Is it time to shorten the work week

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Seems like since the beginning of written history man has always worked roughly 8 hours per day. It takes a small fraction of the time to produce something now compared to what it did even 100 years ago.
Instead of just working less we seem to just consume more. Consumption of raw materials is quickly becomming a problem on many fronts. Why don't we work less and consume less? Why can't we keep what we make longer? Making it better will take a bit longer but in the long run I thik we would all benefit.

[dolphinboy]

Originally Posted by badger5149

Seems like since the beginning of written history man has always worked roughly 8 hours per day.

I don't think your premise is correct. The 40 hour work week is a fairly modern invention, and many people today still work far more than 40 hours per week... think farmers and ranchers.

I think we could get by with a 32 hour work week for most office workers, giving them a 3 day weekend, but that would probably lead to more consumption, not less.

[OldGuy]

You need to review some actual history. The five-day work week and the eight hour day are relatively recent developments coming in the last century which is a tiny fraction of recorded history. See for example,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

[DelightfulExperiment]

Some countries make laws limiting the amount of time people can work.

This is not a model that very many countries have adopted, though.

Is it time? Well, that's a matter of opinion. For those countries, it clearly was. It's certainly possible, but it largely depends on legislation to make it happen.

It has to do in part with people trying to 'keep up with the Joneses'
If your neighbor is working more, you may be pressured into it to by comparison.

In order to work, it seems restrictions have to be across the board- and that is an issue deeply embroiled in economics and politics.

[Zsofia]

Also, not everybody is an office worker. We need to have people on the desk to keep the library open.

[Ravenman]

Here is an interesting summary of labor hours in the US. Take a trip back in time 80 years or so, and the working hours per week was 50% longer (or more!) than what is standard today.

[BetsQ]

The OP might find Juliet Schor's book The Overworked American interesting. It's basic premise is that we could be doing more to use productivity increases to increase leisure time, rather than to take the standard full time schedule as a given. Her next book addresses what she calls the "work and spend cycle," in which increased productivity -> increased income -> increased purchasing power -> reluctance to trade income for leisure time because we've become accustomed to the purchasing power. (More or less. It's been 10 years since I've read it.)

I think cutting back the work week would be a good thing. It would be helpful for parents and people with other substantial commitments outside of the labor force. However, I don't think it will happen while health care and retirement benefits are still tied to employment status.

[gaffa]

Mandating a shorter work week would be the easiest and quickest way of reducing unemployment. Cut everyone's hours by a third while keeping the same salary, employers would be forced to hire additional people.

It will never happen in the US, as employers would fight any move in that direction. Of course, with more employed people, every business would ultimately benefit, but American business owners are a remarkably stupid and short-sighted bunch.

[dracoi]

Originally Posted by gaffa

Mandating a shorter work week would be the easiest and quickest way of reducing unemployment. Cut everyone's hours by a third while keeping the same salary, employers would be forced to hire additional people.

It will never happen in the US, as employers would fight any move in that direction. Of course, with more employed people, every business would ultimately benefit, but American business owners are a remarkably stupid and short-sighted bunch.

Glad to see that you're in the GQ spirit of things and sticking to strictly factual information.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

One huge issue is benefits. I believe as developing countries develop the American dollar will get weaker. Resources as they become scarcer or more expensive might start to force us to become less of a expendable society as far as purchased goods go. Technolgy will continue to grow. Man being what he is by nature I have a feeling the extra leisure time would reap benefits that would be hard to project. I think we would invent more, become happier and more creative. I believe the family unit would become a better enviroment to raise children etc. Maybe instead of leaving pay the same split the loss with the employer.
I should have done my research before I posted on the average work week but the trend is lowering the work week hours. I wonder how many hours the cave man worked while hunting and gathering?

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by badger5149

I wonder how many hours the cave man worked while hunting and gathering?

WAG: If there was light available by which to hunt and gather, they were hunting and gathering. With break periods in which to eat what had been hunted and gathered.

[tomcar]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

WAG: If there was light available by which to hunt and gather, they were hunting and gathering. With break periods in which to eat what had been hunted and gathered.

I would think the opposite. Without refrigeration or much preservatives, there would be little need to get food in advance. Once you got the meat, berries and leaves for the day, your golden!

[Blaster Master]

I do think the work week should be shortened, or at least reconsidered for a lot of reasons. This primarily applies to office jobs, but many of them could be adjusted to work for other fields.

One of the main reasons is efficiency. For this, either keeping 40 hours with 4x10 or shortening with 4x8 or 4x9 or possibly even 3x12 could work. Consider an office building that has 100 employees all working 5x8. You have to have 100 seats and provide power, heating/cooling, and plumbing to the building for not only the 40 hours they all work but also for lunch and extra on each end, so lets say minimum of 2 more hours per workday. Plus each of those employees has to spend probably an average of an hour commuting. Without losing any hours and going to 4x10, you have a few options of how to adjust the efficiency. You can simply have everyone work 4 days a week and close the building for a day and save on the extra 2 hours of power and the one hour of commuting. Or you can stagger who works on what days so you only need enough space for 80 people rather than 100. Doing that will increase the total amount of time the building is operating from roughly 50 to 60 hours but you cut the space needed, which saves a lot on that cost and on rent and all.

The really big saver here though that seems understated is the time not spent commuting. Not only do you save those employees what is essentially wasted time, but you save them the money on fuel wear and tear on their vehicles. If we could get everyone or a significant portion doing that, we could have a major impact on reducing traffic congestion, fuel consumption, pollution, and infrastructure needs. At least around here in Northern Virginia, where there's probably a higher percentage of office workers than in many other areas, I could see just this translating to as much as 10% or more reduction in traffic on our already overburdened transportation system. Imagine how much difference that could make on fuel costs and carbon emissions?


I think another benefit would be in helping to create more jobs. Considering, 9 people working 40 hours a week is the same number of hours as 10 people working 36 hours. Sure, those 10 people will all be working a little bit less and thus theoretically making a little less money, but it also seems to me that working a little bit less overall means those people ought to be a bit more productive, even if it's only a 5-10% difference in productivity, that means you can afford to pay each of those people a little bit more per hour and you'll now have more total productivity and more total jobs for an admitted hit in salaries, but less of one than it might sound like. Further, it creates more room at all the levels, so more entry level positions and people who might now be a little underpaid can maybe be moved up to a higher level.

The only real issue I see is the added costs of training and benefits that doesn't scale on a per hour basis and unpaid overtime for salaried employees. With the current system of benefits, it's almost always going to be cheaper and more cost effective to have 4 people work 50 hours a week salaried than 5 people work 40, even if they get a lot more productivity. I think that's really the biggest issue and barrier and the best place to effect change on work weeks.

[srzss05]

Originally Posted by dracoi

Glad to see that you're in the GQ spirit of things and sticking to strictly factual information.

Interesting you said that, as I reported this for a forum change.

[Motorgirl]

Originally Posted by tomcar

I would think the opposite. Without refrigeration or much preservatives, there would be little need to get food in advance. Once you got the meat, berries and leaves for the day, your golden!

Hunters & gatherers preserved and stored lots of food. They sun dried berries, fruits, herbs and greens. They smoked and made jerky out of meat. They dried and salted fish. They gathered and stored nuts, (limited) grains, tubers.

[Colibri]

Moved from General Questions to Great Debates.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by gaffa

Mandating a shorter work week would be the easiest and quickest way of reducing unemployment. Cut everyone's hours by a third while keeping the same salary, employers would be forced to hire additional people.

It will never happen in the US, as employers would fight any move in that direction. Of course, with more employed people, every business would ultimately benefit, but American business owners are a remarkably stupid and short-sighted bunch.

So, no country in the world has been smart enough to figure this out, but you have?

You should publish your proposal in a peer reviewed journal-- surely there is a Nobel Prize* with your name on it somewhere.

*Yes, I know the economics prize isn't really a Nobel, but it's just easier to put it that way.

[Voyager]

Many of my daughter's friends had shorter work weeks - just short enough for their employers (usually retail) to avoid paying them benefits. I think we'd need a good universal health care system to make this work, because the per hour cost of health care benefits would rise otherwise.
There was an oped on this subject in the Times a while back - but it focused on getting the work week for salaried professionals down to something like 40 hours again.

On the other hand, we are hurting employment by forcing people to retire later. So I think we are moving in the other direction in the name of productivity.

[Yeticus Rex]

Originally Posted by gaffa

Mandating a shorter work week would be the easiest and quickest way of reducing unemployment. Cut everyone's hours by a third while keeping the same salary, employers would be forced to hire additional people.

It will never happen in the US, as employers would fight any move in that direction. Of course, with more employed people, every business would ultimately benefit, but American business owners are a remarkably stupid and short-sighted bunch.

Most of my employees currently work 30 hours per week, and have health benefits....and guess what? Many of them have second (and third!) jobs that are part time. Do you want to mandate how many hours they are allowed to work as well?

BTW, any reliable cites out there that have statistics on multiple job workers in the U.S.?

[HoneyBadgerDC]

I think it could jump start the economy once it got over the shock. Many many would find 2 jobs, It might also be an opportunity in many cases for one parent to stay home and raise the kids while the other worked 2 jobs. Lowering welfare and increasing the tax base could not hurt. Even devaluing the dollar might have some hidden benfits in the long term.

[Buck Godot]

Its probably not implementable in the current climate but I am very much in favor of this idea. With increased production there are basically two places it can go, either you increase output with the hope of increasing the overall standard of living, or you maintain output and decrease labor. For a while we were in the first mode where the results of production led to more stuff for everyone to enjoy. Supply side economics at its best.

But over the last few decades, the benefits of the increased production have gone to a relative few, and since this relative few can't absorb all of the results of the increased production, demand dropped, and the second method of handling increased production took hold. Unfortunately this reduction of labor wasn't done in a uniform manner, instead the free market took over, labor lost value, and workers were viewed as expendable. Therefore employers could demand more work of the same workers for less pay, making matters even worse. Left to its own devices this imbalance would probably take care of itself much like it did in Paris 1789, but since the well off are hesitant to lend their heads to solving the problem in that way, we might think of alternatives.

The first possibility is to resign ourselves to having a underclass of people perpetually on the dole fed by taxes on those who have the jobs. Thus keeping the unemployed content enough so that they avoid lopping off heads, but miserable enough that those working still strive to be productive and avoid their fate. The second possibility is to artificially reduce the supply of labor, as by the method suggested in the OP. This makes the most sense to me, as it absorbs the increase in production directly without affecting any other parts of the economy, and as an added bonus gives people more time to enjoy the results of their labors. As it stands now we have more entertainment possibilities than ever before, but no one with time to enjoy them.

[SeldomSeen]

Originally Posted by John Mace

So, no country in the world has been smart enough to figure this out, but you have?

You should publish your proposal in a peer reviewed journal-- surely there is a Nobel Prize* with your name on it somewhere.

*Yes, I know the economics prize isn't really a Nobel, but it's just easier to put it that way.

Should you ever get tired of snarking and decide to try a little honest research instead, you might be surprised to find that a number of countries have, in fact, figured this out. In fact, several European nations have seen their worker's productivity increase over & above that of the U.S. And this in places where 30 days of paid vacation annualy are the norm, along with significantly more paid holidays than U.S. workers have.

There is really no reason why a similar program couldn't be implemented here, except that, as gaffa noted, American business owners are a remarkably stupid and short-sighted bunch, by & large. Not to mention greedy. There seems to be a meme among the business community that any attempt to address worker's needs, to add benefits, or raise salaries will immediately send a business spiralling into bankruptcy.
SS

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by SeldomSeen

Should you ever get tired of snarking and decide to try a little honest research instead, you might be surprised to find that a number of countries have, in fact, figured this out.

No, they haven't "figured that out" and your cites don't prove it either. Please show me where some country cut the hourly workweek by 1/3 and increased the hourly wage by 1/3 to compensate because those cites don't show that. And let's see how that worked out for them.

Also, please note that your cite is from 2009. Things in Europe have changed a bit in the last 3 years.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Also, please note that your cite is from 2009. Things in Europe have changed a bit in the last 3 years.

Not because of that. Those lazy workers in Germany have tons of vacation also.
Maybe Europe would be better off if the bankers had worked fewer hours and not inflated a housing bubble in Spain or bad loans in Iceland or helped the Greek government lie about its books.

[Sateryn76]

So, I shouldn't be allowed to choose how much I work? What about people who enjoy their work (some of whom may be a typical wage slave)? How about people who are building a business and can't yet afford extra workers? What about single people who have no kids and therefore no obligations in that area? What if I need an extra few hours of pay to get new tires or pay for school registration?

And, why should I be told how much to consume?

This would be a gross violation of the job market, not to mention the right of people to choose how they want their work life structured.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Voyager

Not because of that. Those lazy workers in Germany have tons of vacation also.
Maybe Europe would be better off if the bankers had worked fewer hours and not inflated a housing bubble in Spain or bad loans in Iceland or helped the Greek government lie about its books.

Maybe.

But the US economy would not be better of if we shortened the work week by 1/3 and kept everyone's salary the same. That was the proposal.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by gaffa

Mandating a shorter work week would be the easiest and quickest way of reducing unemployment. Cut everyone's hours by a third while keeping the same salary, employers would be forced to hire additional people.

It will never happen in the US, as employers would fight any move in that direction. Of course, with more employed people, every business would ultimately benefit, but American business owners are a remarkably stupid and short-sighted bunch.

Hell, let's cut everyone's hours by 2/3s with the same salary. Or better yet, I only work 5 hours per week at full pay. More room for the unemployed to have jobs and everyone is rich!!

[azraiel]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

WAG: If there was light available by which to hunt and gather, they were hunting and gathering. With break periods in which to eat what had been hunted and gathered.

The opposite, actually. Contemporary accounts of hunting/gathering societies are often (by necessity) of groups on marginal land. Even then, some modern theorists argue that less than three hours a day is consumed with food procurement/preparation.

Hunter/gatherers living on non-marginal land can spend less than two hours a day "working," which is why they are sometimes described as the original affluent societies.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Maybe.

But the US economy would not be better of if we shortened the work week by 1/3 and kept everyone's salary the same. That was the proposal.

From Duck Soup, quoted from memory:

Minister: The workers of Fredonia are demanding shorter hours.

Groucho as Rufus T. Firefly: Shorter hours, eh? We'll start by cutting their lunch hour to 30 minutes.

I agree that this solution is more likely than fully paid 30 hour weeks.

[Yeticus Rex]

Originally Posted by SeldomSeen

Should you ever get tired of snarking and decide to try a little honest research instead, you might be surprised to find that a number of countries have, in fact, figured this out. In fact, several European nations have seen their worker's productivity increase over & above that of the U.S. And this in places where 30 days of paid vacation annualy are the norm, along with significantly more paid holidays than U.S. workers have.

There is really no reason why a similar program couldn't be implemented here, except that, as gaffa noted, American business owners are a remarkably stupid and short-sighted bunch, by & large. Not to mention greedy. There seems to be a meme among the business community that any attempt to address worker's needs, to add benefits, or raise salaries will immediately send a business spiralling into bankruptcy.
SS

Even France proves it can compete with America's world-leading economic productivity. By focusing on high-value manufacturing, such as luxury goods made by the likes of Louis Vuitton (LVMH.PA), France is a mere 2% less productive than the U.S., based on the OECD's analysis of GDP per hours worked.

Ahhh.....let's add a premium for our company name for all our handbags, champagne and wine so we can look as productive as those greedy Americans!

No wait.....we need to raise the prices on our stuff so we can bail out our Euroslackers!

[AdamF]

Originally Posted by badger5149

Instead of just working less we seem to just consume more. Consumption of raw materials is quickly becomming a problem on many fronts. Why don't we work less and consume less? Why can't we keep what we make longer? Making it better will take a bit longer but in the long run I thik we would all benefit.

Is this a philosophical question? In my personal experience, our culture sees consumption as a good thing. It seems to have been the case for a long time and I don't see it changing any-time soon.

In practical terms, why don't you? You are free to work 70, 40, or 20 hours a week. You will be paid accordingly and you will have to adjust your standard of living to match your salary. Lead by personal example. Perhaps write a blog describing the experience to the rest of us? If you can still the afford the internet that is.

Personally, I find 40 hours per week a good trade-off between an unpleasant activity (work) and my standard of living. For you, the trade-off may be different, but I would strongly object to anybody forcing their opinions on my lifestyle.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Adam, I am retired so I won't be working anymore. But your answer is very valid. I was just looking for feedback and opinions. The 40 hour standard work week was applied for a reson, not sure what. If they were to say the standard work week would be 36 hours I doubt many would give it much thought 10 years from now. Comapanies would be free to give their employees as many hours as they wanted just as they do now. I am just suggesting changing the "standard work week". At any rate something like this would not take hold overnight.

[John Mace]

The standard work week, in the US, is simply a time period for which standard pay applies to hourly workers. Work more, and you are paid overtime. For most salaried workers, there is no such thing as a standard work week. I haven't had an hourly job since college, and I've had jobs where I typically worked 60 hours/week and some where I've typically worked less than 40 (but I was self employed).

The idea that you could just cut the work week and increase employment ignores the fact that full carrying costs for employees is much more than just salary, so 1 + 1 > 2, in terms of what your costs are as a business owner.

[Saint Cad]

Rather than shortening the hours, I'd be happy with a 4 day x 10 hour workday

[HoneyBadgerDC]

John, it does not ignore anything and no one sugested it would be simple. Fact is we are producing things faster than ever and continue to get faster. Developing countries are quickly producing more for themselves and us. We are allready becoming aware of the fact that their are limits on natural materials. As developing nations develop the need to conserve will become even more apparent and will likley reach crisis status in many areas. The trend will be toward reduced consumption. How would you propse to keep everyone working in the future?

[BlinkingDuck]

Hate to break it to ya bub...but I would put money on the work week increasing in the future and not decreasing. Probably a 48 hour work week in 25 years.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Blink, I agree that is a much more attractive scenario and may very well be a need for it in the short term future as the demand goes up for machinery and technology. But I still think it will settle in at some point to shorter work weeks.

[BlinkingDuck]

Originally Posted by badger5149

Blink, I agree that is a much more attractive scenario and may very well be a need for it in the short term future as the demand goes up for machinery and technology. But I still think it will settle in at some point to shorter work weeks.

I hope you are right.

It's just that I despair of the future. I think that if you went into a time machine and stepped out 200 years from now civilization will still be there...but the middle class will be greatly diminished, Democracy will be in name only etc. I am beginning to think that this era we live in will be looked back as an aberration. One where we experimented with Democracy and dispersion of wealth and this failed because the natural state is authoritarianism and few wealthy/vast poor.

Because of this pessimism, I see the work week increasing as the future goes along as well as pay decreasing.

[BlinkingDuck]

I also think David Brin, in his novel 'Earth' where WWIII was between people trying to reclaim national sovereignty and multinational corporations as more plausible. When I first read it many moons ago I thought it was nuts. Now I realize he may actually be a genius.

[tomcar]

Originally Posted by BlinkingDuck

Hate to break it to ya bub...but I would put money on the work week increasing in the future and not decreasing. Probably a 48 hour work week in 25 years.

If health insurance becomes completely separate from one's career/job, do you still think this?
If they don't, I completely agree. Not only does this save money, American businesses are becoming more and more 24/7 it seems. I wonder if there has been a study of business operating hours increasing.
As a society we demand it. For example: I work in healthcare which is a 24/7 business for the most part. The problem is professional childcare is not. Eventually someone is going to wake up and start a reasonably priced childcare service/ school that operates 2nd and 3rd shifts. That industry is going to have to catch up eventually with the 24/7 workforce. And that will be another 24/7 industry. There will be more hours to cover, etc.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

I kind of think that as mankind advances our creative nature will be more available to more of us to explore. This would fit well into the shorter work week and would spawn cottage industries as well. As civilization advances I would like to think more of us could rise to a higher level and spend more time creating instead of just assembling.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by badger5149

John, it does not ignore anything and no one sugested it would be simple.

You must not have read posts 8 or 22.

Fact is we are producing things faster than ever and continue to get faster. Developing countries are quickly producing more for themselves and us. We are allready becoming aware of the fact that their are limits on natural materials. As developing nations develop the need to conserve will become even more apparent and will likley reach crisis status in many areas. The trend will be toward reduced consumption. How would you propse to keep everyone working in the future?

I don't propose to keep everyone working.

[DagNation]

How did we get the "standard" 40 hour work week? After a bit of labor-owner scuffling, political will developed, and laws were passed saying that (in California) any time worked beyond 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week get 150% of normal wage (for most types of employment, excluding management and business owners among others), and at some higher number of hours the wage goes up to 200%.

So, given the political will, the max "regular" hours could be changed to 36 or 32 (or whatever) with time and a half starting at that lower number of hours. The hours needed to have a "full time job" for purposes of getting certain benefits can also legally be reduced. Vacation time can accrue per hour worked instead of by some calendar based schedule. Changing the law is the answer to "how?".

Decoupling health insurance from employment would reduce the cost to employers of this kind of change. For example, I have an uncle who does some high tech work, and regularly works 60 hour weeks (paid hourly). He says his employer requires it because it is cheaper than getting more employees. I think taking health care out of the equation would change the employer's attitude, and again, the full time number of hours change would not be as costly to them.

A while back in CA we tried an optional variant so workers could elect to do 4-10 hour shifts, but there was some abuse of that by employers, so it went away. There may not be simple legal answers that allow workers flexibility in this regard, even though a significant number of people would prefer 4-10 hour days. I know a lot of hospital workers who do 3-12 hour shifts, with (8 hours*3 days) 24 hours at regular time, and (4 hours*3 days) 12 hours at 150%, giving them the same as 42 regular hours of pay. The hospitals prefer this schedule because it brings some efficiencies with it, so it works out for some people.

[AdamF]

Originally Posted by badger5149

The 40 hour standard work week was applied for a reson, not sure what. If they were to say the standard work week would be 36 hours I doubt many would give it much thought 10 years from now. Comapanies would be free to give their employees as many hours as they wanted just as they do now. I am just suggesting changing the "standard work week". At any rate something like this would not take hold overnight.

Personally, I think that doing away with a "standard work week" is a lot more likely, at least in North America. There seems to be a general movement away from cookie cutter 8-5 jobs and toward a more personalized approach. This was quite correctly perceived when setting a minimum hourly wage (I live in Canada) rather than minimum weekly/annual wage. I think that the only sensible legislated limit is on how long you can work in one shot. I know that 12 hour shifts are fairly common in medical professions. Personally, I would be worried to be operated on by a surgeon who has already worked for 11 hours.