30 hour work week and higher minimum wage

"Pro as not addressed any of the issues that I raised in round 1. Preventing me from gaining a clearer understanding of their own personal agenda. " That's because you didn't mention any real issues. You built some straw man involving "job sharing" and said "are unemployment rates the issue? " Then you went on some line about free time without addressing a problem. "1) Does Pro really see a mood swing in the American public, Away from out and out capitalism to a more human centred socialist attitude. " Mood swing? I'm not sure what you're getting at? You're trying to make it sound like I'm arguing for socialism. I'm not. I'm arguing for a system that will provide more jobs and make up for wage disparities that are well known to exist. This isn't some fantasy problem that I made up. Wage disparities exist. "Which other societies does Pro think are comparable to the U. S. A. In terms of both, Population size and social mindset" This question is irrelevant, I'm not borrowing this idea from another country and the math can be tested beforehand. There is no need for another country to already be using this plan for it to be good. That's an ad populum argument "Notwithstanding the ambiguity posed by the concept of an average minimum wage. Pro is seemingly advocating a system of more for less for more. More income for less work for more people. How is this system funded? " The system doesn't need "funded" The jobs it creates lower the amount of public assistance required to sustain the population and it lowers the unemployment rate. The economy will break even in the short term and we should see growth in the long term. "90 workers X 40 hrs X $9 min = $32. 000 weekly wage bill. 120workers X30hrs X $12 min = $43. 200 weekly wage bill" Your math does not represent the whole situation. You have to factor in the unemployment rate and public assistance. You also have to consider that a higher employment rate makes more profits for companies. I never said that there needed to be a 30% increase in productivity. That's a strawman of my position. Not every plan purposed needs to be 100% beneficial to all parties involved. Sometimes the greater benefit in the future is more important. Your assessment of my plan is short sighted and I challenge you to find a part of this that harms any parties involved and I challenge you to show how this plan would not increase employment or income for the population. " Overtime is more relative to the employer than the employee and overtime is not necessarily guaranteed. Therefore the overtime issue is quite variable and certainly not simplistic. Fluctuating productivity needs, Demand a flexible approach by both workforce and employer. Workforces cannot easily be increased ad hoc when increased productivity demands it. Increasing minimum wage would not always be relevant to an existing skilled workforce, Who may be already paid at a rate commensurate or above the new level anyway. This would therefore seem to imply that current overtime systems could not easily be adapted to suit Pro's demands" The whole point of my overtime comments is to improve quality for the employer as well. The point is that, With a better system, Overtime could become less important, Which is good for employers. To your comment about a skilled workforce, The skill of the workforce and the productivity doesn't matter in this situation. This is a quality of life issue. People should not have to spend 50 years breaking their back just to BARELY retire and then have to work part time to stay afloat after the fact. Furthermore, If the workers are already being paid far above minimum wage, Then this plan wouldn't inflate their pay rate. "So why is Pro now backtracking? Suggesting that some people should work 40 hours and some people should only work for 30hrs. This has all the typical hallmarks of New Socialism rapidly crumbling back into the old time worn, Hierarchical realities. " Try to keep up please and stop calling me a socialist. If all you can do is strawman, Then you're just making my case for me, Lol. Anyway. I never backtracked. In our current system, 40 hours represents the hours that an employer can make you work without overtime and then any hours forced after this result in overtime. My system would implement 30 hours before overtime and no overtime can be forced. I never backpedaled, You just don't understand my position. Everything I mentioned fits just fine with capitalism, So please stop saying it's a socialists policy. "Or perhaps it's simply the case that certain sectors of U. S. Society are just getting too selfish, Overdemanding and lazy! " This is a common b. S. Conservative line. If you actually think that minimum wage workers are generally lazy, Then you're just blind. If you want to talk about "lazy sectors" lets talk about a person getting a middle class salary to do paper work at an office with sick days and other benefits and then look at a restaurant worker who gets paid half the money, No benefits, No sick days, No PTO, And spends their day lifting heavy objects and running around on their feet. Pfft, Lazy my rear. If you think that poor people are lazy, Then get your own service. I'll finish up by saying that something has to be done about wage disparities. People don't like hearing this, But the fat cats are gonna have to get stuck with the bill no matter how we fix the problem. This is moral because the loss in money will not cause any actual harm to them, While the money taken will prevent a lot of harm. Those rich people get to benefit from capitalism and they shouldn't just get a free ride, They need to pay into the system that made them rich so it can make other people rich too. If anything ever ends humanity, It will most likely be greed.