 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Why wouldn't this work? |
Aaron Scott |
I'm sure I'm not seeing something clearly, but I'm not sure just what....
It is harsh math of life that if we have a job and make the money to do they things we really want to do, we often don't have the time.
And if we don't have a job, we have the time, but not the money.
And if we finally have the money, we often are to the age where we no longer are up to doing all that we wanted to before.
When I was in my early teens, I got it in my mind that I would like to walk from Tampa, Florida, to Cleveland, Tennessee--just over 600 miles. Of course, at that age, I didn't have the money to do it. And I was only off from school in the summer, and it was too hot to do it then. And when it was the right weather, I had to go to school.
And now that I am a few more years to retirement, I find that other goals (I'm not too big on walking to Tennessee any longer) are also thwarted by either not having the time, not having the money, or both. It seems that most of us must wait until we are retired to, it is hoped, have the time and the means to do some of the things we want to do.
But it seems that every year that passes causes us to release yet another goal or dream. And by the time we actually retire, it might be that our only dream is to sit down and not have to do anything.
So I got to thinking....
Let's say that you make $10/hour (to keep it simple). And you work 40 hours per week. You bring home (again, to keep it simple) all $400. Your mortgage/rent, car payment, gas, insurance, groceries, electric bill, etc., costs you the equivalent of $320/week.
But by having to work throughout the week, you don't have a lot of time to spend as you wish. But one day someone way up in government says that they are going to change things. From now on, you will work HALF the time as before (i.e., 20 hours), but still receive the same amount of money. OR you will work 20 hours a week, but your pay--AND THE COST/PRICE OF ALL ITEMS--will be cut in half.
So there you are. You work half as long, but make the equivalent of the same amount. Businesses aren't losing anything either with the reduced hours, since their costs are also cut in half.
But now with 20 additional hours of free time, you can perhaps finally read "War and Peace." Or what have you. (Of course, if you really decide to use that free time, there is the possibility that you will need more money, since you are now doing something you were unable to do before.)
In any case, IF this were enacted--the whole half the hours, half the pay/costs, etc.--would it work? And to be on the safe side, lets assume that the whole world adopted this.
Thoughts? |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
6/9/18 6:08 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Re: Why wouldn't this work? |
Travis Johnson |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | I'm sure I'm not seeing something clearly, but I'm not sure just what....
It is harsh math of life that if we have a job and make the money to do they things we really want to do, we often don't have the time.
And if we don't have a job, we have the time, but not the money.
And if we finally have the money, we often are to the age where we no longer are up to doing all that we wanted to before.
When I was in my early teens, I got it in my mind that I would like to walk from Tampa, Florida, to Cleveland, Tennessee--just over 600 miles. Of course, at that age, I didn't have the money to do it. And I was only off from school in the summer, and it was too hot to do it then. And when it was the right weather, I had to go to school.
And now that I am a few more years to retirement, I find that other goals (I'm not too big on walking to Tennessee any longer) are also thwarted by either not having the time, not having the money, or both. It seems that most of us must wait until we are retired to, it is hoped, have the time and the means to do some of the things we want to do.
But it seems that every year that passes causes us to release yet another goal or dream. And by the time we actually retire, it might be that our only dream is to sit down and not have to do anything.
So I got to thinking....
Let's say that you make $10/hour (to keep it simple). And you work 40 hours per week. You bring home (again, to keep it simple) all $400. Your mortgage/rent, car payment, gas, insurance, groceries, electric bill, etc., costs you the equivalent of $320/week.
But by having to work throughout the week, you don't have a lot of time to spend as you wish. But one day someone way up in government says that they are going to change things. From now on, you will work HALF the time as before (i.e., 20 hours), but still receive the same amount of money. OR you will work 20 hours a week, but your pay--AND THE COST/PRICE OF ALL ITEMS--will be cut in half.
So there you are. You work half as long, but make the equivalent of the same amount. Businesses aren't losing anything either with the reduced hours, since their costs are also cut in half.
But now with 20 additional hours of free time, you can perhaps finally read "War and Peace." Or what have you. (Of course, if you really decide to use that free time, there is the possibility that you will need more money, since you are now doing something you were unable to do before.)
In any case, IF this were enacted--the whole half the hours, half the pay/costs, etc.--would it work? And to be on the safe side, lets assume that the whole world adopted this.
Thoughts? |
Yeah, I think that’s called France. And, it doesn’t work because nobody works. Everybody takes. And, sponges from everywhere want to get a piece of the action. Takers outpace makers. It collapses. |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7862
6/9/18 7:25 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Travis Johnson |
| What if it was a universal gig? Producers and hustlers, gritty, tenacious folks would go nuts. That would be like purgatory to some folks. |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7862
6/9/18 7:27 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
It cannot work because in this example you are asking manufacturing companies to accept half the time involved to produce a product (i.e. a car) and then sell it at half price.
I truly think many producers could cut their profit, but many work on a tight budget. In this example it seems you are expecting a corp. to accept the price of their product a '25%' by cutting the labor's hours in half and the price of the product in half.
It just ain't gonna work. 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24277
6/9/18 10:31 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
Thankfully you weren't serious when you posted this - you were only pointing out how ludicrous the whole socialism thing is. Half the work, gdp cut in half. Everybody cuts pay in half...soon you are North Korea...no lights, no water, no food. I will use this illustration in my next class to show how stupid Bernie Sanders stuff is. Great work Aaron - showing how idiotic that whole idea is. I love how you wrote as if you really believed it...it gives it extra impact.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16619
6/10/18 7:13 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| I think the issue is supply and demand... |
Aaron Scott |
| It might be the case that by working half the time as before, we would produce only half as many widgets (I suppose we could hire another shift to work the rest of the time), and if there are half as many as are wanted, the price would go up...or, if not, someone would go black market and try to turn a profit. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
6/10/18 4:58 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
It is like wanting to increase the minimum wage. That would be great for those making minimum wage, but the powers that be aren't going to give up their profits. So that means people would be losing jobs and/or prices would go up significantly.
You get what you pay for.
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5910
6/10/18 6:28 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Why wouldn't this work? |
FLRon |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | I'm sure I'm not seeing something clearly, but I'm not sure just what....
It is harsh math of life that if we have a job and make the money to do they things we really want to do, we often don't have the time.
And if we don't have a job, we have the time, but not the money.
And if we finally have the money, we often are to the age where we no longer are up to doing all that we wanted to before.
When I was in my early teens, I got it in my mind that I would like to walk from Tampa, Florida, to Cleveland, Tennessee--just over 600 miles. Of course, at that age, I didn't have the money to do it. And I was only off from school in the summer, and it was too hot to do it then. And when it was the right weather, I had to go to school.
And now that I am a few more years to retirement, I find that other goals (I'm not too big on walking to Tennessee any longer) are also thwarted by either not having the time, not having the money, or both. It seems that most of us must wait until we are retired to, it is hoped, have the time and the means to do some of the things we want to do.
But it seems that every year that passes causes us to release yet another goal or dream. And by the time we actually retire, it might be that our only dream is to sit down and not have to do anything.
So I got to thinking....
Let's say that you make $10/hour (to keep it simple). And you work 40 hours per week. You bring home (again, to keep it simple) all $400. Your mortgage/rent, car payment, gas, insurance, groceries, electric bill, etc., costs you the equivalent of $320/week.
But by having to work throughout the week, you don't have a lot of time to spend as you wish. But one day someone way up in government says that they are going to change things. From now on, you will work HALF the time as before (i.e., 20 hours), but still receive the same amount of money. OR you will work 20 hours a week, but your pay--AND THE COST/PRICE OF ALL ITEMS--will be cut in half.
So there you are. You work half as long, but make the equivalent of the same amount. Businesses aren't losing anything either with the reduced hours, since their costs are also cut in half.
But now with 20 additional hours of free time, you can perhaps finally read "War and Peace." Or what have you. (Of course, if you really decide to use that free time, there is the possibility that you will need more money, since you are now doing something you were unable to do before.)
In any case, IF this were enacted--the whole half the hours, half the pay/costs, etc.--would it work? And to be on the safe side, lets assume that the whole world adopted this.
Thoughts? |
I take it you have never owned a business? You are assuming that a business won’t lose any money because it’s costs have been cut in half. First of all, that could never happen simply because you will never get all of the business suppliers to go along with this. Secondly, all publicly traded business operates for one purpose only: to make a profit. The owners, in this case the shareholders, expect a return on their investments and they are not in the habit of settling for less than their anticipated ROI. At least the ones I have worked at operate this way.
_________________
“Hell will be filled with people that didn’t cuss, didn’t drink, and may even have been baptized. Why? Because none of those things makes someone a Christian.”
Voddie Baucham |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 769
6/10/18 10:51 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| FlRon... |
Aaron Scott |
Why would profits shrink in costs are also halved?
If it used to cost 100 to make, then sold for 120, for a 20% profit, wouldn’t there still be a 20% profit if you made it for 50 and sold it at 60? |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
6/11/18 5:42 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: FlRon... |
Nature Boy Florida |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | Why would profits shrink in costs are also halved?
If it used to cost 100 to make, then sold for 120, for a 20% profit, wouldn’t there still be a 20% profit if you made it for 50 and sold it at 60? |
How will the fixed costs be cut in half?
Half a building, half an air conditioner, half a truck, half a brain (well I know who supplies that)?
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16619
6/11/18 6:56 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| NBF... |
Aaron Scott |
| Nature Boy Florida wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | Why would profits shrink in costs are also halved?
If it used to cost 100 to make, then sold for 120, for a 20% profit, wouldn’t there still be a 20% profit if you made it for 50 and sold it at 60? |
How will the fixed costs be cut in half?
Half a building, half an air conditioner, half a truck, half a brain (well I know who supplies that)? |
I may not be as clear as I want to be.... ALL costs are halved. For instance, if I am leasing you a building for $1000 month, well, since ALL costs are cut in half, you would not pay only $500/month.
Like I said, I know I have to be missing something (and I think it's supply and demand), but what? |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
6/11/18 10:55 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| FLRON... |
Aaron Scott |
| FLRon wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | I'm sure I'm not seeing something clearly, but I'm not sure just what....
It is harsh math of life that if we have a job and make the money to do they things we really want to do, we often don't have the time.
And if we don't have a job, we have the time, but not the money.
And if we finally have the money, we often are to the age where we no longer are up to doing all that we wanted to before.
When I was in my early teens, I got it in my mind that I would like to walk from Tampa, Florida, to Cleveland, Tennessee--just over 600 miles. Of course, at that age, I didn't have the money to do it. And I was only off from school in the summer, and it was too hot to do it then. And when it was the right weather, I had to go to school.
And now that I am a few more years to retirement, I find that other goals (I'm not too big on walking to Tennessee any longer) are also thwarted by either not having the time, not having the money, or both. It seems that most of us must wait until we are retired to, it is hoped, have the time and the means to do some of the things we want to do.
But it seems that every year that passes causes us to release yet another goal or dream. And by the time we actually retire, it might be that our only dream is to sit down and not have to do anything.
So I got to thinking....
Let's say that you make $10/hour (to keep it simple). And you work 40 hours per week. You bring home (again, to keep it simple) all $400. Your mortgage/rent, car payment, gas, insurance, groceries, electric bill, etc., costs you the equivalent of $320/week.
But by having to work throughout the week, you don't have a lot of time to spend as you wish. But one day someone way up in government says that they are going to change things. From now on, you will work HALF the time as before (i.e., 20 hours), but still receive the same amount of money. OR you will work 20 hours a week, but your pay--AND THE COST/PRICE OF ALL ITEMS--will be cut in half.
So there you are. You work half as long, but make the equivalent of the same amount. Businesses aren't losing anything either with the reduced hours, since their costs are also cut in half.
But now with 20 additional hours of free time, you can perhaps finally read "War and Peace." Or what have you. (Of course, if you really decide to use that free time, there is the possibility that you will need more money, since you are now doing something you were unable to do before.)
In any case, IF this were enacted--the whole half the hours, half the pay/costs, etc.--would it work? And to be on the safe side, lets assume that the whole world adopted this.
Thoughts? |
I take it you have never owned a business? You are assuming that a business won’t lose any money because it’s costs have been cut in half. First of all, that could never happen simply because you will never get all of the business suppliers to go along with this. Secondly, all publicly traded business operates for one purpose only: to make a profit. The owners, in this case the shareholders, expect a return on their investments and they are not in the habit of settling for less than their anticipated ROI. At least the ones I have worked at operate this way. |
FLRon, right, if the suppliers won't go along. But I am talking about an idealistic system here where ALL players--producers and consumers--agree to half pay, half hours, half costs.
Publicly traded companies would not be hit any differently if ALL were on this new system. If you get 10% a year ROI, you'd still get 10% a year. Yes, the amount would be less in absolute terms, but so would all costs--i.e., you could still buy the same amount of stuff, since all costs also go down. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
6/11/18 10:58 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
If a widget takes 40 hours to make, you can't just issue an edict that it now takes 20 hours.
You might say, well, they can just make half as many, but what if the current number of widgets is what is necessary for the population to survive?
You'll need to halve one more thing -- the number of people living in the world. After 3.1 billion deaths, you might be in a better position to make your system work. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
6/11/18 11:26 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
