Full time work to be re-defined as 30 hours a week

[EssentialFattyAcid]

OK not really....but would this not be a great idea?

Then there would be enough work for everybody who wanted to work,
income distribution would not be so extreme
parents could spend more time with their kids or dependent relatives
more people could become involved in voluntary work
this would help facilitate equality between the sexes

What would be the downside?

30 hours isn't enough to earn enough money to live on.

It wasn't that long ago that 45 hours a week was considered full time. Now it's 37.5 hours. How low do we want to go?

Well DP does 60 hour weeks, so 30 would be amazing.

The pay cut, less so

This might be good in some professions but could be difficult in others. I work half time in software development and its perfect for me. Also, apparently I'm nearly as productive as full time colleagues - I suppose my mind is working on problems in the background while I'm doing other stuff. I'd never want to work full time again - 30 hrpw would be the max I'd want to do.

no it wouldn't because there wouldn't be enough work that covered living for everyone who wanted to work!

People would be more likely to take second paid jobs than do volunteering

People are not managing on their 37.5 hours pay so how is reducing it going to help anyone?

Businesses would just use it as an excuse to get more out of employees for less pay. Anybody I know who PT 4 days a week ends up doing the a FT equivalent work load anyway.

yes lots of work places don't replace people who go PT with another PT they just expect everyone to do more work

that is what would happen if FT went down to 30hrs where I work, as it is they don't cover mat leave, they wouldn't hire more people they'ld just stretch everyone even more! and everyone would be poorer and more miserable!

The idea is that both parents would standardly work 30 hours.

If nobody worked more than this, housing for instance would cost less. It would close the gap between rich and poor. The rich would earn less as they could only be paid for 30 hours work and more people would be able to work in the relatively well paid jobs.

At the other end of the scale there would be relatively little unemployment so less poverty. More women could work without paying the price for working in "part time" jobs.

If fewer people drew JSA and more people became economically active then taxes could go down.

So as my DH is medically retired would I have to work 60 hours to make up the income short-fall

Oh hang on, I already do

Damn - s where is my extra money coming from if I cut my hours?

Your dh would get a pension in this alternative world, and you can work 30 hours but no more. Your costs however for housing etc would be less.

But I will have paid for my house by then.....the end is in sight (I hope apart from the need to re-borrow to put DD through college)

A pension? what's that then?

So if both DH and I are working 30 hours a week who will be looking after DD?

And how would reducing 'full time' reduce housing costs, if your mortgage is x, is the bank suddenly going to reduce it?

Katymac thanks to extra tax revenues from working people and less JSA & benefit payments, people retired early nmedical grounds could draw pensions.

Pogo your dd will be looked after by someone else for 3 days a week, like lots of kids already are whilst their parents work. Unless you chose or your dp chose not to work.

Housing costs would reduce for people in rented accommodation and for people buying houses. If you have already bought your house and have a mortgage then your mortgage would not go down, but it would be cheaper for you to buy a bigger place. the cost of living should go down more generally which would help you due to a closing of the gap between rich and poor.

Interestingly, so far it is only me who thinks this is a good idea!

I'm just failing to see how it would actually help anybody. In lots of households one person works more than the other, and their combined hours may well balance out to 30 hours each a week for paid work.

It would mean less in pension contributions, less money available for large purchases like a house or car (and yes, these may rectify themselves but it would take years!) It may also take away the option for one parent to stay at home while the other works.

Sorry, I don't like it.

By that I mean that I don't think that if all jobs were reduced to 30 hours, that it would create more jobs. It wouldn't.

"Interestingly, so far it is only me who thinks this is a good idea!"
employers would think it is a good idea - pay the same amt of people less for the same amt of work!
govt would think its a good idea - pretend to create more jobs by not actually creating a single extra job or any growth whatsoever
can't imagine that anyone on a FT contract would like it though

My view is that as a society we need to close the gap between rich and poor and foster more equality between men and women.

I think this could be a powerful tool.

I think it's bollocks.

(sorry)

(not that last bit - equality is obviously the way forward. This is not the way to do it)/

How would that make income distribution less extreme? Someone working 30 hours a week for £7 an hour will still be poorer than someone with an hourly rate of £200

In one of my past jobs full time staff worked a 32.5 hour week as standard. It was amazing. The pay wasn't significantly less than in other comparable organisations.

Per annum, I mean, not per hour.

Akiss - the idea is that the gap between highest and lowest earners would become less. This is because higher earners will earn less for less hours worked and more people get paid higher rates as there become more jobs at this level. At the other end there would be no unemployment for people who wanted to work so they would have a higher income than presently.

So you want to put everyone on the same hourly rate as well? I don't see how this idea would work.

No. Jobs continue to pay differing hourly rates