At least her extramarital affairs are with adults.

We have a different sort of bar here I suppose hah. Then again, she was judged extra hard for being a young woman in that position.

But it also genuinely wasn't appropriate behaviour (to be videotaped doing) for a PM.

I don't know about likely, most heard "jauhojengi" and at the time I listened to it a bunch too and couldn't hear "jallujengi" myself. And I was her supporter so I had a reason to hear it that way hah

Works out to ~$42/hr

I mean I can believe in sky daddy as well, but doesn't mean it's reality. Know how we went from 80 hour weeks to 40 hour weeks? A lot of people died, and a whole lot of immigrants were needed to make up the hours, oh and women were now needed in the workforce as well, because pay certainly wasn't going to raise high enough to keep up with costs. I'm not sure forcing more people to work ultimately for less is a great idea. Seems easier to push minimum wages up, or better yet, to unionize so minimum wages aren't needed as companies wouldn't be able to hire for less than the labor is worth (or simply wouldn't exist as a business).

You do realize that outside of a literal dictatorship, a prime minister can't enact such a change on her own, right?

In some scenarios. Some types of office work in particular, and not for everyone. Some people work best in short spurts, some do not. Those of us who qualify are incredibly privileged, as are the industries we work for.

Now try this with manufacturing, healthcare, etc. 24 hour weeks means that to get the same output, you have to hire nearly twice as many employees, at the same monthly cost per employee. There probably aren't enough qualified unemployed people around to do that, so it's easier to just let productivity drop (and do hospitals REALLY need so many people around 24/7? At nearly 2x the cost, perhaps not - can't just increase pricing to make up for the cost increase in a single-payer system).

Its not that simple

Even if people are more productive in less time, that doesn't mean you can earn the same money. Many businesses operate on "hours spend" per task. As an example, let's take hairdressers. If your hairdresser is now working only 6 hours instead of 8, that's a potential 25% loss in revenue. And they won't be magically faster now just because they work less. So if salary reduction is not an option, the only option is increasing prices.

What you're saying is fine for office jobs, but just not an option for most service jobs. Waiters aren't magically going to serve tables faster, cashiers won't make customers move faster, etc.

Depends on the situation. Suddenly going to 60% of the work load isn't suddenly going to make the country or it's people more productive. You'd need to hire more people to get the work done and Finland's unemployment rate is already at 13%. So this would be a pretty poor solution when it comes to economics for everyone, unless you pay people less because they are working less hours.

Productivity, but not production. They would still produce less than now, how much less is just not a simple ratio calculation.

She did push for such during her time holding the position from what I have seen thus far. She came into office in 2019 and was voted out in 2023 because the economy suffered around the world after COVID, and that was enough to sink many countries into believing they needed change.

Note Finland had the lowest death percentages in the EU, the GDP didn't collapse hard like some, she pushed for work from home and minimal contact.

Oh and she apparently was focused on getting Ukraine into the EU. Which one could say was hobbled by a couple people, but one of those was recently taken from power. So only time will tell

Because it can't cost them their career after they already retired. They never do it while still in office. That time is for taking that sweet corporate "lobbyism" money.

Is there, like, Grindr for PMs?

I doubt there's some legislation, I haven't heard about her in quite some time. It seems she's largely left national politics

I mean... technically they are not wrong....

I confused her for someone else. Sorry

I think your boogeyman, "the owning class," is very similar to my boogeyman, "the borrower class." Both are critiques of groups that benefit from particular economic structures. Although we think about economics in totally different ways, there is an interesting parallel between the two ideas.

I'm probably a handmaiden to the fascist class in your eyes, while I think you’re economically illiterate.

My borrower class - Refers to those who gain privileged access to newly created credit or monetary expansion.

Your owning class - Usually refers to capital owners (bourgeoisie) who own productive assets & employ labor.

I do believe that if there aren't artificial barriers to production or the supply of goods, humans will end up producing more. As more goods are produced and compete in the marketplace, prices will fall. Democratic socialists, however, tend to micromanage or take over production, which will slow the creation of goods and cause prices to rise.

An interesting digression/aside would be the Jevons paradox: when technological improvements increase the efficiency of a resource's use, this can lead to a rise, rather than a fall, in total consumption of that resource. This is often used as a critique of capitalism by environmentalists.

P.S. I don't think I've talked to a single right-winger on this website yet. Maybe right-wingers are a dying breed, at least in the Fediverse. I don't know. I'm so alone.

Jevons paradox

#Inflation

Luck I think, or I look like I am easily attackable.

She made a supportive claim in a party meeting, didn't do action about it. Nothing bullshit unless the story is deeper behind public eyes

https://demokraatti.fi/...

https://www.is.fi/...

https://yle.fi/a/74-20119756

For this topic, native or primary sources are better

Also we could deep dive on the "during PM" slice. she said she supports it in Aug 2019, Cabinet forms in December. Believe me (or not) I tried to stay sharp if the topic gains any official action during the time

Edit: this I can't get a link to because twitter but apparently: Finnish Government, using the handle @FinGovernment. January 7, 2020:

"In the Finnish Government´s program there is no mention about 4-day week. Issue is not on the Finnish Government's agenda. PM @marinsanna envisioned idea briefly in a panel discussion last August while she was the Minister of Transport, and there hasn't been any recent activity."

They had to officially declare this because the urban legend was spreading.

After leaving office? Sure, she's said she still supports the idea. Hope this helps

It's not like this stuff originates from reddit either, it just ends up there. It's a bit like blaming the beach for having trash wash up there.

That's not what missing the point means but I understand where you're coming from. You're worried about the feasibility of this proposal, which is entirely separate from my comment and the comment I was responding to. So to be clear, you're not actually talking to me or the original commenter, you're talking at me. Which is fine, we can have this conversation - which is different than what I was discussing - at the same time if you'd like.

Yes, reduction of hours could theoretically means a larger volume of people are needed to cover those positions. That is likely true in some fields and likely not true in others. As an example, waiters or nurses or teachers would likely need more staff to cover those lost hours as those are services that are often open most days of the week at most hours. We can't have hospitals closed on Fridays, for instance. So in that case your suggestion is correct.

The element you're not considering past the simple math of the problem is whether or not we need 40 hours to stay profitable. The counter example to the nurse would be most white collar jobs who reportedly don't need 40 hours a week to complete their work and be successful. These people are forced to work 40 hours because of cultural expectations but, because of the "productivity" boom of the last century, don't actually need to work 40 hours. This is the situation that the PM's suggestion would be most feasible.

If someone can complete their work in 32 hours but is paid to be at their desk for 40, 1 of 2 things happen. (Reminder, this is the expected amount of work to keep the business profitable.) They either notify their boss that they can do more work, and thus increase their responsibilities until it hits 40 hours, which nearly always results in neither higher pay nor higher recognition long term. Or they don't, and they make what use they can of those 8 hours, which is always less efficient than if they had "free time". This is where the government, unions, or any regulatory body is necessary for the improvement of society. Businesses of a certain size or profession grow inefficient in using their employees time as their productivity goes up, which again can be converted either into more work and higher sales or more free time and better benefits. (This is ignoring what happens too often which is that extra time gets converted to meaningless meetings and micromanagement and time around the water cooler etc).

So I disagree with you in saying, as a blanket statement derived from napkin math, that the PM's proposal (which I imagine both of us have just read the title comments on instead of an actual, ready to implement policy proposal) is not based in reality.

Why you seem excited to defend the forced labor hours of the working class is beyond me. Surely you're not rich, and surely you'd prefer to work less than you do and have the same quality of life. So I have to assume you're either afraid of someone messing up "the economy" by being too progressive or you've taken the conservative propaganda to heart and believe things must only get worse for the working class if the rich are to get richer and therefore through market magic improve everyone else's lives maybe (trickling down or some other illogical and indirect process). Tell me, if you can be so introspective, why you decided to talk at me. Why do you think something that several studies have shown, at least to my knowledge, to not only be feasible but also beneficial? Why are you against the topic at first mention of societal progress?