Yikes!!!!! Spain plans to cut workweek to improve work-life balance

France working laws are complicated and from what you write, they don't encourage certain classes to go to work.

Very complicated! The level to which they discourage work is debateable, but they certainly are very costly. Many people take advantage of the system. For example, it used to be very difficult for companies to fire employees. France implemented a new system ("rupture conventionnelle"), which was designed to make it easier. I know many people who have negotiated this contract only to benefit from unemployment benefits - which you can receive in full for up to 2 years (or longer if you are older than 53...), while they could have immediately found another job. The unemployement benefits don't cover your full salary, obviously, but you can get additional benefits on top of that.

It will be interesting to see if France will hold with those social benefits in the long run, or change them as the burden will beacome have on the local economic.

France has changed governments 3 times in the past 6 months. It faces a large budget deficit, that exceeds the EU guidelines, and is increasingly costly (higher borrowing rates). Yet none of the political parties have been honest about it and have offered realistic programs to address this situation. The current government has forced a budget with minimal spending cuts (benefits or otherwise) and increased taxes (including a one-time increase in corporate tax from 33% to 44% for the largest corporations!). The very timid pension plan reform which was voted last year is now being challenged as well.

I am self-employed. When I pay myself a net salary of 1000€, I have to pay 650€ on top of that for health insurance, unemployment insurance, retirement benefits, and a variety of other "contributions"... Add to that corporate taxes and income taxes, you spend half of your workday paying for taxes in one form or another.

Employees only pay a fraction of those "social contributions" - the bulk is payed by employers. I pay both! Most employees have no idea about the full costs even though all these "contributions" are mentioned on pay slips.
 
Last edited:
. But the main point is that there is no correlation between wealth and happiness, at least on a countrywide basis. Some countries value their citizens’ happiness more than their GDP growth. I suspect Spain is one such country.
By wealth do you mean what I earn today, or am I generating enough savings so when I retire, I don't have to leave my home for a dump. I have enough for food, medical, transportation, travel etc. Enough to live comfortably for 30 years on my savings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pokey77
I am self-employed. When I pay myself a net salary of 1000€, I have to pay 650€ on top of that for health insurance, unemployment insurance, retirement benefits, and a variety of other "contributions"... Add to that corporate taxes and income taxes, you spend half of your workday paying for taxes in one form or another.

Employees only pay a fraction of those "social contributions" - the bulk is payed by employers. I pay both! Most employees have no idea about the full costs even though all these "contributions" are mentioned on pay slips.

In America it's not much different, at least in companies that take care of their employees and don't treat them like dirt. I know that the real cost of my employment for the biotech company I work for is much higher than the salary that I see in my bank account. My company also provides truly excellent (and for them, expensive) health insurance which I know to value very much. Unfortunately, not all employees are aware how generous these and other contributions of my company are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hopkins
By wealth do you mean what I earn today, or am I generating enough savings so when I retire, I don't have to leave my home for a dump. I have enough for food, medical, transportation, travel etc. Enough to live comfortably for 30 years on my savings.
Wealth = Net Assets
 
Wealth = Net Assets
Thats a definition. Im asking the social qustion. Are you achieving a higher level of independence to ensure security in your retirement. A place where your not reliant on others for food, housing, health and general happiness. Meeting the minimum standard places one on reliance from others that worked harder.
 
Thats a definition. Im asking the social qustion. Are you achieving a higher level of independence to ensure security in your retirement. A place where your not reliant on others for food, housing, health and general happiness. Meeting the minimum standard places one on reliance from others that worked harder.
I have no idea what the relevance of your question is but you are confusing “wealthy” with “wealth”.
 
In general I believe that Spaniards think that Americans work way too hard and have a poor and unhappy and unhealthy work/life balance.
A lot of Americans would agree with this.

It is difficult to generalize about work. If you have a creative job that you love, you can happily work 100 hours a week, at least for a time. If you have a soul crushing job that you hate, 40 hours a week can be intolerable - especially considering that including lunch breaks and commutes, 40 hours is closer to 50 hours for most people.

The US is rich enough as a country that we can easily afford for people in those soul crushing jobs to have a 30 hour work week to meet their basic needs, and have enough time left over for family life and creative pursuits. This would not allow luxuries (like expensive stereo systems) but it might allow for a much better quality of life overall.
 
Given current devisive, tribal tendencies, the long term health and sustainability of society as a whole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al M.
By peoples answers to my question of wealth, it sounds like some feel its ok to never have enough wealth to be self sufficient. Some trust government to take care of them at a level that maintains "Happiness". The effort to achieve enough wealth to be self sufficient is not worth it. Just be happy you can only work 37.5 hours now, not 40 hours.

I ask as I feel a government that's cutting the working class pay in order to stifle their economy, so it does not outperform other local economies is limiting citizens ability to acquire wealth on many levels. Not just the direct loss of pay.

When I was in the field, most everyone wanted to work 48 to 56 hours to get the overtime and additional cash. Many used this to purchase rental homes to build assets in one's portfolio. Most all had stock investments. I don't know of anyone that was looking for part time work. We wanted to acquire Wealth so we would be self sufficient when we retire.

Maybe the USA is different. Our Social Security is about $25,000 a year. And that is taxed at about 20%. So I actually get $20,000. An apartment to rent if you want to stay in the neighborhood where you have lived your whole working life is about $18,000 a year. In short, government is not going to take care of you. So you work to have savings to support yourself in your old age.

If you have to go to an assisted living facility, its $5000 a month if you require no help. If your need assistance with say medicatons and possibly bathing, it goes up to $10,000 to $15,000 per month.

Just saying. We work hard because we have to. The option of aging out of the workforce and living in poverty is not appealing.
 
By peoples answers to my question of wealth, it sounds like some feel its ok to never have enough wealth to be self sufficient. Some trust government to take care of them at a level that maintains "Happiness". The effort to achieve enough wealth to be self sufficient is not worth it. Just be happy you can only work 37.5 hours now, not 40 hours.

I ask as I feel a government that's cutting the working class pay in order to stifle their economy, so it does not outperform other local economies is limiting citizens ability to acquire wealth on many levels. Not just the direct loss of pay.

When I was in the field, most everyone wanted to work 48 to 56 hours to get the overtime and additional cash. Many used this to purchase rental homes to build assets in one's portfolio. Most all had stock investments. I don't know of anyone that was looking for part time work. We wanted to acquire Wealth so we would be self sufficient when we retire.

Maybe the USA is different. Our Social Security is about $25,000 a year. And that is taxed at about 20%. So I actually get $20,000. An apartment to rent if you want to stay in the neighborhood where you have lived your whole working life is about $18,000 a year. In short, government is not going to take care of you. So you work to have savings to support yourself in your old age.

If you have to go to an assisted living facility, its $5000 a month if you require no help. If your need assistance with say medicatons and possibly bathing, it goes up to $10,000 to $15,000 per month.

Just saying. We work hard because we have to. The option of aging out of the workforce and living in poverty is not appealing.
Some countries have developed different models, were saving up for your retirement is part of your taxes, the government is not taking care of you, you are just cashing in your own savings when you retire. Assisted living, medicine expenses are covered. You can of course save up additional for your retirement, but a comfortable old age is not at risk without it. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tangram
Some countries have developed different models, were saving up for your retirement is part of your taxes, the government is not taking care of you, you are just cashing in your own savings when you retire. Assisted living, medicine expenses are covered. You can of course save up additional for your retirement, but a comfortable old age is not at risk without it. :)

That's the theory. Do you want to spend your last days (or years) in the hands of public health services? Having witnessed things first hand, I can't say I do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pokey77
Given current devisive, tribal tendencies, the long term health and sustainability of society as a whole.

Yes, dark times ahead. The country has no clue yet what it's in for. The history of the 20th century is a guide, and it does not bode well.
 
That's the theory. Do you want to spend your last days (or years) in the hands of public health services? Having witnessed things first hand, I can't say I do.
It sure depends what country you are in, here in Denmark it is excellent, you get what you pay for i guess :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: hopkins

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing