undefined | Better HN

0 pointskuzimoto6y ago0 comments

Do you have a source to back that claim? I can't find anything that states "full time" equals "living wage". Only referring to the minimum number of hours an employee has to work from receive benefits "part time" employees typically don't get, like paid time off or health insurance.

Additionally the Fair Labor Standards Act (for US anyway) does not give any formal definition of "full time" work, and is up to the employer. Only that covered nonexempt workers working more than 40 hours are entitled to overtime.

It's fine to disagree, but at least provide some sort of substance to your argument...

0 comments

8 comments · 3 top-level

atwebb6y ago· 2 in thread

Personally, it is in the name: full-time job.

It takes your full job time, it says that there is a measurable amount of job you can have and that it is full with that one. Following that logic, if you fill all of your available job time, there is an assumption (mine and others) that it would provide simply because if you can't, you need more job to do so, making it not a full-time job.

kuzimotoOP6y ago

The problem with your logic, is that you still don't define what "full time" equals. There are 24 hours in a day, so is full-time working 24 hours/day? Obviously that's not practical, but then where do you draw the line?

Any conclusion you come up with is completely subjective, and might fit for some people, and might not for others. Maybe someone's full-time job is someone else's part-time job.

fwip6y ago

That's not a problem with their logic, that's a problem of your pedantry.

Draw the line wherever you think it should be drawn. Their argument is still true. The argument doesn't change whether full-time is 25 hours or 75 hours.

Every single adult working whatever society agrees is "full time" should be able to live comfortably on those wages.

1 more reply

FireBeyond6y ago· 2 in thread

Let's not pretend that the US is a model society for work-life balance, and employee rights.

kuzimotoOP6y ago

Well work-life balance has to do with the individual. If you don't want to work crazy hours, don't take a job that makes you work crazy hours, or make it clear to your employer that you wont do that before starting your job.

What sort of employee rights is the US lacking?

minikites6y ago

>If you don't want to work crazy hours, don't take a job that makes you work crazy hours, or make it clear to your employer that you wont do that before starting your job.

Why do you think people have this ability and choose not to use it? Do you think they're all too stupid to think of it?

1 more reply

CaptainZapp6y ago· 1 in thread

Do you have a source to back that claim?

Why would he need a source to back an opinion?

kuzimotoOP6y ago

"That's the very definition" sounds a lot more like a statement of fact than an opinion. I want to know where it was defined, and by whom.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

8 comments · 3 top-level

atwebb6y ago· 2 in thread

Personally, it is in the name: full-time job.

kuzimotoOP6y ago

Any conclusion you come up with is completely subjective, and might fit for some people, and might not for others. Maybe someone's full-time job is someone else's part-time job.

fwip6y ago

That's not a problem with their logic, that's a problem of your pedantry.

Draw the line wherever you think it should be drawn. Their argument is still true. The argument doesn't change whether full-time is 25 hours or 75 hours.

Every single adult working whatever society agrees is "full time" should be able to live comfortably on those wages.

1 more reply

FireBeyond6y ago· 2 in thread

Let's not pretend that the US is a model society for work-life balance, and employee rights.

kuzimotoOP6y ago

What sort of employee rights is the US lacking?

minikites6y ago

>If you don't want to work crazy hours, don't take a job that makes you work crazy hours, or make it clear to your employer that you wont do that before starting your job.

Why do you think people have this ability and choose not to use it? Do you think they're all too stupid to think of it?

1 more reply

CaptainZapp6y ago· 1 in thread

Do you have a source to back that claim?

Why would he need a source to back an opinion?

kuzimotoOP6y ago

"That's the very definition" sounds a lot more like a statement of fact than an opinion. I want to know where it was defined, and by whom.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse