreover, policies such as the New Deal, which encourage people back into work and require them do take training and do voluntary schemes in return for benefits will further reduce the percentage of unemployed who are able to avoid work....