How Not To Attract Foreign Investment: Sociologist Proposes 30-Hour Workweeks In Order To Protect Climate In Austria

I don’t have much time to spare today, so here’s a short one.

The German language, Austria-based Kronen Zeitung here has an online article on what sociologist Hubert Eichmann proposes to help save the climate: 30-hour workweeks for everyone in Austria.

Apparently Austria has been “hard hit” by climate change and so something really needs to be done about it. So Eichmann proposes a 30-hr work week to reduce productivity, which in turn would reduce CO2 emissions.

Not only that, the Kronen Zeitung writes:

Secondly commutes to work would be reduced as well and, thirdly, citizens would have more leisure for more environmentally protective behavior.”

Eichmann says for example that the “extra time would allow people to ride their bicycles to work instead of driving, and to separate their garbage.”

Also university Professor Jörg Flecker is also a supporter of the short workweek, and he advised policymakers to implement the reduced work-hours model.

Fortunately, the economic madness spawned by the obsession of rescuing the planet from fictitious manmade global warming has not fully infected the minds of politicians, at least for now. The Kronen Zeitung writes that Austria’s Ministry for Employment, Social and Consumer Protection views the plan of shortening the work week as “not achievable”. It seems the Austrian government still has enough sense remaining to realize that the 30-hour workweek would lead to less output, and thus also to lower tax revenues. That’s not what they want.

Moreover, which foreign company would be insane enough to set up shop in a country where the workers have an efficiency that is roughly equal to that of the average wind turbine? (30 hours/168 hours = 17.9%)

Income by Austrian workers would also necessarily drop by around 20%. What would the Austrian citizen get for all that sacrifice? The resulting CO2 savings theoretically would reduce global warming by something like 0.001°C by 2100!

Boy, what a deal!

Yes, some professors really are that dim. Hat-tip: DkS.

 

15 responses to “How Not To Attract Foreign Investment: Sociologist Proposes 30-Hour Workweeks In Order To Protect Climate In Austria”

  1. Physicist.

     

    Jeff Conlon on The Air Vent asked: “So you are stating that your idea is not new and are of the belief that Loshmidt had the right answer correct?”

    To this I replied:

    The fact that the temperature gradient forms autonomously at the molecular level (without any specific need for upward convection) was first explained in the 19th century, and has never been correctly rebuked. But this “gravito-thermal effect” has been overlooked by James Hansen et al. Hence 255K is not the right “starting point” and there is not “33 degrees of warming” but more like 10 to 12 degrees of cooling by radiating molecules, mostly water vapour of course, because the radiating properties of these molecules have a temperature levelling effect working against the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient that is not due to any lapsing process..

    But what has not been explained prior to the 21st century is how the necessary energy transfers over the sloping thermal profile just like new rain water falling on a small section of a lake spreads out evenly over the whole lake. This is what happens (and must happen) in planetary tropospheres, and it happens because the Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about thermodynamic equilibrium evolving. Thermodynamic equilibrium has a density gradient (because there must be more kinetic energy per molecule at lower altitudes) and that density gradient thus has a temperature gradient.

    Thermodynamic equilibrium is what it says – an equilibrium state just as much as is mechanical equilibrium which keeps the surface of a lake more-or-less following the curvature of the Earth. Gravity spreads new rain water over the lake, raising the level all around the lake. Likewise, new thermal energy absorbed in a planet’s upper troposphere or elsewhere (such as in and above clouds) spreads out in all accessible directions by convection, where I use the term to mean both diffusion and advection in accord with normal usage in physics. And that’s how the required energy gets down to the base of the Uranus troposphere to maintain temperatures hotter than Earth’s surface. Likewise on Venus and likewise on Earth because solar radiation directly to the surface is nowhere near sufficient and we would freeze on cloudy days if this downward convection were not a reality.

     

    Moderator:

    This comment is being posted on about six other blogs as I don’t like wasting my time on just one blog, unless a blog owner runs an article on the content of my book and agrees not to delete any of my comments replying to comments on that thread. I may do likewise with any future such questions and answers in the interests of disseminating correct physics and gradually wearing down the greatest error ever made since the flat Earth garbage. Doug.

     

    1. John F. Hultquist

      The 2nd word in your comment is incorrect. If you can’t get the person’s last name right, the rest of what you say is suspect!
      Enjoy the day.

  2. Streetcred

    Maybe these ‘professors’ could undertake a real world experiment with themselves as the subjects … and let us know how they go … but then on the other hand, they probably already ‘work’ less than 30 hours a week and don’t attend at university 5 days of the week anyway.

  3. Bob Camobell

    He should resign his position – that will save all his commuting time.

  4. Graeme No.3

    Streetcred:
    A friend of mine returned to Argentina and went out to the University to see his old Professor. Said Professor was pleased to see him, especially as he admitted to only turning up at the University for an hour and a half on one day a week to collect his pay cheque.

    Lest it be said that I am picking on the Latins, I knew another occasion at Adelaide University where a Lecturer appeared for less than 20 minutes one week. Normally he “stretched” this to 50 minutes.

    And there was the reverse situation where a senior lecturer insisted on turning up at the Chemistry laboratory despite advanced alcoholism. Hardly safe and the Chemistry Department wanted him barred, but the University tied itself in knots “protecting his tenure”. I think the Professor eventually installed an electronic entrance system, and forgot to give out a password.

  5. DirkH

    I hope Eichmann doesn’t get paid for his contributions to society; as any payment would be an overpayment, as his contributions have a negative net value.

  6. John F. Hultquist

    . . . and to separate their garbage.

    If there is anything valuable therein this can be done auto-mechanically at lower cost.
    Unless Austria expects the sorters to be paid their standard wage this is just state endorsed slavery.
    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/05/Household-recycling-is-state-endorsed-slavery
    In terms of saving the World or preventing climate change it is also pointless.

    Cullet (reused glass) is discussed here:
    http://www.azobuild.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=7686
    However, cullet is not clean nor composition-pure so making new glass from it is limited – the raw ingredient, sand, is inexpensive. Cullet is a low value ingredient so shipping it faces transportation costs often not worth the value. Where I live the local “transfer station” collects it (no payment given) and then crushes it to cover the landfill. Here is a more complete explanation from the east side of the USA.
    http://www.ecori.org/composting/2010/2/1/broken-glass-provides-cheap-cover-at-state-landfill.html

  7. Harry Kal

    The 30 hours/168 hours = 17.9% is not correct.

    168 hours is the average working hours per month.
    30 hours is the proposed working hours per week.

    So the calculation should be: 30/40 = 75%

    Harry

    1. DirkH

      To be even more pedantic; Germany and Austria have approx 222 workdays a year, due to weekends, public holidays and paid holiday, so 148 hours / month effectively at a 40 hour week; and 0.75 * 148 = 111. Effectively, workers would work 111 hours per month in Eichmann-Austria.

      A person-year would be 1332 hours.

      1. DirkH

        And, standard of living would drop by a quarter.

        Somehow Eichmann assumes that people wouldn’t have to use cars anymore, which isn’t quite logical.
        “Eichmann says for example that the “extra time would allow people to ride their bicycles to work instead of driving, and to separate their garbage.””

        Well separating garbage doesn’t cost extra time, only 2 extra bins. Let’s look at the bicycle question, if we use the 10 hours gained to ride the bike we can do about 200 km, let’s say we condense our 30 hours to 4 workdays so we can commute an extra 2.5 hours each workday on the bike, that covers 25km in one direction, assuming 20 km/h. Let’s further assume that our car commute was 40km, and took 30 minutes with the car; so we have 1.25+0.5 hours for the bike commute for the 40 km… Ah, a bit much – I think the break even point is at about 38 km at 20 km/h with the bike.

        Assuming no hills, which is unlikely in Austria.

        Of course we now have to include a shower into the equation, which completely wrecks the bike commute average speed again…

  8. Peter

    Austria has been hit hard with climate change? Wtf is this cretinous imbecile talking about? I live 30km from Austrian border and there the weather is pretty average when I compare it to what is written in the chronicles.

  9. A. Finn

    Well that sounds a lot better than what they are proposing here in Finland.

    First they wreck the economy with sky-high regulations, bureaucracy and taxes – quite a lot of which is related to saving the climate.

    Then when the economy has gone to the toilet, the solution is now to do “internal currency devaluation”, which means increasing the length of the work week without increasing pay.

    So basically we don’t even get the extra free time this proposal grants. They just rob us a few hours of free time a week.

    We are a five-million-people nation with the number of bureaucrats enough for a country four times as large. 60% of our GDP comes from the public sector, making us a de-facto socialist country. In the last ten years the salaries of public sector workers have soared, while at the same time the median salary on private sector has fallen.

    They started fixing this problem by hiring 2 000 more bureaucrats at the government financial department (an increase of 30%). This increase in workforce alone costs the Finnish taxpayer an extra 10€/year.

    But everything could be paid if the people at the private sector would work a bit longer…

    1. DirkH

      “60% of our GDP comes from the public sector”

      Wrong. 60% of your GDP is CONSUMED by the public sector.

      1. A. Finn

        Heh, you are actually correct on that. I have misinterpreted the phase “Public sector’s portion of the GDP” to mean that it *produces* 60%, when in fact it *consumes* 60%.

        Things are worse than I thought!

        Here’s a decent iOS developer from Finland looking for a job in a non-socialist country! Help!

        1. DirkH

          Try somewhere in the BRICS. Can’t recommend Germany. Maybe Singapore.

          Things might look better after the breakup of the EU. Can’t take long now. Average public debt of EU states is 92% and climbing. A bankruptcy will lead to the culling of the parasitic sector.