What I have found is that one can cut down the work days and hours to fit whatever mantra people desire; however, if folks plan for 40hr/5day work it just means folks either "fail" to meet their deliverables or they get to see the days/time reduced but work more on personal time.

The issue with the Iceland study is that it is just that. One is comparing a country against something that is 3/8 the size of Indianapolis, Indiana population wise.

You know Indiana, the population and business mecca of the United States.

For retail and other workers (ag) that rely on hourly wages, I would be more for removing the difference between tip and non-tip costs, and also adjusting the hourly wages for inflation and "ready for this" productivity.

You know all those great studies talking about productivity? Well lets go back to the last two minimum wage points and recalculate the inflation and productivity mix, and then adjust it up to match the real reality of life.

Then set this to run without the need for congress.

Then people can have a more balanced view of wages; however, people may hate to realize that they will need to be productive or else be unemployed as wages are not an infinite budget.

I do get the point of not working to live versus living to work mantra.

Lover of people, Texas Feminist Liberal Democrat, Horse Farm, High Tech Gadget ENFP Guy, and someone who appreciates the struggle of women and wants to help.