30 Hour Work Week

[MODU]

"Leisure time" is dictated by the employee by the job they choose and the number of hours they wish to work (no one is telling them to get a 40 hour a day job).  They are getting their fair share of the productivity growth by receiving higher wages and challenging jobs.

They must work in order to survive, MODU.. these are working class persons we are discussing, with no choices, options, or capital. 

They still have the choice. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can only produce so much in an hour.  You cannot cram 20 hours of work into 10 hours,[/quote]

Yes, you can, MODU.  That is precisely the point of an increase in productivity.  Investment in equipment and technology leads to cramming 20 hours of work into 10 hours, or perhaps even 1 hour.  For example, a farmer today with modern equipment can do in a day what it took hundreds to do in the distant past... [/quote]

HAHAHA . . . ok son.  Keep living in that fantasy world of yours.  Make sure you tell all the farmers you see that they don't have to work a minimum of 10 hours a day in their fields since there are magical machines out there which they can afford to buy to take care of all the work for them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'm being realistic and you are entirely misunderstanding economics, technology, and productivity.
[/quote]

You go teach your students English, and tell them that they only need to spend an hour a week working to learn it.  See how long it takes.  *laughs*  You're lack of understanding the real world is great.  Keep it up . . . you're making my day, moocher. 

[John Dibble]

Workers still benefit from increases in productivity - goods get produced at a faster rate and in greater quantity. This drives down prices, allowing many to afford things that were previously only affordable by the rich and upper-middle class. Simple supply and demand. What you propose would greatly negate that effect, making it so that the workers can afford fewer luxuries.

Hah, so perhaps it would all equal out in the end, eh?  Lets try it and see.

We have tried it, and it worked. The 40 hour work week has been the average for a while, and the number of goods in the average person's home has increased. I've shown you the stats before, so please don't make me go dig them back up.

No, my post was suggestingthat we try my suggestions, since you seem to believe the increase in income and leisure for the working class would be cancelled out by an increase in the cost of living for them.

Refer to my post - the French did try your idea, and at only 35 hours, less of a change than what you propose, their total productivity dropped and their workers were required to work harder and became more stressed. Unemployment didn't really decrease either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not historically ignorant - I'm aware unions had much to do with the change. What I'm talking about now is BALANCE. Make the work week too short and your overall productivity can lag, resulting in higher costs of living due to less being produced(less supply + same demand = higher costs, basic economics), and might result in more stress as employers demand workers work harder to bridge the gap. Make the work week too long and you end up overworking the workers - they get tired and the quality of their work lags, resulting in inefficient productivity and inferior products.

From what I see, 40 hours is a balanced amount. Workers don't end up being too stressed and they produce enough that prices are kept at decent levels. 8 hours work, 8 hours free time, 8 hours sleep - healthy and balanced.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Throughout the vast majority of human history, a 40 hour work week would be called "a vacation"!

I only work Corp-to-Corp and I get paid for every hour I work.

[David S]

In effect, 30 hours work for 40 hours pay amounts to a 33% pay raise. But actually it amounts to more than 33%. To maintain the same level of work the employer would have to pay time and a half for the extra ten hours or hire more people. More people means more benefit costs and administrative costs. Either way I suspect it would be highly inflationary.

[Nym90]

A 30 hour work week is clearly not practical right now.

Perhaps in the future it will be; I'm sure a 40 hour work week was once thought to be ridiculous as well.

[MaC]

Hell, I think a thirty hour work week (with pay for only thirty hours of course) would be a good thing.  That is to say that if I live alone, I won't have to spend for children, college, stuff like that.
If I get married and have kids though, I would hope the wife would also work thirty in order that both of us can watch/raise the kids.
What I think's ridiculous is the divide-either only the dad works, and thus less money is brought home since college and taxes keep increasing or both parents work and the children grow up without their needed parents (or at least a good portion of the day).  I think if I split up the day with the wife so that both of us work, and yet are able to take care of chilren, and be together it would be the ideal situation.

[dazzleman]

Most people work more than a 40-hour week.  I'd be thrilled with a 40-hour week for approximately the same pay.

I think it would be great to have more flexible work hours, but it's really not very practical in the real world.  And when it comes to pay, there's no free lunch.  Absent productivity improvements, shorter work hours can only mean less pay.  For many, it is well worth it, but it is hard to come by in the real world.

[??????????]

A 30 hour week would be unworkable in my line of work.

[Gustaf]

Obviously bad. Aside from the fact that it makes it harder to get jobs, it also decreases productivity. And an over-looked side effect is that actually increases stress levels, because work has to be done in shorter time.

[opebo]

Throughout the vast majority of human history, a 40 hour work week would be called "a vacation"!

Yes, in other words things improved through political action.  So, lets improve them some more.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No body but another drone knows what you are talking about here.   

Obviously bad. Aside from the fact that it makes it harder to get jobs, it also decreases productivity. And an over-looked side effect is that actually increases stress levels, because work has to be done in shorter time.

Gustaf, apparentely you are as dimwitted a right-winger as the rest.  A reduction in the work week would not reduce productivity, which is output per hour worked.  It may reduce production, which is the total amount produced.

And please, don't bring up that absurd nonsense that people are more 'stressed' when they have more time off.  I suppose by that logic we should go back to the 60 hour work week?  What a lot of drivel - apparentely you masochistic workers will believe anything your betters tell you.

[MODU]

This is still coming from the kid who has really not held a real (lasting) job in his life.  You should come into the corporate world and try to complete a typical 40-hour work load (which is more like 50 hours of work) in a 30-hour week.  I would be more than willing to let you at my desk for a week and see how much you get done.  I'll even give you the first week as hands-on training before letting you fly solo. 

[opebo]

This is still coming from the kid who has really not held a real (lasting) job in his life.  You should come into the corporate world and try to complete a typical 40-hour work load (which is more like 50 hours of work) in a 30-hour week.

Don't be ridiculous.  A good union would never allow such overworking. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no desire to experience your miseries, worker, only to advise you to take political actions that will tend to reduce them. 

[John Dibble]

I have no desire to experience your miseries, worker, only to advise you to take political actions that will tend to reduce them.

I love it how you claim that all of us workers are experiencing misery when you've never even done our jobs. How would you know if it's miserable or not if you've never done it? Has MODU expressed misery in his particular line of work? If not, again, how would you know? He might actually enjoy his job for all you know.

[Inverted Things]

The conditions which brought about the 40-hour work week are obsolete. When it was first instituted, the US ran off a manufacturing economy. We now have a service economy.

Some professions might work better is they switched to a 30-hour week. I've been a cook for several restaurants, and I can tell you that I got my fair share of burns and cuts. These generally happened toward the end of my shift and none required medical attention. On the other hand, if we looked at a more dangerous job (construction, for instance), we might find that 2% of construction employees per year require medical attention for injuries sustained on the job. We might further find that 90% of these injuries happened toward the end of the shift. It might make sense, in this situation, to cut the workday back to 7 hours.

All that said, the government doesn't really need to be involved in this process. The hypothetical construction company would rather cut back to a 7 hour workday as opposed to paying the workman's compensation fees.

Switching back to service-type jobs, my father owns his own business and loves his work. He generally works the typical 8 hours on each weekday, and about 5 hours each weekend. He occasionally brings work home and rarely takes holidays. He told me once that his business would not be successful if he didn't work weekends.

If we limit a college educated person's options to working 40-hours a week for some company or starting a business, here's how things shake out:

Pros of working for a company:
Less time spent at work
Guaranteed income
Work level remains fairly constant

Pros of having your own business:
The work is likely more satisfying
No boss to report to
More flexiblity--don't need to get permission to pick up kids from school, e.g

I can't help but feel that service level employees get a great deal from the government and employers.

[??????????]

I much prefer to keep my 4 days at 10 hours a day. I enjoy my nice long 5 day weekends twice a month.

[opebo]

All that said, the government doesn't really need to be involved in this process. The hypothetical construction company would rather cut back to a 7 hour workday as opposed to paying the workman's compensation fees.

The State needn't get involved?!  Sheep Pushy, there would be no such things as 'workmen's compensation' if the State did not require it.  Such things were wrested from the owners through deadly political fights, and here you are taking it for granted.   Believe me, no employer wants to give you something if you are injured.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you kidding?  They make like $10/hour or less!  They're at subsistence level.

[TeePee4Prez]

40 hours are fine.  I just wish the FLSA would expand for lower paid professional and admin employees.  As of now it's only $23,660.  IMO, it should be expanded to about $70,000 in low COL areas and $100,000 in high COL areas such as Philly, Boston, or NYC. 

[Inverted Things]

All that said, the government doesn't really need to be involved in this process. The hypothetical construction company would rather cut back to a 7 hour workday as opposed to paying the workman's compensation fees.

The State needn't get involved?!  Sheep Pushy, there would be no such things as 'workmen's compensation' if the State did not require it.  Such things were wrested from the owners through deadly political fights, and here you are taking it for granted.   Believe me, no employer wants to give you something if you are injured.

Clearly what I meant by my comment was that we don't need the government further involved in the situation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you kidding?  They make like $10/hour or less!  They're at subsistence level.
[/quote]
[/quote]

I meant to say college-educated service employees. The types of people who work 40 hours per week while sitting at a desk. Obviously restaurant employees and retail clerks aren't paid much--a trained monkey could do those jobs.

[opebo]

I meant to say college-educated service employees. The types of people who work 40 hours per week while sitting at a desk. Obviously restaurant employees and retail clerks aren't paid much--a trained monkey could do those jobs.

No, fool, they are persons and citizens, not monkeys.  And keep in mind that your interests lie with them, worker, and not with the aristocracy.

It really is laughable what hubris a shoddy thing like a college degree gives to you desperate, deluded social climbers.  Face it, you are a serf, and you will always be a serf, Sheep.

[minionofmidas]

From European experience with 35 and 38 hour weeks... :

For most managerial positions, it simply does not work out. It's (usually) just not possible (whether due to the nature of the task itself or just to unnecessary regulations) to cut much off the actual workload, or (without a major reorganization) to split it between several persons.

[opebo]

From European experience with 35 and 38 hour weeks... :

For most managerial positions, it simply does not work out. It's (usually) just not possible (whether due to the nature of the task itself or just to unnecessary regulations) to cut much off the actual workload, or (without a major reorganization) to split it between several persons.

That sounds like one of those silly right-wing objections - oh, it is too difficult to alter a job.

[minionofmidas]

From European experience with 35 and 38 hour weeks... :

For most managerial positions, it simply does not work out. It's (usually) just not possible (whether due to the nature of the task itself or just to unnecessary regulations) to cut much off the actual workload, or (without a major reorganization) to split it between several persons.

That sounds like one of those silly right-wing objections - oh, it is too difficult to alter a job.

It might be possible to alter it ... but just legislating a shorter workweek without legislating such changes certainly won't work (and I'm not holding my breath regarding such legislation either). Unless maybe you ban overwork or summat like that.

[opebo]

From European experience with 35 and 38 hour weeks... :

For most managerial positions, it simply does not work out. It's (usually) just not possible (whether due to the nature of the task itself or just to unnecessary regulations) to cut much off the actual workload, or (without a major reorganization) to split it between several persons.

That sounds like one of those silly right-wing objections - oh, it is too difficult to alter a job.

It might be possible to alter it ... but just legislating a shorter workweek without legislating such changes certainly won't work (and I'm not holding my breath regarding such legislation either). Unless maybe you ban overwork or summat like that.

Oh obviously the trend is towards making the servile classes work more rather than less.. so this is all just supposition.

[minionofmidas]

That wasn't the trend here in the 80s and early 90s though. It's not just supposition, it's good solid second-hand experience.

[John Dibble]

That wasn't the trend here in the 80s and early 90s though. It's not just supposition, it's good solid second-hand experience.

[opebo]Silly worker, experience doesn't matter, nor does scientific data - I'm right and you're wrong no matter what, even if reality is clearly in conflict with my ideas.[/opebo]

Opebo's religion is never wrong, Lewis.