I hear you about the articles bias towards personal responsibility when tackling an issue that is structural.
And my point stands. Elon, for example, has come out heavily against WFH because fewer people will be driving his cars. In other words, WFH is bad for the car and oil/gas lobbyists and good for the planet.
If governments started offering incentives for WFH, it would be one way of turning off the tap.
I’d love if my commute to work was shorter because my neighbors get to stay home. If gas prices were cheaper because my neighbors get to stay home. If my environment was cleaner, because my neighbors get to stay home.
Worker solidarity is not a zero sum game. Quit drinking the capitalist Kool Aid
I believe, distributed power is cheaper. Smaller transformers, less drain on the power grid, etc. etc. In other words, I think it’s less efficient, especially in the summer when body heat becomes a negative rather than a positive factor.
And offices aren’t often great at adjusting thermostats when people are out of the office. So that larger space is often being heated/cooled 24/7
It’s their products causing it. Cutting down on gas burned because we focus on more people working from home is focusing on big producers.
Ask yourself this, aside from real estate investors, who is most likely to lobby against legislation that incentives work from home? Car companies (Elon already is) and gas producers I’m sure are on the list right?
I’ll have to read those studies more closely. And I hear you on the truck driver argument. That said, I’m sure less stressed/less tired truck drivers cause a lot fewer accidents. Which may have an impact on insurance premiums for companies that are in that business.
I guess my point is economic impact can be measured in various ways and it’s possible that everyone working less (and the 10% paying the other 90% of us a fair wage), will be a net benefit for society and the health of the individuals in society, and thus, a net benefit for the economy.
As a non-office worker (worked in food service my whole life), I’ve seen the direct effects on mental and physical health caused by being overworked and under paid. And those negative effects certainly spill over into the quality of service, as well as the potential for a accidents at work.
I know that’s anecdotal, but I think it also is a very reasonable observation that passes the common sense test anyway.
There’s been studies showing shorter work weeks produce more. People work better when they’re less stressed/happier/less tired.
Sorry if that reeks of populism. I think you’re point of view reeks of authoritarianism tbh.
Because science shows less is more, when it comes to work and school. The only reason to continue the 40 hour work week is so capitalists can keep workers in their place.
They’re using a lot of the same arguments the right uses to attack minimum wage and it’s generally untrue.
In places minimum wage has gone up, we haven’t seen staggering unemployment or inflation compared to similar places without minimum wage changes.
Going to a 32 hour work week should spur the job market if employers want the same number of work hours anyway. And more money and free time for the 90% is good for economic growth as we’re the ones who spend money rather than hoarding it.
So, I suspect the reason most people aren’t bothering to argue is that this same conversation has played out so many times for so many of us that we can’t be bothered with tited talking points being rehashed.