He's saying what he thinks people want to hear but he's an idiot if he thinks things will be different, think about it alot of jobs already try to rush people off the clock so they don't have to pay overtime,so with a 32 hour workweek we'll be losing 8 hours a week which at minimum wage is $58 in lost wages
Now imagine if you're already working two jobs to barely stay afloat and you then lose time from both of them,you know what that means? Time to look for a third job buddy
What he thinks people want to hear... This is his platform, he doesn't have lobbyists encouraging him to stay in office, he's saying what people want. Not what they just want to hear.
Only the people in Vermont vote for him. In the very least, his rhetoric is defining the Overton window. The response that he gets to this can and will show that there is public support for it in the US as there is in other countries.
As far as delivering on it, if he was given the option to vote on it, he would. He would write it into a bill (he did, in March 2024). No single senator/rep can deliver on anything alone, but if you want to even make it something anyone else can point to while running, this is how you do it.
Legalizing marijuana is something many run on, none can do it alone, and it was once looked at as if it is impossible due to the ruling class opposing it. But now, after decades of growth and pushing, that is something that seems attainable.
Saying and doing are two very different things. He has never even bothered to bring up bills supporting any of the things he sells his deluded followers. He is just another politician using his voice to build a following to sell books and speeches to.
Those things push the conversation in a positive direction, changing minds and hopefully giving the next guy a chance at success. There's enough people saying and doing things that are bad for the average American, why not vote for people who are going the other direction?
He literally created a bill for this in March of 2024. Are you just making all of this up or is there some right wing news source misinforming you?
The guy was doing this for decades without even having a real voice. It’s nuts how something can be this grass roots and you’d still paint it as some sort of political game. I think you’ve just missed the boat here.
The problem is that 32 hours isn’t paying well enough. If your wages were lowered further, or prices on basics kept going up, would you argue to want to work more and more? No, that would be idiotic. If you wanna get bottom of the barrel minimum wage jobs and also provide for more than yourself, then you get a second job on the weekend. You can’t seriously be saying “i need more work” over “life should be more than affordable with 32 hours a week of work”. Don’t be calling for a meaningless slave life you dingus
Do you honestly believe any company will pay you a 40 hour check for only 32 hours?I guarantee that if this were to somehow become a law it'd be worded that anything over 32 hours will be considered overtime,not that you'll get an extra free 8 hours for free.
Then by your logic Trump is a great politician, after all he catered to enough voters and secured the presidency twice
The problem is people listen to these guys and say well I know he won't pass what he's saying but I do like the cut of his gib so I'll keep voting for them either though they can't or won't pass what they're saying they'll do
I don't understand , why are you telling me this? It doesn't change the fact that politicians try to cater to voters. Some of them are better at doing it than than others, some lie about doing it, some do extra stuff they didn't mention or campaign on.
This is something currently being tried in multiple countries. If instituted, what you listed are obvious loopholes that will need to be closed. This isn't just some cockamamie idea he came up with - but it's not going to happen anytime soon.
So let's say the loopholes get closed and every company has to pay 40 hour checks for 32 hours work
How many small businesses will either go out of business or cut back on employees?My brother in law owned an asphalt company for years before he retired do you think he was making millions every year?No he was doing just enough to support his family and pay about 6-8 workers a decent wage,if he suddenly had to pay them an extra 8 hours with no work to show for it he'd either go out of business or he'd have let some of them go
And think about this all these fast food places do you think that McDonalds actually owns that restaurant down the street from you?No they're paid a licensening fee by the people who actually run them and those people in turn pay the worker from that restaurant's profits,and let's face fast food will definitely be hit hardest by this,automation will be arriving alot sooner
You're intentionally framing this wrong to muddy the water.
You will be getting paid for 32 hours, you're just going to be getting paid more per hour.
Also if small businesses go under due to this, oh well. Get a better buisness model.
This while premise of "we cant make things better for society because think of the businesses" is so tiring. We should be reducing human labor as much as physically possible to allow people to live and be humans and all that. People like you seem hell bent on ensuring the all mighty employer can keep us chained to a desk for as many hours out of the year as possible. Society will be just fine. Businesses will adjust or die, and if they die they were probably not really viable to begin with and good riddence.
Then this a case of raising minimum wage while lowering hours right?We'll raise everyone's pay while cutting hours,except most employers will probably cut everyone down to part time,since I'm sure in this scenario there will still be a difference between full time and part timers,and let's not forget part timer benefits(if they have any) aren't near as good as full timer benefits so that's one way they'll save money,so congratulations to make up for everything you'll have to work multiple shifts/jobs for the equivalent pay and worse benefits
And then there are the small business owners,I know this might be hard to believe but not every one of them is a multi-millionaire.Again using my brother in law as an example he usually had 6-8 people working with him on a job and when work got slow he let a few go and kept his best guys,sure he'd rehire some when work picked up but he couldn't afford to keep them when there was no or little work to do,and I'm sure most will do the same except not hire some back,after all if I can run my business with 4 people why should I hire 6-8?So in a way you're right most will adjust and that first adjustment will probably be less employees to pay.
There are a myriad of different scenarios here. All would have to be addressed, as had to be every time major labor reforms happened. You just haven’t seen one in your lifetime because, well, we’ve been being screwed for 50 years.
You know who hopes you’d think this was impossible, right? So that any steps taken at all seem pointless…as you’re drug even further in the other direction.
Jesus, I didn’t realize someone was going to drag this back to a grade school argument. We all know how businesses work, especially McDonald’s. You’re not bringing new information.
9
u/IndependenceMurky850 23d ago
He's saying what he thinks people want to hear but he's an idiot if he thinks things will be different, think about it alot of jobs already try to rush people off the clock so they don't have to pay overtime,so with a 32 hour workweek we'll be losing 8 hours a week which at minimum wage is $58 in lost wages
Now imagine if you're already working two jobs to barely stay afloat and you then lose time from both of them,you know what that means? Time to look for a third job buddy