Shorter hours might force employers to use more technology, increasing productivity without decreasing wages.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle John:
Workers have fought for and won 60, 50, 48, 40, and 37.5 hr. work weeks. An argument could be made that more leisure time and activity would be good for the economy, despite whining from business leaders. Overall, it would seem that as working hours have been reduced, living standards have gone up.

Shorter hours might force employers to use more technology, increasing productivity without decreasing wages.

Any thoughts?

---

I honestly don't understand why there is such reluctance to allow shorter working hours, even for proportionately less pay. There just aren't that many decent part-time jobs.

But on the other side there are so many lower-paid workers in restaurants, retail, factories, home care, hotels, scrambling for all the hours they can get just to make ends meet. It's so difficult for many folks even to find a permanent full-time job, never mind at a living wage, especially with the huge and increasing number of temp agencies skimming off all the light industrial work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle John:
Workers have fought for and won 60, 50, 48, 40, and 37.5 hr. work weeks. An argument could be made that more leisure time and activity would be good for the economy, despite whining from business leaders. Overall, it would seem that as working hours have been reduced, living standards have gone up.

Shorter hours might force employers to use more technology, increasing productivity without decreasing wages.

Any thoughts?

---

I think the better narrative would have the causality reversed: as technology and productivity increased, we're able to have higher wages and shorter hours.

I couldn't afford to drop below 40 hours - my lunch is paid, but since I never take 'lunch', or a coffee break, and I'm in my office before 8 am.......

Technology has allowed us to work from home, those in 'office' jobs at least. But that hasn't given us more home time, it's given us less, as we spend home time catching up on expectations.

My news years resolution revolved around 'boundaries'. As a woman I've also been practicing "no" a lot. Haven't used it at the work place yet, but I'm working on it.

Also as I work for a charity there is expectation, from the community and donors, that paid staff are paid below private sector standards, volunteer a lot of time and cope with more demands.

quote:

---

If they could work longer hours they would love to in order to get ahead.

---

quote:

---

It all depends on pay rather than hours worked anyway. My French friends just can barely live on what they make.

---

What about you? maybe it wouldn't work for everyone. Maybe we can force just the people who earn too much to work less...maybe with the extra time they'd get over their more vain pursuits and take up a useful hobby....Or at least we'd have less office workers being paid to create facebook(er...babble?) content.

I worked part time laste year and managed to save money. Im working full time this year because I had no choice if I wanted to take the job. I get a reasonable rate, but probably on the low side for most middle class people, though no benefits of any sort, and currently save about 75% of what I earn(while eating organic). Or course this might be a little different if I had a family. Anyhow, I'm currently testing out sharing the workload with an unemployed friend.

[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: ebodyknows ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I think the better narrative would have the causality reversed: as technology and productivity increased, we're able to have higher wages and shorter hours.

Shorter hours is a good thing, to be sure. But it's not a cause of productivity increases; it's a result of them.

---

Surely there have been large gains in productivity in the last 70 years, and yet the work day remains stagnant at around 40 hours. To be sure, the owner /investor class always gets the most benefit from gains in productivity. And most people, over time, get some benefit in the form of increased purchasing power.

Reducing the number of hours worked per week (or per year) is another way to spread some of the benefits of increased productivity across society. And that's what happened from the industrial revolution until the mid 20th century, with the normal work week declining from over 70 hours to about 40 hours.

My question is: why did it stop there? Why haven't productivity gains over the last half a century led to the work week being reduced further? In fact, the opposite seems to be the case in recent decades, with many people working longer hours, whether they are poorly paid and working 2 jobs to make ends meet, or managers and professionals who put in countless hours of (often unpaid) overtime.

What is the explanation for this? Is there something inherently optimal about the 40-hour week? Or is it just that the economic and political clout of the owner/investor class has been back on the upswing in recent decades, preventing work-week reductions, lightening the tax load of the wealthiest people, and generally ensuring that the benefits of productivity gains flow more to owners/investors than in previous generations?

[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: Albireo ]

Do people need 2 TV's, 3 bathrooms, Starbucks lattes, bottled water, two or three cars,

Of course not.

[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: mudman ]

[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: mudman ]

quote:

---

What is the explanation for this? Is there something inherently optimal about the 40-hour week?

---

I'm not sure a lot of people would know what to do with themselves if they didn't put in a solid 40hrs...it is such a part of the culture.

quote:

---

What I meant by "get ahead" was ahead of flat: they want to sve, to maybe travel, to have a house. Currently very difficult compared to the US, Canada or the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mudman:
I think that in North America and maybe the UK people are too focused on gadgets, big houses and material goods, none of which bring meaning to our lives. ....
Do people need 2 TV's, 3 bathrooms, Starbucks lattes, bottled water, two or three cars,

Of course not.

---

No, people don't need these things. But the system needs people to want them and to be convinced that they need them 1) so that they buy what is produced 2) so that they will work hard and work long hours.

[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albireo:
Why haven't productivity gains over the last half a century led to the work week being reduced further? In fact, the opposite seems to be the case in recent decades, with many people working longer hours, whether they are poorly paid and working 2 jobs to make ends meet, or managers and professionals who put in countless hours of (often unpaid) overtime.

---

A few thoughts:

In the absence of full employment policies, a reduction in the total amount of work to be performed as a society would not be expected to translate into more leisure time for all of us equally. The effect is disproportionately felt by those at the margins of paid employment. A single low-paying part-time job is now often all that is available and huge numbers of people are totally unemployed, by social design.

Additionally, the technology-based productivity gains widely anticipated since the 1980's have to a degree been counteracted by a corresponding increase in performance expectations, resulting from the same technological capabilities and in particular the tremendous increase in the amount of available information.

Ellul talks about the innate tendency for technology's own requirements -- referring also to bureaucracy -- to overtake the objectives it is intended to serve.

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]