quote:

---

French workers were in mourning yesterday for their cherished but controversial 35-hour week, after Nicolas Sarkozy's centre-right party pushed through an employment reform that effectively kills off one of the socialist era's defining policies.

The law, due to come into effect as early as August, will allow companies to decide how many hours and how much overtime their employees clock up every week. Instead of the current maximum of 218 days a year, white-collar workers could be expected to work as many as 235 days.

Sarkozy, who was elected last year with the campaign slogan "work more to earn more", regards the 35-hour week as a major drag on the French economy, arguing that those who want to work more should not be stopped from doing so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Can they get it back?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
It was a dumb policy to begin with. No-one should be mourning it.

---

Sure it's "dumb", if you attribute dumb motives like "job creation" to it. That's called straw-man-ism.

The purpose of reducing the work week is the same as increasing the minimum wage - to limit the exploitation of labour. To improve standards of living. To increase the time available to pursue life, rather than the bare need to produce life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
No boss, or those who take the side of bosses, should be mourning its loss. Calling it dumb is just class warfare, on the side of the bosses, of the ideological kind. That much is obvious.

For class conscious workers, it's well known that reductions in the work week have invariably been paid for in blood. The struggle for the eight hour day, for example, which is still honoured by the celebrations of May Day, cost many lives. The bosses put up ferocious resistance. And they continue to do so.

---

I personally would rather see us move to a 4 day week but the hours are not as important.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Um, no. The argument was the 'lump of labour fallacy'. There are any number of expositions of this point. I chose the wiki version.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Sure it's "dumb", if you attribute dumb motives like "job creation" to it. That's called straw-man-ism.

---

The actual phrase was 'partage du travail'. Same difference. Same dumbness.

[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
Are you against any set work-week? Here in Canada it varies, but generally a "work week" is anywhere from 35-42 hours a week I believe. After that you get into overtime situations, etc. Are you against that as well?

---

Hey, I'm all in favour of reduced work weeks: if work was so great, we'd do it for free. As productivity increases, it makes sense to take at least some of those those gains as time off instead of in the form of higher wages.

quote:

---

The most important promises used to justify capitalism are that your children will have a better life than you do, and in President Kennedy’s famous words, “a rising tide lifts all boats,” meaning everyone benefits from the accumulation of capital. These promises ring hollow in a period in which the relative position of the working people of the United States is declining and its ruling class is able to appropriate an increasing share of the national income.

---

We have:

quote:

---

From an economic standpoint what has happened is that the link between productivity and wages has been broken. No longer does economic growth mean increases in the real earnings for the working class as their productivity rises. This was evident through Clinton’s last term when between 1997 and 2001 the top 10 percent of U.S. earners received 49 percent of the growth in real wages and salaries; indeed, the top 1 percent got 24 percent of the total while the bottom half of workers received less than 13 percent. This trend is of longer duration. Based on a somewhat different calculation the share of income going to the top .1 percent quadrupled between 1970 and 1998 at the expense of working-class earners.

---

[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

Edited to add: Nice edit. I've got to remember that trick myself.

[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

The purpose of reducing the work week is the same as increasing the minimum wage - to limit the exploitation of labour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
All (sustainable) real wage gains are based on increased productivity. When I last eyeballed the relationship between wages and productivity, there was a pretty good fit.

---

But since FTA-NAFTA, our productivity gap with the U.S. has only widened. Opposers to those trade deals and of lowering restrictions on foreign ownership don't see this as a plus for Canada's economy. Hurtig says Canada is a chronic underachiever in the area of private business investment toward R&D. Canada exports of high technology products and services as a percentage of total exports is low compared to several developed economies.

[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Hey, I'm all in favour of reduced work weeks: if work was so great, we'd do it for free. As productivity increases, it makes sense to take at least some of those those gains as time off instead of in the form of higher wages.

---

This makes sense to me. Except that, with all of the productivity gains why isn't anybody taking less work hours ? Why is the work week about where it's been for 40-50 years ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

Why don't we eliminate the work week altogether so that nobody has to get exploited at all?

---

Are you still pissed off about the 5-day week? Not too many decades ago, everyone worked Saturdays too. Who needs a life anyway?

I like your ideas, though. Post them at 168HoursPerWeek.com or email them to:

quote:

---

Sarkozy, who was elected last year with the campaign slogan "work more to earn more", regards the 35-hour week as a major drag on the French economy, arguing that those who want to work more should not be stopped from doing so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
For those countries which compete with the French, I'm sure they would applaud a 30-hour (or 20-hour) work week in France.

---

And there are certain other EU and Nordic countries more economically competitive than France which also have sub-40 hour work-weeks. Maybe Sarkozy and his industry pals should look to other areas of the economy needing attention.

Canadians are flexible as far as hours worked go, and Canada has never ranked in the top ten. Apparently 40 hour work-weeks in Canada(unionized workplaces) aren't a factor in making Canada's majority foreign-owned and controlled corporations anymore productive or competitive.

[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

(Not that I don't now...bloody deadlines)

[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: Briguy ]

quote:

---

Average wages have increased with average productivity.

---

"The workers work harder, the bosses take home more money."

Do "real" wages grow with productivity ? If so, shouldn't real wages be much higher than they were 20,30,40 years ago ?

And, haven't we had to legislate changes to wages and labour conditions in the past because they didn't happen "naturally", even though the market could support it ?

For example, one would think that perpetual increases in productivity would make a minimum wage completely unnecessary, because the lowest prices on labour would rise far above that level.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Do "real" wages grow with productivity ?

---

quote:

---

If so, shouldn't real wages be much higher than they were 20,30,40 years ago ?

---

quote:

---

And, haven't we had to legislate changes to wages and labour conditions in the past because they didn't happen "naturally", even though the market could support it ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
But you didn't; you presented evidence about the increase in inequality. Average wages have increased with average productivity.

---

As your blog post shows, there's more than one way to measure inflation, which is crucial for evaluating the growth of wages. We could argue all day about what's the best measure of inflation for measuring wage growth, but it doesn't matter. Since the question is whether wages are tracking productivity, we can look at the aggregate figures without discounting for inflation. Since GDP growth is driven by productivity, and total wages have been falling as a percentage of GDP, it seems to me that it should be clear that wages are not trackinng productivity. I'm not an expert, so perhaps I'm mistaken.

(One could also argue that total GDP would depend on labour and capital input as well as productivity. In Canada, one might be able to make the argument there's been a faster growth in capital than labour, which is why labour's share of GDP has fallen. However, the same growth in inequality has occured in the US. With the continued trade deficit, I would have thought there'd be a decreasing ratio of capital to labour inputs, so the decrease in total wages as a percentage of GDP would more clearly show that wages were not tracking productivity growth.)

As Krugman has been saying for some time, in the US during the New Deal, and more generally in the west in the post-war era, there was a political decision made that a greater share of wealth would be given to workers. Since the mid-70's that has been undone, with wealth and incoming distributions becoming more imbalanced. In the long term, wages, profits and total output will all grow at the rate set by the increase in productivity, but, as Keynes said, in the long term, we're all be dead. My understanding is that in the last 30 years, wages have fallen behind productivity growth, while profits have grown faster than productivity growth, as wealth has shifted from workers to capitalists.

Returning to the original topic of the thread, my understanding was that the 35 hour work week was meant as a (fairly recent) attempt to bolster the position of labour relative to capital.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PB66:
my understanding was that the 35 hour work week was meant as a (fairly recent) attempt to bolster the position of labour relative to capital.

---

I don't see how reducing the work week would do that. When it was introduced, my understanding was that it was a job creation - or a job sharing - exercise.

eta: From The Economist, a story dated April 2, 1998, as the law was in the process of being adopted:

quote:

---

Fewer hours, more jobs?: A revolutionary cut in the working week from 39 to 35 hours “with no loss of pay” was the star item on Socialists’ election manifesto last summer. It was supposed to create hundreds of thousands of jobs, boost productivity and increase leisure time...

How many jobs will be created? Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the finance minister, says perhaps 200,000. Martine Aubry, the employment minister, at first suggested 1m.

---

[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
It was a dumb policy to begin with. No-one should be mourning it.

---

I know that many economists didn't support this policy, including many labour economists who regarded it as an expensive labour standard that probably discourages additional hiring and employment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:

I know that many economists didn't support this policy, including many labour economists who regarded it as an expensive labour standard that probably discourages additional hiring and employment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
The actual phrase was 'partage du travail'. Same difference. Same dumbness.

---

Thing is, the previous article you link to illustrates that this viewpoint isn't universal:

quote:

---

Walker then traced the origin of the phrase and its application to working time policies to two different late 19th century authors, one of whom, D.F. Schloss, in 1892 disavowed any connection between his fallacy of "the Theory of the Lump of Labour" and the issue of the length of the working day. The other, John Rae, was an advocate of the eight-hour day but argued that job creation was not one of its benefits. Rae's 1894 argument about advocates basing their expectations of job creation on a fixed amount of work was carefully refuted by Charles Beardsley in 1895.

---

quote:

---

And, haven't we had to legislate changes to wages and labour conditions in the past because they didn't happen "naturally", even though the market could support it ?

Sure. I'm not against all interventions. Just dumb ones.

---

SG,

Why is it "dumb" ? Didn't you say above:

"Hey, I'm all in favour of reduced work weeks: if work was so great, we'd do it for free."

The limited work week may have been based on a false premise, but there are other benefits to limiting work - as you have said above.

From the article referenced in the OP:

quote:

---

The 35-hour week, brought in 10 years ago by Lionel Jospin's Socialist government, has retained its popularity among most workers, even though in practice many of them often exceed their limit. Supporters say it has created more jobs and allowed them to maintain a better work/life balance than other countries.

---

1. Less than 10% of French workers are unionized (a rate that is even lower than union membership rate in America).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daniel Grice:
One of the problems with a French style 35 hour week is it still is mainly implemented with 5 days a week and 7 hours a day.

I personally would rather see us move to a 4 day week but the hours are not as important.

20% less commuting. More time with families.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
For those countries which compete with the French, I'm sure they would applaud a 30-hour (or 20-hour) work week in France.

---

Who cares? Are they starving in France? Is there some reason they have to strive to be the Number One Productive Country In The World?

What's the prize when you win? A nation full of miserable workaholics who never get to rest or spend time with their families?

Let's look at your country, Sven. Very productive, congratulations! Too bad a huge percentage of your people are living in squalor while the richest have everything, huh? Too bad people are living hand-to-mouth and dying of preventable illnesses and diseases because they can't afford medical care, huh? A country where retail and minimum wage workers have to work 60 hours a week at two jobs just to pay the rent AND afford groceries.

quote:

---

What's the prize when you win? A nation full of miserable workaholics who never get to rest or spend time with their families?

---

quote:

---

(N. America,certain N. European countries)

---

http://www.conference-board.org/publications/describe.cfm?id=649

found that French workers' productivity-per-hour was higher under the 35-hour week than the productivity of US workers, with French workers producing $41.84 worth of output-per-hour, compared to $38.83 in the USA, a $3.02 difference.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Who cares? Are they starving in France?

---

Well, if that is the standard, they are obviously exceeding it.

My observation is simply that other European countries which compete with the French would love to see the French work week drop even further. That would translate into more jobs, income and a higher standard of living for those other countries (and the converse for the French).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
My observation is simply that other European countries which compete with the French would love to see the French work week drop even further. That would translate into more jobs, income and a higher standard of living for those other countries (and the converse for the French).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
This study:

http://www.conference-board.org/publications/describe.cfm?id=649

found that French workers' productivity-per-hour was higher under the 35-hour week than the productivity of US workers, with French workers producing $41.84 worth of output-per-hour, compared to $38.83 in the USA, a $3.02 difference.

---

Please tell me that you didn't spend $295 to read a study that wasn't even peer-reviewed.

There are two immediate replies to this:

1) This difference has absolutely nothing to do with the 35h/wk policy. Differences in available equipment, technology and skills also matter in comparing productivity levels.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I don't understand this. I can see how a reduced work week would reduce aggregate French output and income. I don't see how that would increase income and output outside France. This isn't a zero-sum game.

---

My assumptions:

1. A reduced work week would not result in a reduction in individual employee compensation. So, a French company's labor cost (on an hourly basis) would increase. I believe that is what happened, by law, when France originally reduced the work week to 35 hours.

2. The increased cost of production in France would then result in some current French production moving to other (lower cost) countries.

Thus, output and income would shift to those non-French countries.

[ 26 July 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Thus, output and income would shift to those non-French countries.

---

Yeah, that's what happened to my Mother-in-law, a tramway driver. Once the 35-hour week went in she had to leave her job and go drive a bus in Hamburg.

quote:

---

Please tell me that you didn't spend $295 to read a study that wasn't even peer-reviewed.

---

Silly me, citing that when wikipaedia is out there.

[ 26 July 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I don't see how reducing the work week would do that. When it was introduced, my understanding was that it was a job creation - or a job sharing - exercise.

---

First, in terms of 'doing that', workers electing a socialist party to change the conditions of work seems like a pretty natural way to bolster the position of labour.

Second, I still don't see why this wouldn't work. If the available supply of labour from its current source (the currently emplyed) is reduced, shouldn't that increase wages and, through a substitution effect, cause other people to be hired? (Note that I'm not claiming that there would still be the same amount of labour -in person hours- hired.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

What is a "labour economist"? Could you please name several that don't support a shorter work week?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
2) If the 35h/wk policy plays a role, it does so by reducing employment. Firms would react to the higher costs by ridding themselves of marginally-productive workers. Average productivity would increase because low-productivity workers would have been laid off.

---

I asked earlier if you had links to any academic papers on the subject of legislated shorter work weeks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
But you're okay, right Jack? If you're a lawyer living the high life, it really doesn't matter much what the plebes do, as long as they're productive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I'm curious, Michelle. Why did you make your post personal?

---

I don't want to put words in her mouth, but I'm not surprised she felt it was personal. In this case, as feminists say, the personal is political. If you work, chances are you face the same pressure to be productive with the same reality that you'll get nothing for it except possibly getting to keep your job a little longer. That's definitely personal and to a degree has political causes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
The idea from the past that we'd be able to continue trading our improved productivity for leisure time has proved false.

---

Not in Canada. According to the data from the Labour Force Survey, the average annual growth rate of people employed since 1976 was about 1.55% a year; the annual growth rate of hours worked was 1.35%. The number of hours worked per employee has been falling by about 0.2% a year.

If workers choose to take a pay cut in order to increase their leisure time, then I am all in favour of providing whatever support necessary to make that happen. But it's not the government's job to impose that choice on everyone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
If workers choose to take a pay cut in order to increase their leisure time, then I am all in favour of providing whatever support necessary to make that happen. But it's not the government's job to impose that choice on everyone.

Similarly, if workers choose to work overtime - sacrificing reduced leisure for higher wages - then that's okay, too. But I'd also object to a policy that imposed obligatory overtime as a way of increasing incomes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Not in Canada. According to the data from the Labour Force Survey, the average annual growth rate of people employed since 1976 was about 1.55% a year; the annual growth rate of hours worked was 1.35%. The number of hours worked per employee has been falling by about 0.2% a year.

---

Unless you are only talking about full-time employment, I would suspect that the 0.2% reduction in hours worked comes from increases in the percentage of employees who are part time, rather than full time, and reductions in hours for many part time employees.