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.
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?
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?
I don’t understand your answer. What specifically has the United States been doing towards lowering labour costs, vacation time, loosening overtime regulation 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.)
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.
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.
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.
A big policy of unions in Scandinavia is making sure there is no minmum wage.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Individual business seek to reduce labor costs, but I don’t think any country pursues reduced wages as economic policy.
I see. Well let me ask you this: Would repealing the overtime laws; minimum wage laws; and so on make any difference at all?
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?
And enacting the FMLA; ADA; and COBRA counts as “not doing anything”?
You didn’t bother to read the linked article, did you? Graeber addresses these points as follows:
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.