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]yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)29. It is already 35-hour work week
I have many friends that work 35-hours and they are accountants, professors, and many other professions. I work 40-hours but just lucky. I imagine if I need to leave my current job, I would get one of those new 35-hour jobs. Lunch is no longer paid for is one thing that has changed. Before they allowed you to work 9 hours and have an hour lunch (unpaid). Now they allow you to work 8-hours with one-hour of unpaid lunch.
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