if having a MAXIMUM of 30 work hours would "solve" unemployment ?

[cumfy]

After all employers would have to find the labour hours from somewhere or find efficiencies ?

I do't know anyone that HAS to work over 30 hours a week who has 2 cars, or drives a 4x4.

The ones that work 40+ hours a week need that income just to have ONE roof over their head, and pay their regular household bills.

Gemsy
Why should someone who works their butt of to provide for themselves/their family have to give their hours and income to someone else ?

Fine, but I assume you're not complaining about unemployment ... are you ?

This debate always swing to "greedy bankers" in the current climate.

And Melvyn sounds as if he wants to take them on when he gets the job/ Baraque will rejoice, no doubt.

I think greed is indemic at the top salary ranges in GB

Can anything be done about it? cheersd "Gabby"

who said we're talking about top salary ranges??

Sardine
Surely the real issue here is people not being paid for the work that they're doing?

Yes, precisely.

There seems to be enough work available.
Perhaps the government should look more closely at enforcing employment law and levelling the playing field regarding the fixed costs per employee eg national insurance based on hours worked or somesuch.

How would this ever work?

A1980 has covered a lot of the points about the legal profession, but a couple more from me.

Legal aid firms are not paid by the hour. They get a standard fee per case. Once the money runs out, any extra work is effectively pro bono.

I could spend 30 hours a week in court, not counting travel time and preparation. Add say two hours per day to cover those things. So should I be doing all my non court work for free? My firm already does quite enough unpaid work thank you very much.

Isn't it interesting to think about it in theory though? Think about how our society could be if there was some restructuring.

Personally I think this capitalism malarkey has a lot of downsides.

It can work in some societies, but our own society is way too competitive and this competitiveness has been nurtured since 1950s - everyone wants to keep up with the Jones's, and that culture won't change overnight. We might give up the second car and holiday in return for shorter working week, but the reality of a 30 hour week is that you give up the first car (and the semi, the new school uniform each year, etc etc). Most of us live a life that our grandparents could only dream of, would we be willing to give that up and live the lives they once had? No.

Saying that, the British obsession with long hours is pretty extreme, and there is plenty of middle ground that I think should be looked at.

am intrigued by the way at the comment that wages will increase because of "price elasticity of demand". Er No. I totally understand price elasticity of demand but what will happen in effect is a redistribution effect, the demand for qualified doctors increases , but the demand for childcare/manufactured goods/new houses. etc decreases. The net effect on the economy will be that productivity will drop in the short term and there will I think (but have only thought this through for 5 mins) be a detrimental effect on the £ and therefore relative average standard of living. Long-term would be dependent on what other nations did, and if you remain isolated in policy (as France/Netherlands etc are) then GDP is threatened as companies move manufacturing capacity to more 'lax' regimes (Eastern Europe, Asia) where they have capacity to upscale/downscale with less legislative interference..

Sardine...clearly you are right. At the moment our system has many downsides.

Dave Cameron spoke cliches in Cardiff yesterday.

Chasing headlines ...like an apostle of Master Tony....And who rates Obsborne?

the sunshine is welcome. cheers "Gabby"

irregularegular

The thing is, there just isn't a fixed amount of work/jobs to be done.

Yes to an extent. But there clearly is a very large proportion of essential and semi-essential work.

Putting artificially low limits on the amount people are allowed to work would almost certainly reduce efficiency

The whole point is to increase efficiency, as well as have lower unemployment!
I think it's fairly well recognised that worker efficiency is optimal at around 29hrs per week.
[Ref needed I know].

Er No. I totally understand price elasticity of demand but what will happen in effect is a redistribution effect

Interesting point.

ie PEOD is low for high skills, and high for low skills.
Makes sense.
But in a free market wouldn't that attract people to train in high skilled jobs ?

BTW higher up, I recognised that essential service such as medics would be exempt in principle from such a scheme.

KungFu
Legal aid firms are not paid by the hour. They get a standard fee per case. Once the money runs out, any extra work is effectively pro bono.

Sounds more like an indictment of legal aid, than an argument against a maximum hours rule.

You can't train in highly skilled jobs without the infrastructure being there. And that costs money. Then, when all these people have trained, PEOD means that their pay drops until you calibrate demand and supply, so again you are redistributing, not creating wealth (in fact the cost of training means you are reducing GDP)

Anyway, once they are trained, chances are they will up and emigrate to a country where they can work a 60 hr week and be paid twice as much (which is why so many graduates of the French 'Grand-Ecoles' emigrate to work)

@ Gabby.

Yes the sunshine is beautiful.

Squiffy

Precisely, it's redistribution.

But isn't the counterpoint to your analysis, that unemployment in the UK is largely created and sustained, however indirectly, by global labour market forces and freedom of movement ?

In France, the 35 hour week was supposed to solve unemployment...

Yes, UK unemployment is partly determined by global forces. Which is why your proposal won't work (and why it didn't work in France). The jobs market is global now so if you add employment restrictions and too much tax, the jobs move elsewhere. This is why in the early 80's we had a brain drain in UK, and why France currently has a brain drain. I spent 5 years working for a German Bank in London, and the largest single nationality on the dealing floor was, er, French.

I can't see how England could be better off if all the educated, ambitious, entrepreneurial people leave along with the businesses that rely on employing those people.

I would just move where I could work without restrcition. You'd have to impose this global limit worldwide to make it work ad it's against nature. We are competitive. We fight tooth and claw (some of us). Others sit at the bottom of piles waiting for hand outs. You'll never make all people the same unless they have identical genes and upbringings. It's one reason we've survived on the planet and trumphed over the Neanderthals. It's a wonderful element within men and women and we should praise not deride it. Obviously there are collective concerns too to look after others which are part of all of us.

However limiting the freedom of people within a capitalist society to work as they choose is never going to work. What would you do with the self employed?

We did try it in a sense. I remember in the 70s my father paid 65% income tax on modest NHS earnings and then an extra 15% investment income surcharge on buildilng society ineterst - top rate 80% and some people were on 99% top rate income tax and then they went abroad. It doesn't work. China failed until it embraces elements of capitalism. Cuba now lets you buy property.

As long as we look after the poor it doesn't matter if the rich earn a lot more. There is nothing wrong with relative rather than absolute poverty and indeed the poor do better when the rich are richer.

isnt as simplistic as feckless Vs motivated in life stakes and gains

things are not equal all arent born equal. In glasgow your postcode has direct correlation to your health,social and educational outcomes.imstitutionally reinforced by bad schools, poor housing

individual circs can change as result of illness (mental or physical) in child or adult.affecting social mobility, income,life chances. individuals whoi have had a menytal illness struggle to gain employment and are prejudiced against,compounding sterotypes and perpetrating poverty

30hr week isnt the answer.structural overhaul and widening oppurtunities is

we have an unven and divisive system which favours class and money - ime vast majority of folk dont chose a "handout" lifestyle

Yes, I know they don't. The internet does give some power and mixing with people of all classes and income levels helps (eg poorer children mentored by professionals etc). The thread the other day about what do you earn with some women on £250k is great because it shows women in poverty these things are possible. Ditto the rich learning about the poor.

Same even on diet. One reason i am virtually never ill is presumably becaiuse I don't drink or smoke and weigh 9 stone and don't eat any junk food ever. Anyone however poor could adopt those habits and might live as long as I will (... we now find I drop dead at 60 of course laughing as I type...)