Thread by @Delafina777

The weird thing about being an American is the whole cult of extreme capitalism ends up revealing how much most companies hate their workers. It's the only explanation for why they'll sacrifice productivity--and their bottom line, profit--to be punitive.

Like, okay, according to actual science by actual scientists, the average worker working an 8-hour workday is productive for 3 hours. So, let's say you have 8 hours of work a day that needs to get done for a job that you think is worth paying $50k a year.

And I'm assuming the work ACTUALLY takes 8 hours a day, not 8 hours a day of How Much Actually Gets Done In An Office. You're going to need to hire 3 people at $50k to get your 8 hours of work done.

Or you could pay attention to the actual science, done by actual scientists, that says that people can put in 4 good hours of work a day, and you can get that 4 hours of good, focused work from them if you don't insist that they stay at the office 8 hours a day.

So instead of $150k for 9 hours of work a week by three people, you could be paying $100k for 8 hours of work a week by two people. Like, I dunno, I'm not an economist but it seems to me like the latter option means your company is keeping more of its profits.

"But," I hear you saying, "isn't that an argument for making everyone part-time? Then no one would get benefits!"

First off, let's take a moment to acknowledge that it is a sick and broken system that ties your ability to get healthcare, or have a roof over your head in old age, to your job. That said, that's the system we're in, so on we go.

I'm not saying that we should make everyone part-time. I'm saying we should consider 4 hours a day full time, since actual science conducted by actual scientists says that's the maximum amount of work you can get out of people in a day.

First off, since having a full-time job with benefits is the only way people can afford to get healthcare, yes, you should be providing healthcare for your 4-hour-a-day workers, because if they get sick, OBVIOUSLY THEY CAN'T WORK.

But as to why, in a world where 4 hours a day was considered a full-time work day, you should still be providing benefits to your 2-hour-a-day workers, look at Costco and Starbucks.

So, let's start with Starbucks. They provide insurance, as well as a bunch of other benefits, to employees who work half-time or more. And their turnover rate is a fraction of the average in the quickserve food and beverage industry. thehrdigest.com/starbucks-turn…

And note, that glowing description isn't from some communist underground newspaper. It's from a publication for HR professionals.

Oh, btw, every time a company like Starbucks has to replace an employee? It costs them an average of almost $6000. business.dailypay.com/blog/qsr-and-r…

And Costco? Yeah, higher wages, and benefits for part-time workers. And they have INCREDIBLY low turnover for retail. Oh, and unlike at most retail companies, their employees don't steal from them. hbr.org/2006/12/the-hi…

Turnover is SUPER EXPENSIVE, so you'd think companies would be doing whatever they can to lower it, right? And to get the most work they can out of everyone they're paying?

And there is a pretty simple, science-backed way to do that: make a full-time work day 4 hours, pay people a full-time salary for that, and give everyone who's working at least half-time benefits.

(And, like, none of this science is particularly new.)

So why won't companies do these simple things that would make them way, way, more money? I mean, corporations exist to make money, right? That's the entire point, right?

I can only conclude that they care more about making their workers sick, unhappy, and resentful than they do about making money, and ergo, their primary motivation must be hating their workers.

Oh, and lest you're sitting there thinking, "hey, companies could up their profits then by having people work a 4-hour day and lowering their salary, even if they're providing benefits!" No.

Because it's not "you can only think productively for 4 hours a day PER JOB." It's PER DAY. So if you're not paying someone enough to live on, they're going to go get a second job, and you're not going to get that full 4 hours.

(BTW, science says you need to pay people enough to have 15% of their income be disposable to maximize their happiness.)

Oh, also? A lot of people who Republicans are sneering about being a "drain" on the system, because they need government assistance? Disabled people, single parents, etc.?

(I mean, again with the caveat of OBVIOUSLY NO ONE IS A DRAIN ON THE SYSTEM, HUMAN BEINGS DESERVE TO BE VALUED FOR BEING HUMAN BEINGS, NOT FOR THEIR PRODUCTIVITY. But again, working within the system we've got...)

A lot of those people could work 4 hours/day. If 4 hours a day were a full-time day that earned you a full-time, livable salary? A lot of those people would need way less government assistance. You want people to be self-sufficient AND your company to be profitable? 4 hour days.

Anyway, I mean, what do I know, I am only drawing super obvious conclusions from science done by actual scientists.

Oh, btw. You can actually get a BRIEF period of increased productivity by working people more than 8 hours a day before they burn out. It doesn't last long, but people can effectively crunch for brief periods of time. (After that, of course, their productivity drops further.)

I submit that America's supposed economic prowess, in its infancy, driven by its vaunted Protestant Work Ethic, was actually only that phenomenon on a macro scale.

Also, btw: laziness doesn't exist. medium.com/@devonprice/la…