The Population Problem | Page 10 | Vital Football

The Population Problem

The 4 day week concerns me in the short term given the economics of the change. This week is a bank holiday, however I am expected to deliver the same outputs in one less day broadly. I work with a couple of 4 day working week part timers and they are often highly stressed, and switch on out of hours.

Of course some companies are embracing this and that great to see, but I think at the moment they are the ones who get it. When you get to companies who are SME’s or even larger ones who treat employees like a commodity, I don’t know if it translates well. The only way they would do such a thing is through legislation which means they are being forced to.

If companies do proceed with 4 day weeks, overcoming the variations between office 9-5ers and factory workers, does the price go up as there are more people required to do the same work?

The next stop for me is genuine flexitime for all employees, not just a few mums who shout the loudest. If you want to work 4x ten hour days crack on, if you want to have 2 hours off at lunch to go to the gym then god for you also.

I am one of those sad bastards who enjoys work, I’d be bored without it. But I’m a bit skeptical about the hidden consequences of a 4 day week as it stand. I’ve no doubt this will be working perfectly in 2053 when I’m just about to retire.
 
danvilla2 said:
The 4 day week concerns me in the short term given the economics of the change. This week is a bank holiday, however I am expected to deliver the same outputs in one less day broadly. I work with a couple of 4 day working week part timers and they are often highly stressed, and switch on out of hours.

Of course some companies are embracing this and that great to see, but I think at the moment they are the ones who get it. When you get to companies who are SME’s or even larger ones who treat employees like a commodity, I don’t know if it translates well. The only way they would do such a thing is through legislation which means they are being forced to.

If companies do proceed with 4 day weeks, overcoming the variations between office 9-5ers and factory workers, does the price go up as there are more people required to do the same work?

The next stop for me is genuine flexitime for all employees, not just a few mums who shout the loudest. If you want to work 4x ten hour days crack on, if you want to have 2 hours off at lunch to go to the gym then god for you also.

I am one of those sad bastards who enjoys work, I’d be bored without it. But I’m a bit skeptical about the hidden consequences of a 4 day week as it stand. I’ve no doubt this will be working perfectly in 2053 when I’m just about to retire.
Click to expand...
I was always in sales and Im not quit sure where the 4 day week sits with that.
If it were just a simple pro-rata calculation thats easy enough, but I cant see employers being happy with reduced targets. I suspect they would want the same target achieved in four days, and then say well if you can do that in four days just think what you could do in five days.
Hasnt all the problems in France been caused by the pursuit of the four day week?
 
wittonite said:
I was always in sales and Im not quit sure where the 4 day week sits with that.
If it were just a simple pro-rata calculation thats easy enough, but I cant see employers being happy with reduced targets. I suspect they would want the same target achieved in four days, and then say well if you can do that in four days just think what you could do in five days.
Hasnt all the problems in France been caused by the pursuit of the four day week?
Click to expand...

I technically work in sales but I’m more commercial than the front line stuff (smarter :LOL:) and I have no idea how it would work as you say, the targets wouldn’t go backwards.

I believe Morrison’s supermarkets are trialling this in their head office which doesn’t sound like a success third or fourth hand.

I get loads done on a Friday - or used to - plus I could go home early if I didn’t have much more to do. Going home Thursday with a load on your plate and coming back in Monday would be pretty shit unless companies do expect less of you, which is the point we are making.
 
The 4 day week was covered on one of the Midlands news channels. Cant remember if it was BBC or ITV. They were asking people on the streets of Brum if that would like it and surprisingly the majority said not. The biggest concern for most was would they still get the same pay or would they have to accept a reduction.
 
astonion2 said:
The 4 day week was covered on one of the Midlands news channels. Cant remember if it was BBC or ITV. They were asking people on the streets of Brum if that would like it and surprisingly the majority said not. The biggest concern for most was would they still get the same pay or would they have to accept a reduction.
Click to expand...

Thick as feck some people, other's like the grabbing bar stools I used to work with would see it as a chance to work 3 days overtime on time and a half and double time.
I worked a 4.5 day week for many years until I was forced back to 5 day by the Indians running JLR. I used to sit on my own all Friday afternoons killing time as all the lads on the shop floor had left at 12
 
If people are happy, their production output goes up. Also, lockdowns have shown many people that there is more to life than work. A few of my friends were unhappy at the start, but came to appreciate the extra time.

It's not going to work for everyone, but many could happily do it.
 
The timeline for education doesn't quite match up. There was a lot of education being provided to girls long before school was made compulsory in 1880. There also would have been a delay of 15 or 20 years before the effects would have kicked in.

A couple of things that did change in the 1880s were electricity and submarine technology. Karl Benz also invented the car.

It looks like if we want the birth rate to go up, we need to turn off the lights.
 
This article in The Guardian talks about providing incentives for parents to have more children. I'm not sure that I agree. I don't know of any successful incentive programme in the world which has increased birth rates. Throwing money at the problem doesn't seem to have any effect.

Could you be incentivised to have more kids?

I'm not sure that I could. I would have had more kids if I'd had the time. I was in my 30s when I started having kids. The first one was great but the second one was a nightmare. She didn't sleep through the night for 3 years. By the time we'd recovered from that, the Mrs felt she was too old for more kids.

The cost of having kids was an issue starting out. I started my own business at 26. It took a few years for the business to be stable enough for me to feel confident to financially support a child. I don't know what incentives would have made any difference to that.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...could-lead-to-economic-decline-says-thinktank
 
BodyButter said:
@danvilla2 @CDX_EIRE @Stephen Jay Hawkings
Is there something reasonable the government could do to incentivise you to have (more) kids?
Click to expand...

Force worldies to have unprotected sex with me?

I’ve got 2 now so I’m done for unless I have a third accident. Most of my mates who are well into their mid 30’s, are no-where being settled or financially wealthy enough to have kids and it’s those who are slowing the reproduction rate down.

The generation today earn decent money when they get to their late 20’s/early 30’s, but are still miles away from being able to afford property without the bank of mum and dad - income rich, asset poor. I’d hypothesise they are choosing to invest in memories rather than assets or family, as once you are married, have a nice car on lease, a fat arse mortgage and a puppy, you then run out of ideas and have the kid.
 
BodyButter said:
@danvilla2 @CDX_EIRE @Stephen Jay Hawkings
Is there something reasonable the government could do to incentivise you to have (more) kids?
Click to expand...

I am 32, the missus is 30 and the pressure has really begun now. She wants to get started but I am trying to persuade her to wait until we're married. She's literally the definition of "my clock is ticking".

Anyway we'd love to have a big family, our goal is to have 2 but we'd go as far as 4 if we could afford it. Given we'll live in NYC or London for the next 10-15 years I doubt we'll manage more than 2.

The dream incentive would be enough money to cover the cost of a nanny or live in au pair. Once the missus starts working after she finishes her doctorate we'd have enough to cover regular childcare and decent size home. I know her dream would be a nanny. For us we're going to struggle a little the next 3-4 years until she has finished school and gets a solid job. We're solely on my income right now. And again thats 3-4 years we cannot save for a home, my surplus will be completely consumed by the needs of the kid. I'd love to be in a position to by at 35 but I can't see it. If I am luckly I'll be 38.

So yeah right now childcare covered completely and in the future a nanny or au-pair and honestly if we've to shell out for private school that too. The problem is throwing money at things doesnt necessarily work. Did we discuss the thing about giving people $10,000 for a home? I feel all that does is drive up home prices by $10,000. Just how the market works.
 
BodyButter said:
@danvilla2 @CDX_EIRE @Stephen Jay Hawkings
Is there something reasonable the government could do to incentivise you to have (more) kids?
Click to expand...

Yeah, they could remove themselves from government and jump off a cliff.

Don't know to be honest, because I don't know if I want kids, can't afford one right now, not to mention never being able to afford my own house the way things are going.

Not that I ever had plans to do the whole marriage, kids, house thing anyway, most of my friends have and I can tell they're dead inside. Just doesn't appeal to me.
 
CDX_EIRE said:
I am 32, the missus is 30 and the pressure has really begun now. She wants to get started but I am trying to persuade her to wait until we're married. She's literally the definition of "my clock is ticking".

Anyway we'd love to have a big family, our goal is to have 2 but we'd go as far as 4 if we could afford it. Given we'll live in NYC or London for the next 10-15 years I doubt we'll manage more than 2.

The dream incentive would be enough money to cover the cost of a nanny or live in au pair. Once the missus starts working after she finishes her doctorate we'd have enough to cover regular childcare and decent size home. I know her dream would be a nanny. For us we're going to struggle a little the next 3-4 years until she has finished school and gets a solid job. We're solely on my income right now. And again thats 3-4 years we cannot save for a home, my surplus will be completely consumed by the needs of the kid. I'd love to be in a position to by at 35 but I can't see it. If I am luckly I'll be 38.

So yeah right now childcare covered completely and in the future a nanny or au-pair and honestly if we've to shell out for private school that too. The problem is throwing money at things doesnt necessarily work. Did we discuss the thing about giving people $10,000 for a home? I feel all that does is drive up home prices by $10,000. Just how the market works.
Click to expand...

I feel that incentives for people to have more kids just won't be enough to incentivise people to have kids (like a free nanny) so they end up being giveaways to people who would be having those kids either way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.