Cut the working week to 20 horus

[Josquius]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/08/cut-working-week-urges-thinktank?newsfeed=true

Britain is struggling to shrug off the credit crisis; overworked parents are stricken with guilt about barely seeing their offspring; carbon dioxide is belching into the atmosphere from our power-hungry offices and homes. In London on Wednesday, experts will gather to offer a novel solution to all of these problems at once: a shorter working week.

A thinktank, the New Economics Foundation (NEF), which has organised the event with the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School of Economics, argues that if everyone worked fewer hours – say, 20 or so a week – there would be more jobs to go round, employees could spend more time with their families and energy-hungry excess consumption would be curbed. Anna Coote, of NEF, said: "There's a great disequilibrium between people who have got too much paid work, and those who have got too little or none."

She argued that we need to think again about what constitutes economic success, and whether aiming to boost Britain's GDP growth rate should be the government's first priority: "Are we just living to work, and working to earn, and earning to consume? There's no evidence that if you have shorter working hours as the norm, you have a less successful economy: quite the reverse." She cited Germany and the Netherlands.

Robert Skidelsky, the Keynesian economist, who has written a forthcoming book with his son, Edward, entitled How Much Is Enough?, argued that rapid technological change means that even when the downturn is over there will be fewer jobs to go around in the years ahead. "The civilised answer should be work-sharing. The government should legislate a maximum working week."

Many economists once believed that as technology improved, boosting workers' productivity, people would choose to bank these benefits by working fewer hours and enjoying more leisure. Instead, working hours have got longer in many countries. The UK has the longest working week of any major European economy.

Skidelsky says politicians and economists need to think less about the pursuit of growth. "The real question for welfare today is not the GDP growth rate, but how income is divided."

Parents of young children already have the right to request flexible working, but the NEF would like to see job-sharing and alternative work patterns become much more widespread, and is calling on the government to make flexible working a default right for everyone.

I've had thoughts in this direction before, it does make sense in a way, rather than someone having 40 hours of work two people having 20 hours. I always dismissed it though as just idle thinking which wouldn't work in the real world.
Certainly  though this could be one solution to the steady decay of the amount of work available- a dodgy trend which has been going on since the 70s/80s, ever accelerating, the recent economic situation only worsening not creating it. It could help somewhat relieve the future problem of massed unemployment brought on by mechanisation.

[Darth Wagtaros]

It would be more expensive.  Nearly doubling the work force = more bennies (health, life insurance, pension/401k matching, etc), as well as administrative and HR type things. You'd need more managers, tasks that were once simple become balancing acts and everybody would have to work very well together.

Fucking stupid.

[Viking]

Disaproves of such lazyness by his slaves.

[garbon]

I claim Isis!

[garbon]

I've had thoughts in this direction before, it does make sense in a way, rather than someone having 40 hours of work two people having 20 hours. I always dismissed it though as just idle thinking which wouldn't work in the real world.
Certainly  though this could be one solution to the steady decay of the amount of work available- a dodgy trend which has been going on since the 70s/80s, ever accelerating, the recent economic situation only worsening not creating it. It could help somewhat relieve the future problem of massed unemployment brought on by mechanisation.

Addressing your commentary...now that I've finished laughing.

How would that even function? I work more than my company's traditional working hours.  Do you really think my company would hire someone new to cover those additional hours without cutting my pay? If they cut my pay, how do I afford for my apt and the rest of my expenses?  Howdo you keep anyone that has a job currently from fleeing said country that enforces a maximum work week (and then naturally a cut in pay)?  Why wouldn't businesses seek employees outside of said countries?

And why should we try to reverse the effects of mechanization? At the end of the day aren't we just removing jobs that have become obsolete? Why isn't it the role of the would be job-seeker to step up to the demands of this "new" workforce?

Btw, just picked up a bio on Thatcher. The whole beginning is all about her humble beginnings.

[Monoriu]

This suggestion has been mentioned a million times before.  That it hasn't been effectively implemented should tell you something. 

2 people working 20 hours does not equal to one person working 40 hours a week.  It'll be far less.  A lawfirm won't benefit by having a bright lawyer work less, even if they have an additional guy, because the new guy is most likely unqualified and inexperienced.  And good luck competing with the Chinese or Japanese factory workers who work 80 hours a week or more.       

[Josquius]

This suggestion has been mentioned a million times before.  That it hasn't been effectively implemented should tell you something.

2 people working 20 hours does not equal to one person working 40 hours a week.  It'll be far less.  A A lawfirm won't benefit by having a bright lawyer work less, even if they have an additional guy, because the new guy is most likely unqualified and inexperienced.  And good luck competing with the Chinese or Japanese factory workers who work 80 hours a week or more. 

Germany manages.

Addressing your commentary...now that I've finished laughing.

How would that even function? I work more than my company's traditional working hours.  Do you really think my company would hire someone new to cover those additional hours without cutting my pay? If they cut my pay, how do I afford for my apt and the rest of my expenses?  Howdo you keep anyone that has a job currently from fleeing said country that enforces a maximum work week (and then naturally a cut in pay)?  Why wouldn't businesses seek employees outside of said countries?

And why should we try to reverse the effects of mechanization? At the end of the day aren't we just removing jobs that have become obsolete? Why isn't it the role of the would be job-seeker to step up to the demands of this "new" workforce?

You can afford to live just fine with less hours (IMO 20 is way over the top and into the realms of fantasy silliness). What about the person who can't afford their apartment and expenses because they've no job?
I don't see people fleeing countries with a good work-life balance. Quite the opposite...
Why to businesses bother to operate in some countries in the first place?

Its not at all about reversing the effects of mechanisation. Its about sharing its positive effects and reducing the impact of its negative effects. The world only needs so many cars (or what have you), it does however need a hell of a lot less people to make them than it once did, a trend which is forever continuing.
Its all well and good to moan about the knowledge economy, people needing to train for jobs in IT and all that sort of thing but for some people that just isn't an option. Not all of us are born with a decent head on our shoulders and the opportunity to go to university.
And even there we have the potential for more supply than there is demand. It isn't as simple as your job is obsolete, get a new job. Its a question of the concept of work steadily going obsolete.

Btw, just picked up a bio on Thatcher. The whole beginning is all about her humble beginnings.

Her beginnings weren't that humble, her dad was a shopkeeper, pretty middle class.
But I suppose that is still in touch with common folk. Which makes her all the more monstrous, she can't even hide behind the veil of ignorance the upper class Tories do.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I don't know that I could afford to live just fine with fewer hours/less pay.  Eastern Mass. isn't very forgiving.  Arrange for rent to go down and we can talk.

[Caliga]

I think the solution is to have more large-scale wars.  Death solves all problems.

[citizen k]

Arrange for rent to go down and we can talk.

In Soviet 20hrworkweekastan, rent arranges you.

[sbr]

The rent is too damn high.

[garbon]

You can afford to live just fine with less hours (IMO 20 is way over the top and into the realms of fantasy silliness). What about the person who can't afford their apartment and expenses because they've no job?

Are you kidding me? I'd definitely need to flee New York if I collected half my salary. In fact, if I collected half my salary before taxes, I'd be getting close to the yearly rent on my 1 bedroom apt. And believe me, my apartment is hardly extravagant.

I don't see people fleeing countries with a good work-life balance. Quite the opposite...

Good work-life balance doesn't matter if you can't afford your life.

Why to businesses bother to operate in some countries in the first place?

Because it is profitable to?

Its not at all about reversing the effects of mechanisation. Its about sharing its positive effects and reducing the impact of its negative effects. The world only needs so many cars (or what have you), it does however need a hell of a lot less people to make them than it once did, a trend which is forever continuing.
Its all well and good to moan about the knowledge economy, people needing to train for jobs in IT and all that sort of thing but for some people that just isn't an option. Not all of us are born with a decent head on our shoulders and the opportunity to go to university.
And even there we have the potential for more supply than there is demand. It isn't as simple as your job is obsolete, get a new job. Its a question of the concept of work steadily going obsolete.

So the solution is to cut the hours and pay of those limited skill workers who managed to land one of those ever-vanishing positions?

[garbon]

Btw, if we need fewer workers, perhaps we should continue to have fewer babies. That's fewer people who need jobs down the line.

[Josquius]

Are you kidding me? I'd definitely need to flee New York if I collected half my salary. In fact, if I collected half my salary before taxes, I'd be getting close to the yearly rent on my 1 bedroom apt. And believe me, my apartment is hardly extravagant.

I find this very hard to believe. Much poorer people than you manage it.

Good work-life balance doesn't matter if you can't afford your life.

Except you can.
I'm happy with what I earn, I don't want to earn less, but I could get by on a half or third of what I earn. Less if I moved to a smaller, worse located place (my current place is rather huge).

Because it is profitable to?

And it would continue to be so.

So the solution is to cut the hours and pay of those limited skill workers who managed to land one of those ever-vanishing positions?

Two people contributing to society, giving their kids a chance in life, etc.... vs a person taking the work of both who doesn't contribute anything more but can afford to stay somewhere nicer when he goes on holiday and has a bigger TV.
I'd prefer option 1. It reduces the profits of their employer slightly but hugely   increases the wellbeing of the country and the individuals involved.

[DGuller]

You can afford to live just fine with less hours (IMO 20 is way over the top and into the realms of fantasy silliness). What about the person who can't afford their apartment and expenses because they've no job?

Are you kidding me? I'd definitely need to flee New York if I collected half my salary. In fact, if I collected half my salary before taxes, I'd be getting close to the yearly rent on my 1 bedroom apt. And believe me, my apartment is hardly extravagant.

I don't see people fleeing countries with a good work-life balance. Quite the opposite...

Good work-life balance doesn't matter if you can't afford your life.

Why to businesses bother to operate in some countries in the first place?

Because it is profitable to?

Its not at all about reversing the effects of mechanisation. Its about sharing its positive effects and reducing the impact of its negative effects. The world only needs so many cars (or what have you), it does however need a hell of a lot less people to make them than it once did, a trend which is forever continuing.
Its all well and good to moan about the knowledge economy, people needing to train for jobs in IT and all that sort of thing but for some people that just isn't an option. Not all of us are born with a decent head on our shoulders and the opportunity to go to university.
And even there we have the potential for more supply than there is demand. It isn't as simple as your job is obsolete, get a new job. Its a question of the concept of work steadily going obsolete.

So the solution is to cut the hours and pay of those limited skill workers who managed to land one of those ever-vanishing positions?

If people earned less, then positional goods like real estate would also go down in value.  Not by the same proportion as the average salary, but it will go down.  High salaries and high cost of living feed off each other and leverage each other to some extent.

I have always thought it to be a paradox that increased productivity hasn't gone towards reducing hours worked, and rather went towards higher earnings and sometimes even more hours worked.  In a post-scarcity economy, it doesn't have to be this way.  After a certain point, having time to enjoy what you earned is more important than earning more.

That said, the argument in the OP is just a standard lumps of labor fallacy.  You don't reduce unemployment by cutting work hours, even if you manage to enforce that mandate.