The greens leader has come out saying that we are working far too hard and should be looking at 4 day, 24 hr week (4 x 6hr days), for the same money of cause.

What a toss this guy is. Talk about politicians being out of touch.

There is another so called expert suggesting men should only work between 18 to 22 hrs per week. What, so we can sit on the couch and get fatter?

Where do these people come up with this rubbish?

He can be a fool because when the sh-t hit the fan and we as taxpayers have to pay he still gets his indexed for life pension.

The pensions will have to be cut as well as other things, but not for look after them self first politicians.

I guess the author has not considered why a work week of 4 days at 6 hours a day is beneficial to society.

Bringing up children would benefit from both parents not being exhausted by work.

Governments are pushing for productivity increases.

This means each worker does more per work day, or that more things are produced per work day. This is happening more and more by using robots, and reducing workforce.

Not enough jobs for those seeking work, and the number of jobs will keep reducing.

So, reducing amount of work per individual creates more total jobs.

Salary is a complex area. We need to reduce cost of living substantially. This can be done, but many considerations. Rehctub could think thru how this can happen - target of 10 ways his cost of living could be reduced.

Tony153 - None of what you say can be achieved if for the less hours employers have to pay the same salary as they would for more hours.

many of the Greens have known nothing but to suck on the public purse all their lives. Now they want to suck harder and have others pay. To think that 7% of the population votes for these people indicates clearly why are kids are failing at school.

What about in-house nannies?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/richard-di-natale-fails-to-release-au-pair-documents-timesheets-were-not-kept-20160523-gp1com.html

1810: Who are these people saying they are working too hard and demanding a 10 hour working day. Next they'll be wanting Saturday afternoon off! So they can sit on the couch and get fat?

1860: Who are these people saying they are working too hard and demanding an 8 hour working day. Next they'll be wanting a five day working week! So they can sit on the couch and get fat?

1930: Who does Keynes think he is predicting the working week will come down to 15 hours? What a tosser. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/sep/01/economics

1950s: Who were those idiots who told me (at school then) that the working week would be 20 hours by 2000?

In 1950 the Associated Press insisted that the people reading their article about life in the year 2000 would be able to tell their children about a primitive era when Americans worked more than 20 hours a week. http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/the-late-great-american-promise-of-less-work-1561753129

"It’s a good bet, too, that by the end of the century many government plans now avoided as forms of socialism will be accepted as commonplace. Who in 1900 thought that by mid-century there would be government-regulated pensions and a work week limited to 40 hours? A minimum wage, child labor curbs and unemployment compensation? So tell your children not to be surprised if the year 2000 finds 35 or even a 20-hour work week fixed by law."

Question: did productivity improve or decline after the 10 hour and 8 hour days and the 40 hour week come in?

Equality of total regulation, raises its serpent head again.

How about de regulating the labour market altogether?

Let folk work for as little as they want, have a tiny government, low taxes and the actual community deal with a lot of stuff, that 'social services' now ineptly rule?

De-reg-ul-ate!

Otherwise known as freedom.

Sadly I agree with everything that has been said in the previous comments. The fact is that we are going to run out of work as so many jobs go. Think of driverless cars and trucks, in fact ships and planes too. We can let people descend into poverty but that will bring the elites undone too. We need a plan!
My view would be prohibit immigration and see the population plummet as Japan is doing. This may be the answer and I would value others opinions here.

Why are we paying such a fool?
Well maybe foolishness is just something that's getting around these days...

Why did we pay 17bln for 'The Flying Turd' F-35?
China has hacked and copied it (J31) and has developed radar capable of making it's stealth capabilities worthless; as well as the fact it has nearly 300 problems and won't be combat capable until 2020; unless there are further delays..

Regarding Jobs,
You'll all often hear me say there's Pro's and Cons to everything.
When I consider a topic I consider every potential possibility regarding that topic (that my life experience and knowledge is aware of) in order to 'refine a better and more efficient system'.
If someone else brings up a valid or reasonable argument I simply accept it and add it to my knowledge base.
An important thing to note is that it's also as if I deliberately go looking for instances to prove the original argument wrong, and to find its 'flaws'.
If I find a 'flaw','contradiction' or 'inconsistency' of any kind then I consider the plan or strategy hasn't been 'foolproofed' and we need to go back to the drawing board to include this 'inconsistency' in order to refine the system to make it 'foolproof'.
I don't know why I do it, I just do.

With 'Free Trade' the 'con' argument I might make is that we're selling the nation out and for the benefits of foreign slave wages.
If we support 'Free Trade', we're condoning those foreign slave wages and conditions, for short term benefit and at long term expense.

So the Jobs are going to go, and we're actually supporting it, whether we realise it or not.
It's a global interconnected world today; and that's just the way it is.

[Cont.]

[Cont.]
I tried to outline a radical jobs plan on this forum last year, but I didn't get a lot of feedback on whether people thought it would actually work.

My idea was a socialist base-level jobs program where unemployed people could double their dole working instead of doing nothing and where the value from that work would reduce the current overall cost to the government.
It's the idea of simply creating a 'job' instead of all the wasted money around unemployment initiatives.
To remove the 'I cant get a job' excuse, create a 'culture of employment within the ranks of the employed' and to also allow people in existing jobs looking for more hours to participate and supplement their existing incomes just like a second job.
The work would be 'doing things to help the government save money' on new and existing projects.
The larger job component would be massive national infrastructure projects.
There would be a focus a mass training and reducing the costs of it.
The 'backbone' to making this happen is a good quality 'App' that can 'help get skills' and then match 'skills earned' with 'shift vacancies' in your local area.
There would also be incentives and rewards to keep people motivated and on the path to a real job.
The massive infrastructure projects thus result in creating more job opportunities in the private sector.
I look at the way the system's built and I don't just see any other way of fixing or improving it.
And why should we settle for such and such percent unemployment?
Why should people capable of working and who want to work and get ahead be forced to sit idle?

AC, we have a huge disadvantage to other nations when it comes to infrastructure projects, they being One, a very very small population per Sq km and too vastly spread out, and Two , everyone loves a great road, tunnel, high speed train, or bypass, but too many arc up about having to pay to use them. I guess that's the entitlement mentality kicking in.

The other huge problem we have is that far too many jobs are paid for with other workers taxes as less and less is being produced.

The bottom line is we as a nation have all but out priced ourselves and we are now seeing the results starting to really kick in. In short, we are headed for a serious jobs crisis and one I seriously doubt we can avoid without turning back the clock by decades and reintroducing more manual labour jobs, but I seriously doubt that will ever happen, especially if stupid suggestions like this one keep getting put forward.

Philip,
Changes in hours worked per week must be accompanied by salary adjustments as well.

Also, and a big also, is that cost of living must be reduced.

We all need to live in a more sustainable way.

There are, for example, numbers of ways of reducing energy needs.
No gas use,
all electricity, energy efficient devices,
better house insulation,
working near home,
smaller houses,
electric cars - particularly self drive cars used Uber style in metropolitan areas, etc, etc.

Major social change. Much of the above is also essential to tackle climate change.
Cheers

Tony153 - I agree totally except the implementation fails due to greed.
Politicians, lawyers, judges, doctors, dentists, CEO's etc will never agree to lower wages. Also Union officials.

I think this proposal has a good deal of merit: I suggest that all public servants should henceforth be allowed to work - no, required to work - only 24 hours per week, and be paid 60 % of their current salaries. That should save quite a bit on the bottom line.

Since that would really only be the equivalent of three days' work out in the real world, perhaps it could allow twice as many public servants to be employed over a six-day working week, including all-day Saturday (perhaps they could get penalty rates for Saturdays).

Imagine ! Twice as much work getting done, for barely 30 % more outlay. Win-win: loafers could stay at home four days a week, twice as many could be employed, for only 30 % extra cost. No more Centrelink backlogs, every phone-call answered promptly. Oh brave new world, that would have such people in it.

Thank you, Doctor !

Joe

Speaking of public servents, well hospital staff, I went to the local hospital emergency dept recently where i stood in a line of just four people, for over an hour, before i was even registered.

The lady in triage would register one person, then go away, or do something else for up to five mintes before calling the next person. Some would be there for ten minutes just explaining their situation.

My point is there was no urgency what so ever for anyone on that counter (there were three at times but only one doing the reg) to get through the line up of people, which was about ten by the time i was called.

I suggested they install a number system, similar to main roads because i said the last thing sick people want to do is stand in line. It was quickly rejected and i have even been told they do this to see if anyone is realy ill in which case they will rush you though. What, after you have collapsed.

The whole government system needs a shake up, but unfair dismisal and anti bullying laws has put an end to that as an option.

If we leave asetts in public, we get poor productivity, yet if we privatise we get the likes of Telstra, or CEO's on $6 million a year. Its a no win situation

To those who are getting this add on OLO.

"Tesla Generator? $49
Eliminate Your Power Bill Easy Do It Yourself. Great Discount Now!
tesla-energy.org"

This is a scam, so why is it there?

While this thread seems to have died in the arse, it's still worth teasing out its implications.

For example, if we remember Dr Natale's au pair, and his generosity towards her, and if we applied his recommendations on a 24-hour week, then the good doctor would need two, perhaps three, au pairs, to carry out all of the duties that a single person has to do now. Clearly, di Natale would be willing and able to pay all three at current weekly rates.

But of course, if di Natale's current hourly rates for au pairs were applied, each au pair would be reduced to working their 24 hours for a weekly total of barely $ 150-200, maybe less.

Just wondering ......

Joe