20 Hour Work Week

[opebo]

I was thinking about this when I had to justify my employment recently, and I noticed that they expected a 'forty hour work week'.  I was quite frankly astonished, as I had forgotten about this horror, and assumed it didn't apply to me.

Why don't we have a 20 hour work week, given that it is both more reasonable from the standpoint of human nature and economically beneficial?  (the productivity rate is many times what it was when the 40 hour work week was instituted in the 1930s).

[opebo]

An employer would rather fire what he considers to be extraneous employs as productivity rises than give all of his employees fewer hours at the same pay, ostensibly for the purpose of remaining competitive. It's crap, but not a whole lot can be done about it.

Well, obviously eliminating the 'employer' or strictly controlling his actions (his power over workers) is the only way workers could ever hope to stop being exploited. 

[opebo]

...If there exists a solution at all ... it lies far beyond the government.

I suppose you think that a 'State' is be nature inevitably capitalist, but I'm not so convinced.  It seems to me the State is exactly like a gun, and whoever has it (at present the capitalist class) points it at the others and makes them their slaves.  Whether this gun can only be utilized by the few to oppress the many, or whether there might be a way for the many to wield it is I agree questionable.  But to fantasize that the gun and the power to kill that ultimately delineates all human relationships within society will go away and be replaced by anything else is, I fear, unrealistic.

[opebo]

That was Vladimir Lenin's philosophy: the vanguard could take over the apparatus of the State left behind by the old feudal order, usher it through capitalism into Communism, and dissolve it. Leaving aside the fact that Communism is not precisely what I'm after, that philosophy has been tried and it has failed. One day, long after I've departed this mortal vale, the fundamental social relationships of our society will change. Why I do not know, but I can tell you how: it will not come through a centralized government with a monopoly of force.

I don't think anything will change, though I don't rule it out.  But I also don't think that just because something was 'tried' once historically speaking that it means that idea is definitively a 'failure'.

[opebo]

opebo's a lazy (he views it as a compliment, so relax).  If you want to work 20 hours, then 20 hours pay it shall be.

That's an absolutely destructive, unworkable, and irrational economic policy, Gramps.  The whole point of increasing wages through legislation and unionization, and reducing working hours by the same methods, is to deal with the continuous increase in productivity which will otherwise drown the economy in a disastrous dearth of demand.

Anyone who isn't a lazy is a conditioned rat in a wheel, by the way.

[opebo]

There is in existence a thing called "Part-time".  Feel free to seek one of those positions out if you want those kind of hours.

That should be illegal.  20 hours max, and no jobs should pay less than 'full time'.  In the interests of a stable and growing economy.

Apparently your colleagues are working 40 hour weeks, maybe by tradition, maybe by necessity,...

No, no, everyone in my office is never there.  Or rather, the office is often at least half empty.  That's the point - no one there really works a 40 hour work week (we're usually about half out of town, in Bangkok, etc), which is why I was surprised that I do have to pretend to have done so in my annual evaluation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, that is precisely the point - for economic health we need to stipulate full time as 20 hours, and make that pay the same as 40 hours pays now.  In other words we need to simply return things to the way they were years ago before the free-market deterioration was allowed to set in.

[opebo]

Obviously that show was produced in the Great Society era when it was more popular to submit to the idea of government-mandated work schedules.  I'm not sure people are as eager to accept such government mandates now, even if they did encourage more leisure time.

Which shows how ignorant people are, because they currently do submit to a government mandated work schedule - whatever the lords of industry, privileged by the State to control the populace, stipulate.  Work or die! 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is pure ignorance, fear, envy, power-worship and gullibility.  People are so vile nowadays you almost don't pity them, but then I suppose we tend not to pity the whipped cur that licks its torturers hand. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well no, there is no economic or social mobility, and I am not free to change anything.

[opebo]

There is of course the restaurant world.  At my restaurant (where I do deliveries and am 10% owner since last year btw, thus joining the ruling class) you can work full or part time.  Most tipped employees only work about 15 to 20 hours a week, as they make around 25 to 30 dollars an hour (minimum wage plus tips). 

$25-30/hour?  Wow, I have to believe that there are very few of this kind of restaurant left. I know when I was last in the Bad Place, a huge percentage of the medium-high end restaurants had gone under due to the depression. 

I think what remains are mostly places where there is no tipping, or very minimal tipping.

Impossible.

Nonsense, Link.

[opebo]

READ my post.  If people start working only 20 hrs a week they would have to at LEAST double their work force.  It would increase their costs a lot... if they add another employee that doubles those costs for them before the employee has worked one hour.

Yes, I read it, Loink.  I want to increase costs - reflate the economy.  Productivity has increased tremendously since the 1930s when we last decreased the length of the work-week, and none of that benefit has gone to the workers.

[opebo]

There's obviously a reason why 40 hours is the norm in most workplaces - lower than that wouldn't be efficient and people don't want to work more than that, given how much money they earn nowadays.

Actually more than 40 hours is the norm in the USA, Gustaf.  But being efficient is not an important criteria.

[opebo]

If only we decided to lower our expectations... (Actually this sentence could be said about practically any major issue concerning 'the economy'). And I would add, not just expectations in regards to consumer goods but the lot...

Actually there is no need to lower expectations - the main point of the 20 hour work week would be the salubrious economic effects of increasing payment-for-labor.  The humane and enjoyable life one could lead with more time off is just a bonus.

[opebo]

Opebo, I have to say I greatly admire the rather unique relationship you have with 'reality' (whatever it is. I'm using the common definion). I think it is quite special in a perverse way. Keep up the good work (or something to that effect).

My friend, reality is that we have a dearth of demand, not a dearth of 'efficiency'.

Actually, I'd reckon if we went to a 20 hour week quite a few people would lose their minds with that spare time.

That is the most disturbing thing I've ever heard, and I've heard it before from others - I find work such a huge inconvenience -there are a million things I would do with every day if I didn't have to work.  That there are people with such sad, circumscribed lives that they couldn't fill a day with fun makes me physically ill to think about.

[opebo]

Opebo, I have to say I greatly admire the rather unique relationship you have with 'reality' (whatever it is. I'm using the common definion). I think it is quite special in a perverse way. Keep up the good work (or something to that effect).

My friend, reality is that we have a dearth of demand, not a dearth of 'efficiency'.

Actually, I'd reckon if we went to a 20 hour week quite a few people would lose their minds with that spare time.

That is the most disturbing thing I've ever heard, and I've heard it before from others - I find work such a huge inconvenience -there are a million things I would do with every day if I didn't have to work.  That there are people with such sad, circumscribed lives that they couldn't fill a day with fun makes me physically ill to think about.

Why all the bigotry? Does it really worry you so much that other people might find enjoyment in different ways than you do?

Not at all Gusaf, the point was that they apparently can't find anything else to do.  I'm pretty sure Mikado wasn't saying that they 'enjoy their work' - after all very few do - but rather that they have no idea how to enjoy themselves.

[opebo]

many subsistence economies long before our industrial or even civilized age(s) began had "work weeks" much shorter than 40 hours.  of course back then "work" and "life" were not separate spheres.

A worthwhile observation, Tweed, and a clue as to why everyone (except of course the rich) is so terribly miserable in the modern world.

[opebo]

Well that makes no sense.  None of my friends would sit on their asses at home for 20 hrs a week.  They would all get second jobs and make twice the amount of money.  I don't think you've thought this through.

I've thought it through Link, and your objection has no bearing whatsoever on the economic or societal effects I stipulated.  Whether the serf uses the extra time (as a rational would do), or as a way to 'make more money' as your friends might do, the effect is improvement in the lives of workers and more importantly an increase in demand.

Yeah, and they spent as much of the winter as they could asleep, and with good reason.

Drafts?

I would go completely out of my brain with boredom...

See, Polnut illustrates my case - he is a tragic figure.  He cannot imagine living.

[opebo]

It is rare to see someone seriously advocate a return to stone age. Anyway, there's nothing stopping you guys from living out in the jungle munching roots and reverting to an expected life-span of 30 years or something if you really want to.

I understand that you cannot read English well, but no one advocated a return to the stone age, gustaf.  He merely noted that people have had shorter work periods in the past.   What was the legal mandate of 40 hours then?  A return to the 16th century?  Your arguments are so irrational and specious one hardly knows how to communicate with you.  There is nothing that precludes both a high-technology economy and a shorter working week.

many subsistence economies long before our industrial or even civilized age(s) began had "work weeks" much shorter than 40 hours.  of course back then "work" and "life" were not separate spheres.

That is of course true. But what is to be done about it?

Obviously legally mandating a shorter work week is what should be done about it.  The work week should always be gradually shrinking, just as wages should always be gradually increasing, and in this way we redistribute productivity increases in a sustainable way.

[opebo]

Is this just for hourly workers or everyone?  If you work more than 20 hours a week, do you go to jail, or get overtime?  I mean if you are going to do a brain fart, at least give it a robust finish - otherwise it's just noisome opebo.

I'll ignore the offensive tone of your post and answer you in good spirit.

Obviously there is no reason to accept distinctions between 'hourly workers' and others, Torie.  
As for working more than 20 hours, I would find it quite dangerous to allow this, since there would be huge potential for coercion (in other words it would be hard to know if the toiler actually 'wanted' to toil in excess, though I suppose that the threat involved - firing - would be impossible in my ideal world anyway, so the point is moot).  Since outright banning could be problematic, probably the best deterrent would be to make the 'overtime' at least double or triple the normal rate, and also exact a large tax - more of a fine really - upon same.

That was sort-of my point. If a 20-hr work week was a totally desirable thing then don't we still have it? (Waiting for the next Opebonomics lecture).

No need for a lecture, GF - obviously the owners wanted to work their serfs more.

[opebo]

Define 'serf'.

It was obviously a rhetorical flourish, Al, but the essential point is I think valid - that the modern wage-slave has a rough equivalency in terms of 'freedom' to the medieval serf, and that the claims to the contrary we constantly hear from the Right are mostly deceptive and blatantly self-serving.

[opebo]

IC.  Well, the solution of course, is to just ship your jobs overseas that are hourly, and for salary earners, well they won't keep time sheets. I assume it would be illegal of course to hold two jobs as well. Probably most corporate headquarters and E suite folks, will have to move to England or Canada or something. Hollyweird will have to leave too. Those folks work crazy hours. 

'Solution'?  No, your confused - the problem for which we are seeking a solution is a depression caused by lack of demand, excessive inequality, and inadequate leisure.  If you just want to break the law, that's hardly an argument against the law.  We'll just have to find a way to stop you. 

In the first place, no more 'free trade' in my world, so 'shipping jobs overseas' is right out.  As for your white-collar crimes - we'll just have to keep investigating you in great detail every step of the way.  It is good economics and creates employment anyway. 

[opebo]

What do you know about Mediaeval serfdom?

Apparently more than you know about making an argument.  You can't expect people to chat with you, Al, if you're too lazy to actually post anything.

[opebo]

I am going to assume that your wet kiss of totalitarianism immediately above was just performance art on your part.

Not at all.  Tory, your class is currently in charge of a totalitarianism - naturally you dread being removed from power.

[opebo]

Not at all.  Tory, your class is currently in charge of a totalitarianism - naturally you dread being removed from power.

Tory, Torrie, Torry, and so forth. Is my "name" that hard for you to spell opebo?  I mean, you claim to be sober most of the time, so what is your excuse?  Use "Steve" if my screen name is too much of a challenge for you.

I don't dread anything opebo, not even death. Have a nice day.

I honestly didn't mean to be 'personal' - I didn't mean you literally dread, but rather that the right-wing argument that socialism is a totalitarianism fails to recognize the same when it is on the other foot (capitalism).  Thus, the right-wing 'dreads' this reversal and calls it totalitarianism, while closing their eyes to the fact that for the poor capitalism is a prison.

I often use rhetoric meant to be interesting and communicative, and forget that it might be offensive or irritating.  As for the misspelling, well as you know I'm very prone to that - even more so with other poster's names than yours.

[opebo]

I'm confused - if you have cut supply in half, how will you increase demand? In fact, in general, how will the overall welfare of society not be drastically reduced if we only produce half as much?

Production would increase, Gustaf, and unemployment be eliminated.

And will your favourite prostitutes also have the choice of working only 20 hours a week? Or are these rights not for those damn women?

Oh good lord man, they obviously work far less than 20 hours a week. 

[opebo]

So...you think everyone working half as much as before will not lead to half as much being produced. That's interesting. How is that to come about exactly? (And of course unemployment would not be eliminated, but that's another issue)

Gustaf, our problem at present is far, far too much productive capacity and far too little consumption - hence unemployment and deflation.  Most work that people do is 'busy work' which could easily be eliminated anyway - and increasing the cost of labor is the way that we incentivize 'business' to invest.  For example by using robots, more machinery, etc.

I do hope you understand that my critique is of the fact that the work-week has not been decreased from 40 weeks (in the 1930s) to 20 weeks (at present) by gradual increments, to reflect and deal with the concurrent productivity increases (as well as encourage even greate such increases).  I have never proposed that in one day it be altered so drastically. 

[opebo]

gradual increments

How could I know the details.

Gustaf, there's no need to be so rude.  The concept of gradualism in economic reform is so universal as to almost go without saying.  We all assume some basic common sense or simple economic background in our interlocutors, and I've done the same in your case.  Please try to make good arguments and cease with the lazy straw-manning.

So, if I read you correctly you think that half of the current work has 0 productivity? Why then is it even done? There seems to be no clear gain for either employers or employees from people hanging around the office without getting anything done.

In practice of course your first sentence is an exaggeration, but there is a great deal of truth there as well.  I can confirm, as I think most of us can, that in our offices, about half of the time actually spent there is on face-book, playing computer games, etc.  A good deal of the 'inefficient' behavior in offices comes from the fact that our weekends are far too short (absurdly short really - what's the point of just two days off?  You can't really go on a proper holiday).

You have to remember that had we had a proper diminishment of the working-week over the last 60 years from 40 hours to 20 hours, productivity would be far higher due to greater incentivization of investment in measures and technologies to increase same.

And it's nice that you want to further hurt the working-class by making their work redundant.

Another straw man!  I want to mandate for them a gradually ever-shorter working week while maintaining (or if possible gradually increasing) their income.  This doesn't 'make their work redundant'.