# I think we should move towards a twenty hour work week **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2013, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-we-should-move-towards-a-twenty-hour-work-week/674054 "2013-11-06T05:00:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![WiSteve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e36b37/32.png) [@WiSteve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WiSteve)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-we-should-move-towards-a-twenty-hour-work-week/674054/101 "2013-11-14T12:11:46Z")
For those who say that having less than a 40 work week is economically destructive I have this one question… Do you think that the 40 hour work week is some sort of economic ideal? Just by happenstance we came across this number that is the perfect balance? I don’t think so. The economy always reaches an equilibrium at whatever the “standards” are. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-we-should-move-towards-a-twenty-hour-work-week/674054/102 "2013-11-14T12:37:45Z")
I don’t think that the 40 hour work week is ideal other than the fact that over time Americans have come to understand what that work week will produce for them, and understand what that work/life balance is. It seems clear to me, that if we all produce half of what we once did, we would all collectively have less. If we want half the standard of living we now have, that’s ok, but if we don’t, where is this magical production going to come from? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-we-should-move-towards-a-twenty-hour-work-week/674054/103 "2013-11-14T12:55:11Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > To effectivly compete with the Third World on labour costs, it would be neccessary to lower wages and benefits so much for such a large section of the popuation that the country would effectivly join the Third World. Are you talking about policy changes? If so, what policy changes? Would repealing the minimum wage laws; overtime laws; Family and Medical Leave Act; and civil rights laws be enough? > [@](#): > > Tendencies, more than policy changes. The US is less unionized, has less vacation days, less mandated maternity leave, it is easier to fire employees, and employyes are encouraged to work longer hours to impress the boss. There is a similar narrative going in on the UK, where many people assume that the economy will improve if legislation moves in the US direction. Jfr. any discussion in the UK about maternity leave, minimum wage etc. I don’t understand your answer. What specifically has the United States been doing towards lowering labour costs, vacation time, loosening overtime regulation etc. ? > [@](#): > > However, the US ranking has consistently been slipping for many years in measures such as HDI, public health, budget surplus, etc. And what is your basis for believing this is a result of attempts to lower labor costs, vacation time, loosen overtime regulations, etc.? (Assuming of course, that that’s what you believe. My apologies if I misunderstood.) ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-we-should-move-towards-a-twenty-hour-work-week/674054/104 "2013-11-14T12:57:07Z")
> [@WiSteve](#): > > For those who say that having less than a 40 work week is economically destructive I have this one question… > > Do you think that the 40 hour work week is some sort of economic ideal? No I don’t think so. Perhaps more importantly, even if 40 hours was the ideal in 1938, it’s hard to believe that it’s the ideal 75 years later. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-we-should-move-towards-a-twenty-hour-work-week/674054/105 "2013-11-14T13:40:11Z")
Look, the only thing the “40 hr work week” does is define when you have to pay hourly people overtime. You can work as many or as few hours as you want-- all you have to do is negotiate that with your employer. And many people do. I’d be very surprised if the majority of Americans work 40 hrs a week. There is no such thing as an “ideal” work week. That is going to vary depending on the individual, and where that person is at in his life. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-we-should-move-towards-a-twenty-hour-work-week/674054/106 "2013-11-14T13:57:25Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I know a fair amount about this stuff. From an economic standpoint, there isn’t some fixed amount of work that needs to be done. Doubling the work force doesn’t mean we can finish all that work in half the time. That’s the major misconception of people who promote a fixed work week, oppose immigration and automation or even think that women shouldn’t be in the work force. That we have those things is what allows someone like David Graeber to pursue a “bullshit job” like writing his anthropology blog. So what you are saying is that the amount of work is not a constant? Then to me it seems sensible to ask if the amount of work-time we’ve ended up with is actally a good one, or if there are better…islands of stability possible. > [@msmith537](#): > > Depends what you mean by “competitive”. I suspect it wouldn’t matter much for the same reason most jobs don’t, in fact, pay minimum wage. Because the market pays significantly higher. And generally I think most experts agree that a safe, happy work force is more productive. A big policy of unions in Scandinavia is making sure there is no minmum wage. > [@msmith537](#): > > This statement doesn’t really make sense as [Germany](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_model), [Japan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan)and [Scandinavian](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model) countries all have very different economies with different results. > > The US typically can’t compete with countries like India or China or even Eastern Europe on labor costs. Where we do compete is in technological innovation, mostly centered around hubs in Silicon Valley, New York, Boston, Austin and North Carolina. I think you misunderstand my point. Or, more probably, I’ve been unclear. I am saying that the reasoning that a developed country can significatly improve its competitivness and economic performance through significantly reduced wages, reduced vacations, longer hours etc, is undermined by the number of countries that demonstrates success while going the other way. As well as the countries trying to pursue this strategy and faling to improve significantly versus countries they far outperform on labour costs, hours worked etc. The map does not, after years of trying, fit the terrain. > [@msmith537](#): > > What is causing the US to fall behind IMHO is a sort of consumerist “anti-intellectualism” that is causing us to value superficial status and conspicuous consumption over education and innovation. Part of the cause of the 2008 financial crisis was the explosive growth of the financial industry. For years, many of our best and brightest passed up careers in engineering and science in order to pursue far more lucrative careers in investment banking, finance and trading (and sales for the less bright but affable). While there is a need for those services, an entire economy can’t be based on buying and selling stocks and flipping houses. Or an underestimation of the macroeconomic benefits of a financially strong and large middle class. There seems to me to be a kind of subconscious shortcut where it is assumed that what is good for a business is good for a country. Yet many business practices (hello downsizing) en masse, seem to be negative for the country where the businesses operate. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-we-should-move-towards-a-twenty-hour-work-week/674054/107 "2013-11-14T14:09:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Look, the only thing the “40 hr work week” does is define when you have to pay hourly people overtime. Well the requirement of paying a 50% premium is a significant disincentive. I haven’t seen any studies on the subject but just from simple observation, my impression is that a lot of employers are very careful to make sure that non-exempt employees are not allowed to work more than 40 hours per week. And to keep actual overtime to a minimum. But if the 50% premium is not effective enough, the policymakers should consider increasing the size of the premium. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-we-should-move-towards-a-twenty-hour-work-week/674054/108 "2013-11-14T14:12:23Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Are you talking about policy changes? If so, what policy changes? Would repealing the minimum wage laws; overtime laws; Family and Medical Leave Act; and civil rights laws be enough? No, you’d have to combine that with a steadily deteriorating economy that forced people to take jobs that paid less and less, and this tendency would have to continue for some time. By the time you were actually ready to compete with the Third World, the country would be wrecked. A Third World country. > [@brazil84](#): > > I don’t understand your answer. What specifically has the United States been doing towards lowering labour costs, vacation time, loosening overtime regulation etc. ? It is not neccessary to do anything. It is enough not to do anything. All you really need is to bring up the “competitivness” argument and manage to shoot down any improvements proposed. Relative to countries that extend maternity leave, vacation time, wages etc, this has the effect of the anglosphere countries falling further behind. Yet the theoretical competitveness advantage of cheaper labour, less vacation tim, longer hours, etc does not seem to materialize. > [@brazil84](#): > > And what is your basis for believing this is a result of attempts to lower labor costs, vacation time, loosen overtime regulations, etc.? (Assuming of course, that that’s what you believe. My apologies if I misunderstood.) I am saying that the theory that these things will improve a countrys economy seem to fall flat in the real world, where the countries with the most solid economies do not seem to follow these policies, and the countries that do, do not seem to strengthen their economies as a result. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-we-should-move-towards-a-twenty-hour-work-week/674054/109 "2013-11-14T14:52:31Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > I think you misunderstand my point. Or, more probably, I’ve been unclear. > > I am saying that the reasoning that a developed country can significatly improve its competitivness and economic performance through significantly reduced wages, reduced vacations, longer hours etc, is undermined by the number of countries that demonstrates success while going the other way. As well as the countries trying to pursue this strategy and faling to improve significantly versus countries they far outperform on labour costs, hours worked etc. > > The map does not, after years of trying, fit the terrain. Individual business seek to reduce labor costs, but I don’t think any country pursues reduced wages as economic policy. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-we-should-move-towards-a-twenty-hour-work-week/674054/110 "2013-11-15T03:37:21Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > No, you’d have to combine that with a steadily deteriorating economy that forced people to take jobs that paid less and less, and this tendency would have to continue for some time. By the time you were actually ready to compete with the Third World, the country would be wrecked. A Third World country. I see. Well let me ask you this: Would repealing the overtime laws; minimum wage laws; and so on make any difference at all? > [@](#): > > It is not neccessary to do anything. That’s not an answer to my question. You claim that the United States "has been trying to increase competitiveness by lowering labour costs, vacation time, loosening overtime regulation etc. " I am asking what specifically has been done towards these ends. Why are you evading the question? > [@](#): > > It is enough not to do anything. And enacting the FMLA; ADA; and COBRA counts as “not doing anything”? ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-we-should-move-towards-a-twenty-hour-work-week/674054/111 "2013-11-15T09:45:55Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > “Bullshit jobs” like blogging and anthropology? > > That we continue to have a 40 hour work week and, recent economic recession aside, a relatively constant unemployment rate for the past 300 years is exactly what we expect to happen in a capitalist economy. In a capitalist economy, technology frees up resources to work on other tasks besides “non-bullshit” jobs like farming or building stuff with your hands. It allows more people to pursue “bullshit” jobs like being a lawyer, graphic designer or opening a cupcake shop. You didn’t bother to read the linked article, did you? Graeber addresses these points as follows: > [@](#): > > Now, I realise any such argument is going to run into immediate objections: “who are you to say what jobs are really ‘necessary’? What’s necessary anyway? You’re an anthropology professor, what’s the ‘need’ for that?” (And indeed a lot of tabloid readers would take the existence of my job as the very definition of wasteful social expenditure.) And on one level, this is obviously true. There can be no objective measure of social value. > > I would not presume to tell someone who is convinced they are making a meaningful contribution to the world that, really, they are not. But what about those people who are themselves convinced their jobs are meaningless?..I’m not sure I’ve ever met a corporate lawyer who didn’t think their job was bullshit. The same goes for almost all the new industries outlined above. There is a whole class of salaried professionals that, should you meet them at parties and admit that you do something that might be considered interesting (an anthropologist, for example), will want to avoid even discussing their line of work entirely. Give them a few drinks, and they will launch into tirades about how pointless and stupid their job really is. Graeber notes that these “bullshit” jobs are more likely to be higher-paid than productive ones: “In our society, there seems a general rule that, the more obviously one’s work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it.” If “technology frees up resources to work on other tasks besides non-bullshit jobs like farming or building stuff with your hands”, why aren’t more people doing exactly that? Graeber’s answer is that the economy generally doesn’t reward non-bullshit jobs to the extent that it rewards bullshit jobs–it simply pays better to do meaningless work as a corporate lawyer than to, say, grow food and sell it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-we-should-move-towards-a-twenty-hour-work-week/674054.md?page=5)