So many things wrong with this. The work week is, at a basic level, tied to productivity. The rise of the salaried class represents an end-run around overtime requirements in professions that aren't protected by unions. In order to protect people for working less than they are now, trade unions would need to become dominant and uncontested. Those who see this happening easily are advised to study the Pinkerton riots and assorted strikes and melees associated with the International Worker's World. Suppose they did, however. The basic argument put forth is hidden deep in the text: In other words, "get used to the wages you can earn working part-time." There's a great HL Mencken quote: "a wealthy man is one who earns $100 a year more than his wife's sister's husband." In other words, we don't judge our wealth based on what we have, we judge it based on what our rivals have. Unless you actively prevent people from working - at all - in their spare time, "hobbies" are rapidly going to become the new industry and your labor market ceases to be regulated. There's nothing wrong with working 40 hours a week. There's nothing wrong with working 50. The problem is working 40 or 50 hours a week doing something that isn't fulfilling that doesn't compensate you adequately and provides no safety net. The problem is not that people are working too much, the problem is that work sucks. Restricting hours will not solve this.nstead of endlessly growing GDP, maybe we need to recalibrate society to make more people happier and successful with less.
Naturally, it takes a shift of mindset among people to place a higher value on leisure than on prestige. However, if we recognize it as a benefit for society it could be encouraged and worked towards, just like ever increasing consumption and demand was encouraged during the 20th century as a political and economic tool. Of course, we already have enough resources to greatly increase the median quality of living, the problem is just distribution.In other words, "get used to the wages you can earn working part-time."
There's a problem, though. We're talking about idling the populace for half their time, then denying them the resources to take advantage of the slack. - Wanna focus on your music? Hope you like ukulele. You've got enough to cover your basic needs but beyond that, you're saving up for a long time. - How 'bout travel? Well, there isn't a lot of funding in place for that. Keep it local, keep it fuel efficient. Air travel is largely out. - Cooking? Well, your recipes are going to be heavy on basics. A part-time world is not one for gourmands. - There will certainly be a lot of Khan Academy bullshit - idlers sitting on their Ikea furniture learning skills that they hope to apply, finding out about things that interest them. But considering we're basically making everyone take half a job - purely because we want there to be enough jobs to go around - means that actually applying those skills is going to become a sticky issue. Otherwise the whole "21-hour workweek" becomes a farce. This is pretty much Marxism-Leninism, which did not exactly work out. There is an innate human need to strive and whacking it off at the legs and saying "thou shalt not work hard" only frustrates. Far better to make sure that everyone's needs are covered, everyone feels fairly compensated, and everyone gets a chance to excel. I work shit-tons of hours at two or three different careers. It doesn't wear me out at all. But then, I haven't been inside a cubicle since 2007. That shit's a grind. I think you'll find that the lower-class fast food worker will happily put in 50 hours a week if it means he gets a roof over his head, a way to get to work, safety and security for his family and the resources to enjoy his leisure time. I also think that if you make the coder or researcher or engineer or machinist put down his tools for more than half the week, he'll find black-market ways to thwart you. People are happy when they're busy being fulfilled. The problem isn't the excess of "busy" it's the dearth of "fulfillment."Naturally, it takes a shift of mindset among people to place a higher value on leisure than on prestige.
However, if we recognize it as a benefit for society it could be encouraged and worked towards, just like ever increasing consumption and demand was encouraged during the 20th century as a political and economic tool.
Look, I'm not arguing for forbidding people from doing work they enjoy, the idea is rather to put slightly different incentives in place. It seems much better for people bored to death at work for it to be socially acceptable to work less, especially when half the population would be working full time and the other half not having a job at all. And we have to encourage people to find fulfilment through other means than 40-hour a week employment. I think ideas such as these have a lot of promise, laying the foundations for a much more flexible job market where people can work more when they're able and there is work to be done, and less otherwise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v22SdEMzxO4 That's not what I'm saying. Artificially making sure there are enough jobs to go around makes no sense, then we might as well hire people to dig holes and other people to fill them. I just think we should curtail over-consumption and actually let people enjoy the fruits of the record high productivity that automation brings. A lot of people work way too much currently, grinding themselves down instead of investing in themselves and leading sustainable lives, by spending more time on learning and growing as human beings. We have the resources to do better.We're talking about idling the populace for half their time, then denying them the resources to take advantage of the slack.
But considering we're basically making everyone take half a job - purely because we want there to be enough jobs to go around - means that actually applying those skills is going to become a sticky issue.
You might not be. The article linked, however, is doing exactly that: In a nutshell, the argument is "disincentivize people from working hard." And again, it's been tried. It should also be pointed out that the actual study arrived at "21 hours" arbitrarily: If they used similar methodology in the US, their paper would be titled "the 46 hour work week." Except that's not the problem we're having. Tim Ferriss' "4 hour work week" has been through a dozen printings. Everyone wants to be able to work less. The trick is it's really hard to get ahead if you do. The study listed above (and "study" is generous) is arguing that people should stop trying to get ahead. I watched your TED talk, by the way. You recognize that it's talking about unskilled labor, right? And that markets such as this already exist around Home Depot? Amazon's Mechanical Turk will also employ your idle hands for pennies whenever you want a little scratch on the side. However, when you get into skilled labor everything changes. I can call up a babysitter to be here in 45 minutes. It will cost me a $75 travel fee and $18 an hour with a 3 hour minimum. Hell, as a IATSE Y-1 sound mixer I've gotten calls at 1am to be mixing at 5am the next day. My posted rate is $57 an hour. I often work 8 hours or less in a week. Sometimes, however, I'll work 26 hours in a day. I have all the protections and such that this article would like the rest of the world to have, and my working conditions are so bad there's a documentary about it. So say we all. The trick is finding a practical way to get there. My argument, which I hope I've expounded and explained adequately, is that a '21 hour work week' is a stupid and useless way to do it. Sure. But if we're going to fight to change things, I'd rather have 6 weeks of paid vacation than a 21 hour work week. How 'bout paid maternity leave? Maybe government healthcare? A livable minimum wage? There are all sorts of things that level the playing field in a proven and effective way that could be instituted with a lot less drama and a lot more success than making everyone suddenly go part time.Look, I'm not arguing for forbidding people from doing work they enjoy, the idea is rather to put slightly different incentives in place.
Achieving shorter working hours. Conditions necessary for successfully reducing paid working hours include reducing hours gradually over a number of years in line with annual wage increments; changing the way work is managed to discourage overtime; providing active training to combat skills shortages and to help long-term unemployed return to the labour force; managing employers’ costs to reward rather than penalise taking on extra staff; ensuring more stable and equal distribution of earnings; introducing regulations to standardise hours that also promote flexible arrangements to suit employees, such as job sharing, extended care leave and sabbaticals; and offering more and better protection for the self-employed against the effects of low pay, long hours, and job insecurity.
21 hours is close to the average that people of working age in Britain spend in paid work and just a little more than the average spent in unpaid work.
It seems much better for people bored to death at work for it to be socially acceptable to work less, especially when half the population would be working full time and the other half not having a job at all.
I just think we should curtail over-consumption and actually let people enjoy the fruits of the record high productivity that automation brings.
A lot of people work way too much currently, grinding themselves down instead of investing in themselves and leading sustainable lives, by spending more time on learning and growing as human beings.
No, the work week as it currently stands is only a result of union fighting and corporations giving in. There has been some evidence to show that 40 hours seems like a fairly good amount of time, but we didn't get there because people were aiming for productivity. Which you seem to acknowledge, so I don't really understand why you lead with this. That said, technology most likely could allow people to work less, but capitalist and social pressures really make it hard. The trade-off would mean that some people make less overall, but would mean that more people are making a decent wage. What you say could just as easily apply to a 60 hour work day, or an 80 hour work day. There is nothing magical about 40 hours.The work week is, at a basic level, tied to productivity
You misunderstand me, perhaps deliberately, as outlined here. Technology does allow people to "work" less. Compare the amount of physical labor performed 100 years ago vs. now. Hell, compare farming to hunting and gathering. Why I say "the work week is, at a basic level, tied to productivity" is that the amount of work put in by the majority of the "working class" at any point in history is related to the comfort level of that class. The argument has long been that in order for everyone to be equal, the strivers need to be hobbled. This is in absolute and total violation of the American work ethic - hell, even the French rebelled against the 32 hour work week. I said fuckall about the "magical" 40-hour work week and fuck you for suggesting I did. I said, for your reference, "The problem is working 40 or 50 hours a week doing something that isn't fulfilling that doesn't compensate you adequately and provides no safety net." You want to have an argument where I'm defending the 40-hour work week. I'm not. I'm skewering the notion that making people work less is any sort of panacea for anything, and I'm doing it in very simple terms. Would you like to try again? Sorry for the venom, but I'll bet I'm the only person on this page who is actually in a union, who comes from a long line of union workers (on both sides of his family, no less) and who is actively involved in a labor dispute at the moment and I will not have my position misrepresented for cheap internet points.No, the work week as it currently stands is only a result of union fighting and corporations giving in.
That said, technology most likely could allow people to work less, but capitalist and social pressures really make it hard.
The trade-off would mean that some people make less overall, but would mean that more people are making a decent wage.
What you say could just as easily apply to a 60 hour work day, or an 80 hour work day. There is nothing magical about 40 hours.
Jesus man, I was not trying to attack you as a person, nor am I trying to call you opposed to unions. In fact I acknowledge that your comment seemed strange, so perhaps I was just not understanding you. My initial point stands though, there is nothing special about a 40 hour work week, it is an arbitrary standard created by historical process. And yes you do imply there is something special about 40 hours a week. Or else all these statements are the same: You reference that the French rebelled against a 32 hour work week, but the Netherlands averages a 29 hour work week Also, screw this idea that I was just trying to win internet points, what internet points are you talking about? I've also been involved in union action, including one of the largest industrial action of the last 10 years.The problem is working 10 hours a week doing something that isn't fulfilling that doesn't compensate you adequately and provides no safety net.
The problem is working 40 hours a week doing something that isn't fulfilling that doesn't compensate you adequately and provides no safety net.
The problem is working 80 hours a week doing something that isn't fulfilling that doesn't compensate you adequately and provides no safety net.
I think society would benefit from a shorter work week, and spending free time recreationally be it with their family and friends, playing sports, arts and music, etc. That time could easily be spent developing arts, music, and culture in a city, or otherwise developing our lives on a more personal level. Plus, I'd much rather have free time than spend maybe 25 hours actually working and another 15 sitting around pretending to work. I've yet to have a job where the vast majority of my time is actually spent working.
I would guess that a 20-30 hour work week is completely feasible from a production standpoint in most cases.I've yet to have a job where the vast majority of my time is actually spent working.
I was recently talking with b_b and insomniasexx about how at the beginning of ones career you work a LOT. 50-60 our work weeks aren't uncommon. Then as your career advances and ideally you become more sought after, you inevitably get paid more and work less hours. I've also noticed that the higher you climb the business ladder, the less likely you are to wear a tie. -I never want to wear a tie again unless its a funeral or a wedding.
I remember learning about "Holy Monday" in the sense that it was known during the Industrial Revolution: Holy Monday did not only call into play the question of work time, but also the use of money, because workers did not return to work until they had spent all of their salary. From this period on, the slave was no longer considered simply a worker, but a consumer as well. The need to develop the internal market by opening it up to the poor had been theorized by Adam Smith. Moreover, as Archbishop Berkeley wrote in 1755, "wouldn't the creation of needs represent the best means of making the nation industrious"The resistance of the first factory workers manifested itself primarily over one of the rare things that belonged to them, and of which they were being dispossessed: their time. It was an old religious custom not to work on either Sunday or Monday, which was called "Holy Monday." Since Tuesdays were dedicated to recovering from two days of drinking, work would not reasonably begin until Wednesday. Wide spread at the beginning of the 19th century, this holy custom subsisted until 1914 in some trades. Various coercive methods were employed by the bosses, without success, to combat this institutionalised absenteeism. It was with the introduction of trade unions that Saturday afternoons off from work were substituted for "Holy Monday.'' This glorious conquest meant that the work week was extended by two days.
Some would be negative, but would they outweigh the good? Who knows but It would be a shame to dismiss more personal freedom, over concerns of the unknown.
For me working less is more or less automatically good because I have a vision of what I could use the extra free time doing, and who I could be working with. For other people, working less might not be good for them, at least not immediately. It depends on that type of person you are and what your hobbies are.
Would those negatives be more than the current negatives?
I think the point is that the amount of "work" equal to a dollar is an arbitrary value, and that we've somehow landed on the 40-hours-per-week-is-enough-to-drive-my-lifestyle paradigm. If everyone works less, but also decides that work is worth more, you'll end up with more free time but the same prices. Up to a certain point of practicality, i.e. the minimum amount of work needed for shit to actually get done. Unfortunately I don't see this kind of shift happening very quickly...
You are incorrect in thinking this. The 8-hour day was clawed back from the "forever" day.I think the point is that the amount of "work" equal to a dollar is an arbitrary value, and that we've somehow landed on the 40-hours-per-week-is-enough-to-drive-my-lifestyle paradigm.
True. Apparently I'm much more naive just before I sleep. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, considering working hours have still been decreasing in the last few decades. You got me thinking about trade unions but, in contrast to last night, I'd rather not write down some unsubstantiated things.
Depends on where you are, I think. I know working hours in the US surpassed Japan over ten years ago, where they actually have a word for "death by overwork." Don't get me wrong - there are very real problems. I just find the "idle half the workforce" approach to be myopic.I guess we'll just have to wait and see, considering working hours have still been decreasing in the last few decades.
You may find this to be an interesting read as well. http://libcom.org/library/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-gra... After working for the state for only 2 years, I have discovered most of my time is spent trying to look busy. My HR managers would prefer I have nothing to do for 40 hours a week, as long as I am on time, than have me create or find needed projects that create work that would require over time and unpredictable hours. I've always found it very confusing.
I used to subcontract for the state. Government employees are either completely incompetent, completely checked-out or completely short-time. My trick was to engage the checked-out ones enough to get shit done and work through the short-time ones before they returned to private industry.
Fucking 40-hour work week. I hate it. I spend much of time at work doing something I don't really see has much of a purpose. I wake up, I go to work, I go home to play video games or work out. Much of my time is spent at work and commuting in between, and I feel as though it's taking a toll on my mind. A toll on how I see things.... I don't want any of what working a 40-hour work week entails. Some say "oh, it's adulthood. Get used to it." I refuse. I can't accept this form of slavery... Why should I only have two days to enjoy myself? Two days isn't anywhere near enough! I love cycling. I love building systems, I love working on the yard, and especially working out. Instead, I find myself tired and drained from the day's monotony. It's depressing, really. I work at a University, and kind of already see the fate of these young kids. They'll go to college, learn accounting, psychology, whatever will make them happy and productive worker bees. Why would anyone want that for themselves? So you can enjoy retirement at an old age when you're not physically able to, because of the fucking McDonald's you've eaten? For now, I must work and toil. I must pay the taxes and play along like a good little robot. It won't last long though. I can't be just like everybody else and slowly lose my aspirations and dreams to the barrages of monotony, mediocrity, and soccer practices. Maybe these are the ramblings of a young 25 year old, but this I've known for a while: Work sucks, and my time would be better spent pursuing hobbies and interests that keep my attention. I make it a habit of asking people what they would rather be doing over working or school. Some can't come up with an answer -- they've never even imagined a world without having work. Kind of sad, to be perfectly honest.
The problem is not working too many hours. The problem is working too many days. I do not like the 8hr/day 40-hr 5:2 work week. I prefer a 12hr/day 48-hr 4:4 work week. Even though I am technically working more hours, I have have 50% of my days off and can enjoy the "time to live sustainably, to care for each other, and simply to enjoy life." What my schedule does not do, however, is allow slashes in full-time payroll to be redirected into executive bonuses and shareholder dividends.
While I think that a shorter work week is an good idea, I don't see it happening. Right now I'm working for a university research lab and worked a 20-hour week over the summer. I hated it. I couldn't get anything done in 4 hours a day, and over the course of a week I didn't feel like I had really worked as much as I should have. And then, after getting off I'd just dick around for the rest of the day. That doesn't mean that I don't find 40-hours a week to be oppressive, I'd love to take a longer break from work every once in a while, but I don't think a shorter work week is the answer. Rather, I'd like to see at least a month's worth of vacation days, and a flexible work schedule. Some days I really want to get in to the office and work for 10 hours, but other days (like Fridays) I really only want to work until 3 or 4, after that I'd be totally unproductive. Its still 40 hours a week, but its the 40 hours that I really feel like working, NOT the 40 hours that the work week mandates.
I also work in research, but I think the experience you describe applies to many areas of work. Flexibility and working when you are able, and not being forced to work when unlikely to do so or it is impossible accomplish anything meaningful. Being required to fit your work into pre-measured buckets isn't practical in many cases, sometimes the buckets would be overflowing and other times they won't be filled up all the way. The problem often seems to be the slightly empty buckets and not all the potential work being lost as overflow from the full ones. Hopefully that makes sense. The trouble is, this requires accountability and trust in employees that managers and HR departments find difficult. Being able to take time off and not be forced to work rigid hours seems to be a better approach than simply working less. Ideally people should be hungry for work, they need to be enabled to do so in a fulfilling way.
My boss would laugh at this were I to show it to him. He's too concerned with hoarding as much money as possible.