Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Study: Falling fertility rates are ‘demographic time bomb’ [View all]lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)4. I'm more concerned with the person working zero hours.
Besides, 32 hours would be straight time. The rest would be overtime.
It'd be cheaper for the employer to hire two 32 hour people than one 60 hour person
...and I'm okay with that.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
74 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The solution to most economic and social problems is a 32 hour work week.
lumberjack_jeff
Jul 2014
#1
Yup. Just like standard of living went down when FDR signed the 40 hour week.
lumberjack_jeff
Jul 2014
#51
Good for many industries, but can be problematic for those positions that require
hughee99
Jul 2014
#14
When labor shortages in ANY industry occur, the industry brings in more workers.
lumberjack_jeff
Jul 2014
#48
It would happen overnight if consumer groups were in charge of school accreditation. n/t
lumberjack_jeff
Jul 2014
#61
If "consumer groups" (widely renown for their expertise in medical education) gave accreditation
hughee99
Jul 2014
#62
Someone bored by sophistry just extrapolated exponential growth 2000 years into the future.
mathematic
Jul 2014
#39
well, then, we agree that SOMETHING has to rein in the rate of human population growth
geek tragedy
Jul 2014
#46
"China's "one child policy" will have to be expanded to the entire planet, and ruthlessly enforced"
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
Jul 2014
#59
There are many ways to act, and I think at this point individual decision is best
bhikkhu
Jul 2014
#28
It's already changing; I don't know where you got 1.2%, but that's out of date
muriel_volestrangler
Jul 2014
#65
If you are really against pollution, why don't you stop driving a car and heating your home?
Squinch
Jul 2014
#44
I think the population drop will be disruptive for a while, but will benefit us in the long term.
Brigid
Jul 2014
#10
The inherent problem: any system predicated on limitless growth ultimately fails.
Spider Jerusalem
Jul 2014
#24
Tough shit, people of the world. We're past the carrying capacity as it is, need to slow it down.
NYC_SKP
Jul 2014
#26
Sad to see a Harvard professor throwing fearmongering 'time bombs'
muriel_volestrangler
Jul 2014
#66
bringing our population down gradually to <3B over the long term would be a good thing.
Warren Stupidity
Jul 2014
#70