If you work 40 hours a week, you have a right not to live in poverty.
I just started teaching COMM 345 at Central Connecticut State University on Monday afternoon. It’s a writing course where we explore wealth/income inequality through the prism of race. We’ll be discussing this and even while our idea of what means “work” is changing, can we continue to believe that 40 hours is sufficient? (I don’t actually know the answer, but I’m fascinated by the question.)
Forty hours a week should be more than sufficient to guarantee a secure standard of living to the average household, (2X2). Thirty hours a week should do it. Especially in a country where labor force participation is such an important issue.
Don’t get me started on The Bern. (If Trumps minions are the “confederacy of the frustrated,” what do we call Sanders’?) I know he’s limited to twitterspeak, but that statement just doesn’t make sense. Even for a bourgeois reformist. Human rights are not delineated based on working hours. (I wont mention wages because I know The Bern has made noises that makes it appear he’s cognizant of the relationship between low wages and poverty. I could be wrong…but…another discussion.)
I really think Ol’ Bernie should take a day or two off, clean the bong, and take a nap or two…or three.
I think much depends on the job, but 30 hours a week should be more than sufficient to make a living. I’d certainly like to have a 30-hour week. A 30-hour week would leave me time to participate in the life of my community, to read — both for leisure and to be an informed citizen, and to have a hobby or two. A 30-hour week job for me would open up a slot for another worker — my tasks need some continuity, but could easily be divided up. And maybe I could get 7 hours of sleep each night and have time to cook healthy meals for myself and keep house.
I think I just designed my retirement.
Leave a comment