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.