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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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! :rolleyes:
No wait…we need to raise the prices on our stuff so we can bail out our Euroslackers!:smack:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.