You want a solution to the problems in the "economy" as they relate to "jobs" or "employment", pretentious PowerNoggin fuck?
Here's your solution.
The national standard is changed from 40 hrs/week to 20 hrs/week.
Twice the number of people employed.
It's that simple.
PowerNoggin fucks like the Simulated Beavers once tried to tear apart this proposal of mine. PowerNoggin fucks like David Graeber, commenting under a "unique" handle, tried to soft-criticize this proposal of mine.
These fucktard putzes are limited by their understanding of the world. They see only through the lens roughly ground not by Carl Zeiss but by Karl Marx. This lens requires that you see the world as Glossy Karl did. You can't see the world any other way. So the question then becomes, would Glossy Karl have approved of Harold Caidagh's proposal.
The PowerNoggin collective, found blogging at various waypoints along the BlogTrust highway, assures us that the Caidagh proposal cannot work.
Because Glossy Karl never suggested it could work. And we know that Glossy Karl knew everything, including how life would play out for Americans in 2014.
Are you starting to see why Marxists are always wrong, you eedjit fuckstick pimple on the ass of the internet?
What are the real problems with 40 to 20 reduction?
1) Doubling the number of employees means doubling the overhead required at the employer's expenses end of things.
I'm pretty sure the increased productivity of the now-20-not-40 worker will offset these expenses. You'll see it only as a bottom line issue, Mistah Cappy Tollist, but there's more to life than a balance sheet where jobs are concerned, and you can't measure worker happiness or productivity through an accounting exercise -- no matter how creative your accountant.
2) Halving the work week means halving the individual worker's income, while life remains at the same expense/cost. So the worker has half as much to live on.
This is true for the already working 40 hrs person.
This is untrue for the unemployed 0 hrs person, who gets a big windfall and probably gets off public assistance.
Is your measure "jobs" or "employment," Mistah Powuh Nogen? Or is it "purchasing power"?
If it's "purchasing power," then isn't the 0 hrs person increasing purchasing power likely to offset the losses felt by the 40 hrs person diminishing to 20 hrs? Don't answer reflexively here. Think about it.
3) Splitting shifts will cause new, off-hours "rush hour" commuter headaches, will mess with "lunch hour" planning at eateries, will stress public transit facilities.
Imagined fears are not equal to actual problems to solve. Why not try it, and see how it works. I'm guessing eateries would happily prefer several surges of activity rather than only one. I'm guessing the commuter headaches will include reductions at current peak times as well as increases at current "off-peak" times.
In other words, it'll balance on its own. If you can only trust it.
Am I missing something? Maybe. Everyone misses something when analyzing problems. I've never known anyone who caught every possible hitch and resolved it smoothly and accurately when examining such spectral social problems.
I bet I'm adding solution far more than I'm creating problem.
I bet that no matter what "problem" you say I've created, I can show you how it's not a problem at all.
You wanna take the bet, you drooling eedjit fucktard misogynist rapist bigot homophobe reader of this reactionary moron blog?