20 Hour Work Week

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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?

[Gustaf]

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.

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.

[Gustaf]

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?

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?

[Gustaf]

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. 

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)

And I apologize for the bit about prostitutes. What you say might be true for those high-end prostitutes rich colonialists like you employ. I forgot that you don't really mix with the lower classes that much. 

[Gustaf]

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. 

How could I know the details of your craziness? That's like expecting me to understand which castle in France a mental patient thinking she is Marie Antionette claims to be currently residing in.

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.

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

[Gustaf]

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'.

It's amusing how you assume that everyone works in an office. Of course, plenty of workers don't have the kind of job where they can surf away at Facebook. If you're driving a truck or operating a fork-lift or performing brain surgery there will be a lot less time wasted. And of course your assertion about office workers, yet to be backed by any evidence, is certainly not true for a great many office workers as well (say phone salesmen).

Furthermore, the incentive to increase productivity would be rather strong regardless. In fact, possibly more so - a given increase in productivity would only generate half as much production and revenue under a 20 hour workweek.

Also, you ignore fixed time costs involved in working. Or the costs in education and training involved in having to keep multiple staff. Then you have informational costs involved in having to coordinate people. And, finally, human capital loss that follows from working too little.

[Gustaf]

Also, you ignore fixed time costs involved in working. Or the costs in education and training involved in having to keep multiple staff. Then you have informational costs involved in having to coordinate people. And, finally, human capital loss that follows from working too little.

But all of your arguments militate for a 60 or 80 hour work week just as much as they do for not decreasing it from 40 to 20, Gustaf.  Why not increase it?  (and of course we have in practice been increasing it ruthlessly since the advent of the neo-liberal era).

Eh...no. There is also fatigue that sets in if the week is too long as well as a simple decrease in marginal utility from leisure which makes it less worthwhile for people to give up another 10 hours of leisure if they are already having preciously little of it.

This also varies from profession to profession. Consultants and bankers for instance have to work 60-80 hours per week, largely because so much of their work requires human capital specific to the individual.

All of the above is why my first post said there was a reason we have a 40 hour week. It is the week that strikes the roughly correct balance between these different effects.

And, of course, I do not want the week to be a certain length. I want people to decide on the market how much they want to work, instead of forcing them to abide by some arbitrary rule set by you.

[Gustaf]

Eh...no. There is also fatigue that sets in if the week is too long as well as a simple decrease in marginal utility from leisure which makes it less worthwhile for people to give up another 10 hours of leisure if they are already having preciously little of it.

So it is merely a matter of preference and degree.  I find that for myself, 20 hours is the maximum I can toil without experiencing the sufferings of the damned, and given the profound and pervasive dissatisfaction in modern society, and the near universal hatred of 'ones job' (not to mention many a pop song which idealizes and longs for 'the weekend'), I can way with confidence that I am not alone in abhorring the 40 hour week.

All of the above is why my first post said there was a reason we have a 40 hour week. It is the week that strikes the roughly correct balance between these different effects.

Perhaps, but only for the purpose of maximizing the amount of production which can be extracted from the worker (a dubious purpose to say the least, and one which serves only the interests of the empowered, namely the owner, and, after all, completely neglects the equally important demand side of the economic equation).

And, of course, I do not want the week to be a certain length. I want people to decide on the market how much they want to work, instead of forcing them to abide by some arbitrary rule set by you.

Obviously the 'choice' you imagine is unrealistic - they must work however long the employer forces them to work for the subsistence level wage.  The only way for powerless people  (workers) to alter their working week would be through political change which removes some of the power from their employers and relocates it to the worker.

Nothing about my proposal 'forces' workers to do anything - it would merely abolish the current system, which forces workers in most jobs to work at least 40 hours.

All this job hatred and dissatisfaction you're talking about is just a sad projection. Most people I know are quite happy and enjoy their work.

And, of course, it's not about maximizing the production. Since workers tend to be paid their marginal productivity it's about where they think the value of an hour of leisure is equal to the value of what they could produce in that hour (=to what they would be able to buy with it). Subject to the above constraints that I mentioned.

And you seem to have no idea how real work-life functions. People aren't forced to do much of anything (excepting people like prostitutes of course).

I'm still unclear on where the resources come from in this society. You want half as much to be produced and yet expect demand to sky-rocket? How will that work exactly?

[Gustaf]

And you seem to have no idea how real work-life functions. People aren't forced to do much of anything (excepting people like prostitutes of course).

Everyone must toil or starve to death, Gustaf, except for the rich.

I'm still unclear on where the resources come from in this society. You want half as much to be produced and yet expect demand to sky-rocket? How will that work exactly?

Its called a good economy, Gustaf.  I understand at your age you've never seen real economic growth, but I can tell you it once existed, back in the seventies.
[/quote]

Sweden has had very good GDP growth during most of my life time, so that's not correct. I see you have to resort to vague mumbo-jumbo so I take it you've given up this silly debate.

[Gustaf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_inventions#.C2.A0Soviet_Union

Not to mention Soviet visual art and film which were largely terrific and couldn't have existed if their creators had been thrown to the wolves of the free market.

It is really sad that there have been no great films produced in the Western world. Ever.

I was going to come into the thread and tell Politco he's being stupid because no one in their right mind would disagree with him and claim that dictatorships slaughtering millions of people are superior to capitalist democracies. Then I saw Lief decided to chime in, so I'm not going to make that post.

[Gustaf]

Is Lief actually pro-Soviet or did he just post that article in response to Politico's query? I thought the later.

I really wonder if this Politico guy came out of a 1991 time warp. The ironic thing is that the Cold War arguably helped capitalism be extra careful and avoid a major depression because if one had happened, it could have been exploited by the communists. Once that spectre was gone, capitalism went crazy.

Lief is on record as pro-dictatorship in general and also in favour of killing innocent civilians if they're on the wrong side. If one thinks Cuba and Venezuela are awesome it seems like the step to the Soviet Union would hardly be that big.

I was merely noting the bizarre claim that the good movies produced in the Soviet Union could not have been made in the West. I wasn't implying I know Lief is pro-Soviet, just that I don't feel safe making my original post without letting him post first. I suspect he might prove me wrong and argue that Russians, like Chinese, aren't cut out for democracy, freedom of enterprise and other such oppressive mechanisms of the capitalist society.

[Gustaf]

Guys, you're not meant to actually take Lief seriously.  He's just here for the "lulz" as he would say.  The half-baked 'middle class white kid'-style Marxism is just a phase, and I'm sure he knows that too.  A few other posters went through it as well, and they usually soon get bored and try a new hobby instead.  Or they just leave.  Not everyone is able to mimic the 'Opebo' cartoon character that effectively.

I've met my fair share of "Liefs" in real life, so I'm well aware. The problem is that they're not non-serious in the right way. The entire thing is, inevitably, based on not caring about the plight of oppressed people (be they Jews, Chinese farmers, poor Cubans, etc) and instead exploiting them for the purpose of building a personal image. I can't respect that, even if it's done for that abominable word that I won't repeat.

[Gustaf]

...I can't respect that, even if it's done for that abominable word that I won't repeat.

Pussy?

To Politico - the point isn't whether or not 'socialism works', the point is that capitalism doesn't work as evidenced by our current depression.  (and even if it did there is no reason for most people to accept it).

For myself I've always proposed moderate Keynesian solutions, however much more satisfying and appealing simply slaughtering the oppressors would be.

Nope, I'm not a prude.

[Gustaf]

My God, but there's a lot of Fail in this thread. Not had a chance to read through the rest of the recent developments 'till now. Lord.

It's an Opebo thread on economics - it's to be expected, is it not?

[Gustaf]

You're very good at reading things into my posts that I never said. Not in favor of killing innocent civilians, nor am I "pro-dictatorship in general." In fact I don't know that I've come out in favor of any dictatorships? Unless you think Chavez is a dictator, which is false. I don't know that I've ever said that Venezuela or Cuba are awesome either, just better than their right-wing detractors make them out to be. Obviously I'd love those countries to have Sweden's political economy, but we can't all be lucky enough to live in one of the best countries on earth, can we?

Regarding your second paragraph, my point was that in the communist film "market", because it was not focused on profits and ticket sales (and in fact the film authorities didn't care at all if films were successful), film-makers could focus more on the art of the films. They didn't have to water down their works for mass consumption or to gain the funding of profit-focused producers, as they were funded by the government instead of ticket sales and merchandising. And indeed Eastern European film has suffered since the fall of communism:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now obviously this doesn't excuse the Holodomor or gulags or anything. But the idea that innovation is only possible in capitalism is wrong, and the idea that creative production can only happen when there is the incentive of a great financial reward is wrong. And indeed sometimes free market capitalism stands in the way of both of these things.

And lastly I've never said that any people aren't cut out for democracy and actually find that view pretty repellent and racist, and remember arguing against it during the Egyptian and Libyan protests earlier in the year. You should take Joe's advice and stop reading the most terrible possible things into my posts. Being so outraged about nothing constantly must be exhausting.

Also this is all very off-topic (I think, I don't really know what this thread is about), so I apologize.

Well, it seems like I finally managed to provoke you out of that hip pose and into a more dull mainstream position. I've obviously been hoping all along that you wouldn't seriously think those things.

1. If you haven't actually voiced support for Cuba, I apologize. Sometimes I go on memory and sometimes my memory fails. I'll trust you on that one.

2. My national pride is soaring. I think you might be overestimating the socialistness of Sweden though - I'd say we're a lot closer to the US as a society than we are to Cuba or Venezuela. On Freedom Heritage's index of economic freedom we're 22nd (71.9 score), the US is 9th (77. and Venezuela is 175th (37.6). In fact, one of my main beefs with leftists like you is that you conflate the success of regulated and partly redistributive market economy in Northern Europe with the oppressive, failed systems of countries like the Soviet Union or Venezuela.

3. I'm not familiar with the source of your claim regading Eastern European film. I'd make a number of points here.

Firstly, while it's true that the Soviet Union produced a number of great films (directors like Tarkovsky or Eisenstein) Eastern Europe filmmaking is hardly dead today. The Romanian new wave is one example (as I recall, that Romanian film on abortion won Cannes a couple of years ago) and Russian films like The Return or Burnt by the Sun have been great successes after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Secondly, while it's true that commercialization often hurts quality (we all know Michael Bay, sadly enough) Western Society undoubtedly produce loads and loads of high-quality movies! Keep in mind that the Soviet Union had the same population (roughly) as the US. Tarkovsky may be one of the greatest directors of all time, but still? Has not the US during the Cold War era produced Coppola, Scoresese, Kubrick (sort of), etc, etc?

Thirdly, while one can argue that freedom from commercial pressure might be good for quality, surely freedom for censorship must be even more important? It's hardly a coincidence that some of the greatest Eastern European directors (Forman, Polanski) moved away from the East and to the US (Forman as I understand largely for political reasons in wake of the Prague Spring).

I honestly think there is a bit of a myth concerning the Soviet strength when it comes to culture and I think that myth is largely based on the fact that they simply were not as far behind the West in that field as they were in fields like the economy or technological advance. Regardless, it always struck me as odd that any left-winger would find it more important to produce high-class films for the intellectual elite than to actually feed the poor - Western capitalism obviously achieved the left's prime concerns of justice and eradication of poverty much better than the Soviets did.

As regards the final paragraph there, great to hear. You certainly gave a different impression when it came to China. I'm glad you find that view as repellent and racist as I do. I don't remember any advice from Joe on this subject so I can't really adhere to it unless you link me.

I'm about as often accused of being too literalistic (like when I challenged you on your support for killing Jews) as I am of reading things into peoples' posts (Opebo hilariously accuses me of both all the time). Of course, "reading things into posts" is what we all do all the time. Stark never said "I'm racist" yet people called him that all the time. It's common place for people to interpret Carl's opposition to illegal immigration as "hating browns" even though he has never said anything directly indicating such a position. I do my best to make reasonable deductions about peoples' opinions. Sometimes I exaggerate a little bit to see where they actually stand, but in most cases I think people just become uncomfortable with the implications of their own words rather than me making up those implications.

PS: I'm never outraged. I find debating quite amusing, especially when the opponent is taking an absurd position. I don't take politics in general very seriously, but I do think there is a bit of a moral obligation to stand up for democracy and human rights, at least when it costs nothing to do so, like on the internet. But maybe you should bring that point up with people who viciously hate the Republicans or the Democrats. Or who thinks Obama or Sarah Palin are fascists who should be shot. That's outrage that I think is quite unhealthy. I reserve that level of emotion for actual fascists who actually shoot people (say the Chinese or Soviet dictatorships).