[_jstreet]

> Wouldn't a switch to four-day working week just mean a 25% pay increase for those employees?

Would that be a bad thing?

As we've discovered over the past year, a lot of those people play a crucial role in society today - why do they get paid so little for that?

[lillecarl]

> why do they get paid so little for that?

What follows isn't necessarily right, but I believe It's why they're paid little.

Because they're all easily replaceable, companies doesn't have to invest more than maybe a week of salary into replacing them if they ask for higher pay. At my company we're having a hard time finding people, so sometimes even questionable talent gets hired and trained because we need people. But in low-skill work people will always be paid what is regulated. If we increase their salary enough, then I wouldn't want my job, even though I enjoy what I do, because of the mental burden of never having my head to myself.

The best job I've ever had was when backpacking Australia, was taking care of gardens, hedges and stairwells. It paid shit, but every day I felt gratification because I worked with my body and actually finished something (even though It had to be done again in a week or 2 since things grow like crazy in Brisbane).

What I do now is an endless struggle of never being finished, so my brain keeps computing solutions to these problems even once I'm off the clock, so if a bus driver all of a sudden has my salary, why on earth would I want a job that requires more of me. As in, I'm not just the current meatbag at this place.

I bet we could even stretch this into that it would reduce output of society greatly, since people that otherwise would pursue "high skill" work (Idk, somehow i feel like anyone could be taught my job in a week, but this is more Imposter Syndrome than anything i guess) could be just as happy or happier doing something that doesn't increase human efficency.

I will argue for this "to death" (since It's really one of my core beliefs), but i would also love someone to be able to change my mind as it could potentially increase my mental well-being. I'm sadly looking "down" on "simple work", I think as a means to justify wtf I'm doing.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

[rpadovani]

It sounds like you hate your job, and you are doing it only for money. That's totally okay!

It also means, that given a good trade-off, you would do something else.

But a lot of people care less about money, and more about other things in life: work-life balance, mental health, closeness to family, whatever.

Given that working is a must, why wouldn't we try to make it suck less for everybody? At the end of the day, life is complicated enough without having other people trying to make it harder for you.

It sounds like you want the other to be paid less, since you are having a hard time. The solution IMO is not paying other people less, it is finding a better place for yourself!

> I bet we could even stretch this into that it would reduce output of society greatly, since people that otherwise would pursue "high skill" work

As you can imagine, I disagree - I like my job (not position! I like it as well, but I could change it), and I wouldn't do any other job for the same amount of money. I like not being dead tired at the end of the day, I like being challenged, I like being able to deliver something to millions of people.

Unwanted suggestion: focus less on other people, and a bit more on your own well-being.

Edit: I have also to disclose, I wouldn't mind a 20% tax increase if this means bus drivers and nurses are paid more: we don't do anything special, I really don't understand why we should be paid 3x what other people are making. I understand the _mechanism_ behind it, but at the end of the week my SO does much more work than me, and she's paid 1/3.

[lillecarl]

> It sounds like you hate your job, and you are doing it only for money. That's totally okay!

I do like the challenge, It's just a bit much. I'll be honest, I haven't been at many other places (26 years of age) so this might be 100% true and I just didn't know it until now.

If I'm also entirely honest, if I were given the option to never "work" a single day of my life again I would take it any time. Would pick up opensource development of whatever I find interesting again as I did a bit when i was younger.

> Unwanted suggestion: focus less on other people, and a bit more on your own well-being.

My previous comment might've been interpreted as if I would actively argue against a suck-less change for others in my country, I would not. On HN I like to express what I otherwise wouldn't since I get thought-out replies like your own to challenge my own beliefs (If i were to do the same in a Facebook discussion/Reddit the pie throwing contest would start)

That's not to say you don't have a point though.

> I have also to disclose, I wouldn't mind a 20% tax increase if this means bus drivers and nurses are paid more: we don't do anything special, I really don't understand why we should be paid 3x what other people are making. I understand the _mechanism_ behind it, but at the end of the week my SO does much more work than me, and she's paid 1/3.

I don't make nearly enough to be comfortable losing 20% of my salary, not as in that it'd make be poor, but it would put me closer to the average.

Should mention, I manage a small datacenter (I don't own it) in Sweden, Swedens IT job salaries aren't as "inflated" as the US ones.

Thanks for your reply :)

[rijoja]

I'm not sure what your SO is doing. Still I would bet that she is not doing more work than you. The effects of your work is probably not as obvious to a layman. This is like saying that a horse with a cart is doing more work than a truck, just because it is more inefficient and crude.

Another comparison would be of the president of the US and a coal miner. The coal miner might use more physical energy, but the effects of the work that the president is performing is so much larger it is ridiculous.

[rpadovani]

I probably worded this wrongly, but it is exactly what I mean: I totally understand that _the output_ of my job has 10x impact, so I understand why I am paid more.

But, just because I am lucky enough to work in a field where my work could potentially impact the entire world, it doesn't mean I deserve to be paid 3x the others.

The amount of energy, passion, and dedication can be the same if you are a kindergarten teacher, a nurse, or a web developer.

[lillecarl]

I believe this was meant to be a reply to rpadovani (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27781497)

[rpadovani]

> If I'm also entirely honest, if I were given the option to never "work" a single day of my life again I would take it any time

Me too :-) This is why I included "Given that working is a must", otherwise I would pick up something else to do (and slack a lot).

> I don't make nearly enough to be comfortable losing 20% of my salary, not as in that it'd make be poor, but it would put me closer to the average.

It would definitely do the same for me: I am in Germany, so kind of similar situation (however, AFAIU from Swedish friends, here IT is a bit better paid, and taxes are a bit lower).

Don't get me wrong: I definitely enjoy having money and being able to travel and have a nice life, I would also like having childhood friends being able to enjoy a good life as well - the only difference between me and them is that I "understand" IT, while they are better at other things.

I think all this rambling goes down to: "life is unfair, let's try to make it easier for everyone, without focusing much on the output of what you are doing, and more on the person you are".

[gugagore]

It's hard to compare the meaning of a wage change across two countries with what I understand to be very different social programs.

One of the biggest reasons that I would like to be wealthy is so that if I or someone I love gets sick, I can avoid going bankrupt to get treatment or forego treatment because I can't afford it.

That's a fairly realistic concern for large swaths of the US population.

[lillecarl]

Fair enough, I guess in a way we already have the extra taxes you're mentioning, If anyone needs medical assistance they get it (Mostly, they refuse to fix my grandmothers knees because she's still able to walk (in pain)). But anything lethal will always be treated, or young people with fixable issues.

[gugagore]

I'm curious. Do you think that if your grandmother had more wealth, then she'd be able to walk with less pain? Or is it a case where the treatment/cure might be worse than the disease?

It's very immoral to allow (force) people to die, when they otherwise could live if they have more money.

It's less egregious, but still immoral to allow (force) people to live in pain.

I think it is a much more complicated issue to balance medical "expertise" with patient desires. If your grandmother wants a treatment and her healthcare providers believe she should not have it, not because it affects their profits, but because it's medically ill-advised, then what?