30 Hour Work Week

[John Dibble]

Discuss the idea of moving to a 30 hour work week for 40 hours of pay. Good idea or not?



My take: Bad idea. Don't believe me? Ask the French - they had a compulsory 35 hour work week which they did away with. They instituted it in the hopes that it would reduce unemployment by making employers hire new workers to make up for lost productivity. It backfired, so they got rid of it.

What happened? Well, this new work week ended up making the French have the highest productivity-per-hour of any nation - great, right? Nope, their total productivity suffered. Employers didn't hire new employees, so the employees already there simply had to work harder and faster to make up for the lost productivity. They still didn't make it all up, yet they worked themselves harder than ever resulting in more stress. Workers got more stressed, productivity lagged, and unemployment remained pretty much unchanged. Seems to be a raw deal to me, and a 30 hour week would probably be even worse.

I believe the 40 hour work week is a good model - 8 hours work, 8 hours free time, 8 hours sleep - nice and balanced. Is it perfect? No, of course not, but it's worked for us for a good long while now. Too many hours of work and you get stressed due to lack of leisure and sleep, too few hours to do your work means less time to get what needs to be done finished and you stress yourself by working too hard too fast. Either way your productivity probably won't be good. 40 a week seems to be the best balance to me.

Changing from 8 hours a day to 6 or 7 - we as individuals should do our best to identify other stress factors in our lives and try to eliminate them. For instance a long commute is stressful, but can become less stressful by moving closer to work, changing to a job closer to you, or telecommuting one or two days a week. Why drastically change the whole system when a personal change can be much more effective?


EDIT - I also forgot to mention that with France's 35 hour work week, employers froze the amount they paid out to recoup lost costs and artificially lower the wage to 35 hour's worth with inflation.

[John Dibble]

So I provide an example of the French system not working out at all like you would say it would, and what have you got? Nothing but the usual 'information' taken from your arse and a complete disregard for facts when they are inconvenient.

Actually no, I'm not at all arrogant.  I have never made any claim of being better than anyone else, or particularly capable.

Oh please, the very manner in which you treat everyone here is as if you know everything about everything and that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Pure arrogance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These are nothing but comments showing arrogance and a sense of superiority - thanks for proving my point. Deny it all you like, but your words on this forum are a testament to your arrogance.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your drivel. It's like arguing with a brick wall. Your 'vast general knowledge' is just a bunch of bull that you pull out of your arse rather than through careful research and observation. Again, deny it all you like, but it doesn't change a damn thing.

[John Dibble]

Have you never heard of a thing called productivity?  You see, it increases.

Productivity doesn't increase magically - there must be a driving force behind the increase. If a subsitence farmer cuts off 1/4 of his worktime, his fields won't mysteriously produce more food, will they? Of course not, you'd have to be an idiot to think so. Productivity can only increase when something that allows people to work faster comes along or if workers work harder.

[John Dibble]

Have you never heard of a thing called productivity?  You see, it increases.

Productivity doesn't increase magically - there must be a driving force behind the increase. If a subsitence farmer cuts off 1/4 of his worktime, his fields won't mysteriously produce more food, will they? Of course not, you'd have to be an idiot to think so. Productivity can only increase when something that allows people to work faster comes along or if workers work harder.

Yes, presumably investment of a portion of the workers' production into new equipment and technology, Dibble.

Yes, and what exactly are you proposing investment in that is so incredibly productive that it would allow for levels of production greater than or equal to current levels for 10 hours less production per worker?

[John Dibble]

I would support a 30 hour week (with only getting paid 30 hours). The extra time off would allow parents to spend more time with their kids. Most kids are generally in school for 7 hours. If parents need to bring their kids to school and pick them up, then the kids will be waiting for a long time.

And how would you propose the parents pay for college while making only 30 hours worth of pay? Keep in mind the trade offs.

If you were to work 1 hour a day, you would be very productive for that one hour. If you were to work 2 hours, then you would be just as productive for 1 hour, but slightly less productive during the second hour. So the first hour, we will say is 10/10 which is 100%. The second hour may be 9/10 which is 90%. When you get to that 8th hour, you may be at 30%. So if a farmer stopped working a quarter of his time, he would get less work done, but the time spent working would be more efficient - less time would be wasted.

Did you read the article I linked at the beginning of this thread? The French had a 35 hour work week - many workers ended up being more stressed than in the 40 hour week because they had to do 40 hours of work in 35. Again, keep in mind the tradeoffs. Humans aren't machines - you can't just tool them to be more efficient all the time. Having to work harder and faster might also make the job be done sloppier as corners are cut more often to meet deadlines.

[John Dibble]

Have you never heard of a thing called productivity?  You see, it increases.

Productivity doesn't increase magically - there must be a driving force behind the increase. If a subsitence farmer cuts off 1/4 of his worktime, his fields won't mysteriously produce more food, will they? Of course not, you'd have to be an idiot to think so. Productivity can only increase when something that allows people to work faster comes along or if workers work harder.

Yes, presumably investment of a portion of the workers' production into new equipment and technology, Dibble.

Yes, and what exactly are you proposing investment in that is so incredibly productive that it would allow for levels of production greater than or equal to current levels for 10 hours less production per worker?

I am not 'proposing' anything, Dibble.  I'm merely suggesting that workers demand a share of the productivity growth of the last 60 years, during which they got no increase in their leisure time.  

My suggestion is entirely retroactive - of course further decreases in the working week, as well as increases in legislated (or union contracted) hourly pay, will no doubt be in order in future, but they must be carried out when they time comes, and in reaction to the future growth of productivity.

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.

[John Dibble]

I would support a 30 hour week (with only getting paid 30 hours). The extra time off would allow parents to spend more time with their kids. Most kids are generally in school for 7 hours. If parents need to bring their kids to school and pick them up, then the kids will be waiting for a long time.

And how would you propose the parents pay for college while making only 30 hours worth of pay? Keep in mind the trade offs.

I would suggest that education be provided free by taxes upon the owners, Dibble.

Got any realistic suggestions? It isn't gonna happen.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Dibble, of course a particular interest group is going to have 'experience' and 'scientific data' which supports their agenda.  Such as the proposition that people who work less are more stressed, or that it is impossible to divide or otherwise alter jobs..

It is all just propaganda, surely you realize that, worker?

Yes, we know that you can't accept anything that contradicts your religion opebo - you religious fanatics are all the same in that regard. It's always propaganda unless it agrees with you, right? Of course it is! Now, if you wouldn't mind please keep your religion to yourself.

[John Dibble]

The 'religion' of skepticism?

You poor gullible.

Skepticism? HAH! Like I said, anything that contradicts your ideas you reject out of hand - that's not skepticism, that's fanatacism. You don't ever question the ideas you hold, just like a good little religious fanatic.

[John Dibble]

The 'religion' of skepticism?

You poor gullible.

Skepticism? HAH! Like I said, anything that contradicts your ideas you reject out of hand - that's not skepticism, that's fanatacism. You don't ever question the ideas you hold, just like a good little religious fanatic.

No, Dibble, it is you who apply a religion-like belief in various absurdities, such as the market, and the belief that the current system is not controlled by the powerful (the rich).   I have no overarching 'objective' morality - I simply view politics as an attempt by various competing groups to gain power.

Yes opebo, we know how you, like a typical religious fanatic, claim those who disagree with you are misguided fools whose beliefs are absurd. Religious fanatics always believe any belief structure outside their own is absurd, not questioning their faith, just as you do not question your own beliefs in the least. Keep on repeating your religious rhetoric all you like.

[John Dibble]

I have no 'belief structure', Dibble,

Of course you have a belief structure - what you espouse is consistent, and therefore structured, and you claim to believe it. Therefore you have a belief structure, and, like religious fanatics you never question your opinions and beliefs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not a fact opebo, that's an opinion. You view it as a pittance, but most of us don't - we think we're being paid amply for our time. A pittance is not a set amount, so therefore you can't assert that it is anything but your opinion. Also, we do not work all day and all week - most of us work in a range of 7-9 hours a day for five days a week.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, you admit that you're making stuff up? If you don't see our situations, how can you be absolutely sure that your assessment of them is correct? I'll tell you how - like a religious fanatic, you don't question the things you make up. We constantly tell you that our lives aren't nearly as bad as you describe them to be(in fact many of us tell you we quite enjoy our lives), but you refuse to believe us. How are you different than a religious fanatic in this respect? Like them, you refuse to accept anything that contradicts what you believe to be true, even if the whole world tells you it's false, because it would require you to actually think! Better to live in ignorance than actually have to think, eh fanatic?

[John Dibble]

Blah blah blah. You have yet to show that you actually put any thought into anything - like a religious fanatic you never question your beliefs and denounce anything that disagrees with you as wrong. You have yet to disprove that. Of course you won't even try - you're so convinced that what you think is correct, just like a fanatic, that you don't feel the need. The typical arrogance of the fanatic.

[John Dibble]

Blah blah blah. You have yet to show that you actually put any thought into anything - like a religious fanatic you never question your beliefs and denounce anything that disagrees with you as wrong. You have yet to disprove that. Of course you won't even try - you're so convinced that what you think is correct, just like a fanatic, that you don't feel the need. The typical arrogance of the fanatic.

Well, I'm afraid it is more the arrogance of a realist talking to a fanatic, Dibble.   One cannot help but be a bit patronizing to the unreasonable.

Just look at the reality of the situation around you, without thinking about ideology, markets, and all that propaganda.  Look at individual persons, their class, and their position in the social heirarchy.  That is quite honestly what made me throw out my previous economic views - I noticed that the heirarchy is there - most people serve the few - regardless of all the excuses.

Yes yes fanatic, you converted to a new school of thought and have developed rhetoric for it. You repeat your rhetoric well, never questioning it, refusing anything that contradicts it. We've been over this. You are arrogant, you are unquestioning in your beliefs, and you are fanatical, much like the uber-religious you so despise. Your behavior and arrogance only indicates fanaticism, and you've yet to show otherwise, but you won't accept it because fanatics never accept that they are fanatics.

[John Dibble]

How am I a 'fanatic', Dibble?  I don't even propose that the heirarchy be upended, just emeliorated slightly.  Do you at least admit that it exists?

As usual you don't listen - must I repeat myself? You are a fanatic in the sense that you don't question what you believe at all, and when presented with evidence or testimony that even slightly contradicts those beliefs you reject it out of hand a propoganda or just plain wrong. This is not unlike a creationist rejecting evidence for evolution simply because it contradicts creationism.

As for the social hierarchy, no I do not deny one exists - what I deny is that it is simply divided into 'poor' and 'owner', that one is definitely stuck in one's class for the rest of their life, that one has no control over ones own behavior(determined by class, as you say), ect. Basically you greatly exaggerate the problems and make it so nobody has any personal responsibility for anything.

[John Dibble]

You are a fanatic in the sense that you don't question what you believe at all, and when presented with evidence or testimony that even slightly contradicts those beliefs you reject it out of hand a propoganda or just plain wrong. This is not unlike a creationist rejecting evidence for evolution simply because it contradicts creationism.

Not at all, Dibble.  No one has ever presented any 'evidence' in any of our arguments, and in any case your imprisonment in your laughable libertarian 'world view' is complete.

See, you prove my point - we have presented evidence to you, but like a good fanatic you ignored it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So a man who murders another man has no personal responsibility if he's poor?