Overtime: We Need a Shorter Working Week(jacobinmag.com)
jacobinmag.com
Overtime: We Need a Shorter Working Week
https://jacobinmag.com/2021/09/shorter-work-week-free-time-neoliberalism-labor
27 comments
Let's be clear: what some people who advocate for this want is "we want to work less, but be paid the same or greater".
I'm simply amazed that you can read any such article/essay and not see a single $ sign in the entire thing. It's like asking your child whether we should buy a bigger house. "Yes! That would be great!" Should the government offer more benefits? "Yes! I love the idea!"
Um, we're missing a certain part of the question, don't you think?
I'm simply amazed that you can read any such article/essay and not see a single $ sign in the entire thing. It's like asking your child whether we should buy a bigger house. "Yes! That would be great!" Should the government offer more benefits? "Yes! I love the idea!"
Um, we're missing a certain part of the question, don't you think?
Yes, this is what’s being asked for. No, with enormous increases in productivity that has been realized over decades, it doesn’t seem unreasonable. Otherwise, all of these productivity gains are being funneled to the top capital owners while everyone keeps slaving away for five workdays per week.
The wealth and productivity already exists to enables such a reduction in weekly work hours. It hasn’t been addressed yet because of inertia.
https://www.oecd.org/economy/decoupling-of-wages-from-produc...
The wealth and productivity already exists to enables such a reduction in weekly work hours. It hasn’t been addressed yet because of inertia.
https://www.oecd.org/economy/decoupling-of-wages-from-produc...
Getting paid more because your labor has become more productive isn't how (in large part) wages are set in a capitalist/market system. They are set by how many people are willing to supply labor at a given price, and how much is demanded. And basically, how much the next guy is willing to get paid.
Up until very recently, we had a surplus of labor in this country and therefore many jobs were stagnant in wage growth. That's not going to change until the fundamental force of numbers changes, or some other change comes around. (see, pandemic)
You don't get paid more just because you use a piece of equipment that churns through 2x as much. Unless that machine costs a lot of money and requires education to operate it.
Up until very recently, we had a surplus of labor in this country and therefore many jobs were stagnant in wage growth. That's not going to change until the fundamental force of numbers changes, or some other change comes around. (see, pandemic)
You don't get paid more just because you use a piece of equipment that churns through 2x as much. Unless that machine costs a lot of money and requires education to operate it.
And wouldn't 4 day work week reduce the supply of labor, thus putting upwards pressure on compensation?
That’s what laws, labor regulation, and taxes are for. Labor markets are not pure capitalism because people > capital. We just keep ratcheting up minimum wages, and ratcheting down the work week. How quickly this occurs is a function of electorate composition turnover.
We’re almost at $15/hr as a minimum wage due to market forces, which makes it easier to lock it in with statue as it’s proven it’s sustainable at scale. Of course, businesses built on labor costs that are unsustainable for workers are themselves unsustainable. Several countries are trialing 4 day work weeks, and if I recall, Iceland’s trial was so successful they’re moving forward with it permanently. That is data driven labor policy showing it’s feasible.
It sounds like you support a more brutalist, pure capitalist system for labor, but that’s not what exists currently nor what is likely as the US electorate tilts further away from conservatism (older voters are most conservative, and die at a rate of ~1.8 million per year; public policy progress is a function of the death rate).
(politics discussed because public policy is a core component of labor rights, citations below for all of my assertions)
https://apnews.com/article/business-health-coronavirus-pande... ($15 wage becoming a norm as employers struggle to fill jobs)
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/the-republican-party... (The Republican Party Has an Older Voters Problem)
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/the-changing... (The changing composition of the electorate and partisan coalitions)
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57724779 (Four-day week 'an overwhelming success' in Iceland; The trials led unions to renegotiate working patterns, and now 86% of Iceland's workforce have either moved to shorter hours for the same pay, or will gain the right to, the researchers said.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/spain-to-launc... (Spain to launch trial of four-day working week)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-58403... (Scotland to trial a four-day week)
We’re almost at $15/hr as a minimum wage due to market forces, which makes it easier to lock it in with statue as it’s proven it’s sustainable at scale. Of course, businesses built on labor costs that are unsustainable for workers are themselves unsustainable. Several countries are trialing 4 day work weeks, and if I recall, Iceland’s trial was so successful they’re moving forward with it permanently. That is data driven labor policy showing it’s feasible.
It sounds like you support a more brutalist, pure capitalist system for labor, but that’s not what exists currently nor what is likely as the US electorate tilts further away from conservatism (older voters are most conservative, and die at a rate of ~1.8 million per year; public policy progress is a function of the death rate).
(politics discussed because public policy is a core component of labor rights, citations below for all of my assertions)
https://apnews.com/article/business-health-coronavirus-pande... ($15 wage becoming a norm as employers struggle to fill jobs)
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/the-republican-party... (The Republican Party Has an Older Voters Problem)
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/the-changing... (The changing composition of the electorate and partisan coalitions)
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57724779 (Four-day week 'an overwhelming success' in Iceland; The trials led unions to renegotiate working patterns, and now 86% of Iceland's workforce have either moved to shorter hours for the same pay, or will gain the right to, the researchers said.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/spain-to-launc... (Spain to launch trial of four-day working week)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-58403... (Scotland to trial a four-day week)
> We just keep ratcheting up minimum wages
On the contrary. In real terms, the minimum wage has been declining for a long while (at the federal level). If you mean the median wage, I believe that's been declining over time as well in real terms. Not sure about, say, the low 10% order statistic of wages.
> and ratcheting down the work week.
I don't recall the work week having been officially reduced in the US in the recent past. In fact, not for many decades.
If anything, work hours extend unofficially. Nabisco workers are now striking over workweeks extending into 6 and 7 days workdays with 12-hour or longer shifts and such. And there's the wide-spread phenomenon of having to take on a second part-time job to make ends meet.
On the contrary. In real terms, the minimum wage has been declining for a long while (at the federal level). If you mean the median wage, I believe that's been declining over time as well in real terms. Not sure about, say, the low 10% order statistic of wages.
> and ratcheting down the work week.
I don't recall the work week having been officially reduced in the US in the recent past. In fact, not for many decades.
If anything, work hours extend unofficially. Nabisco workers are now striking over workweeks extending into 6 and 7 days workdays with 12-hour or longer shifts and such. And there's the wide-spread phenomenon of having to take on a second part-time job to make ends meet.
Well, you're clearly an advocate for labor so I'm not going to here try to convince / sway you to some different viewpoint.
I'm just going to correct your "facts" for other people reading the discussion.
"as it’s [$15/hr] proven it’s sustainable at scale" That's a total guess / assertion in favor of your position, isn't it?
The new wage being offered isn't proven "sustainable" -- it's merely what some employers have had to offer in the face of a pandemic + widespread increased unemployment benefits. And we're seeing record inflation (with some part attributable to this, some due to other important factors of course). So you're hardly justified in saying it's proven sustainable long term. You just want it to be so because it benefits you.
And secondly, and more importantly, your tactics are no better than some corporatists who seek to exploit laws to their advantage whenever they can, just for their side, because they can. "... which makes it easier to lock it in with statue."
If it were so proven to be good and sustainable, why is a statute required? Wouldn't that sustain itself?
Now that you see a moment where $15 has been tried out of necessity due to the temporary (hopefully) situation, you want to "lock it in" with laws and regulation, and distort how the market for labor works by putting in a floor.
I find it equally bad for someone to try to argue for and do this, regardless of whose side it is -- corporations trying to skirt environmental regulations, other public obligations, or labor trying to say that they deserve x/y/z because they got it for a moment.
Don't act as if you're trying to find a solution good for the entire economy, producers, consumers, workers, people. You're an advocate for labor to get more benefits. And using incomplete arguments that favor your position.
And by the way, I don't engage in the practice of downvoting people who I merely disagree with.
I'm just going to correct your "facts" for other people reading the discussion.
"as it’s [$15/hr] proven it’s sustainable at scale" That's a total guess / assertion in favor of your position, isn't it?
The new wage being offered isn't proven "sustainable" -- it's merely what some employers have had to offer in the face of a pandemic + widespread increased unemployment benefits. And we're seeing record inflation (with some part attributable to this, some due to other important factors of course). So you're hardly justified in saying it's proven sustainable long term. You just want it to be so because it benefits you.
And secondly, and more importantly, your tactics are no better than some corporatists who seek to exploit laws to their advantage whenever they can, just for their side, because they can. "... which makes it easier to lock it in with statue."
If it were so proven to be good and sustainable, why is a statute required? Wouldn't that sustain itself?
Now that you see a moment where $15 has been tried out of necessity due to the temporary (hopefully) situation, you want to "lock it in" with laws and regulation, and distort how the market for labor works by putting in a floor.
I find it equally bad for someone to try to argue for and do this, regardless of whose side it is -- corporations trying to skirt environmental regulations, other public obligations, or labor trying to say that they deserve x/y/z because they got it for a moment.
Don't act as if you're trying to find a solution good for the entire economy, producers, consumers, workers, people. You're an advocate for labor to get more benefits. And using incomplete arguments that favor your position.
And by the way, I don't engage in the practice of downvoting people who I merely disagree with.
I think we have fundamentally different mental models; we disagree and neither is going to budge, at that’s okay. What you call “advocating for labor”, I call “paying people enough to live with dignity, even if distorting the labor market is necessary.” I advocate for labor because labor are fellow humans, and they matter the most imho. Whether capitalists get wealthy is not my concern.
Regarding tactics, I take no issue with your statement. I think these issues are imperatives, even if cribbing off the playbook of less decent folks is a requirement. Regarding these policies benefiting me, I am financially independent. These policies would only cause me to pay more for goods and services (and possibly higher capital gains taxes), which I’m happy to do. If someone does not advocate for the disadvantaged, who will?
Finally, I did not downvote any of your comments. HN is not showing downvote arrows to me for any comments in the thread, I assume because a flame war or similar heuristic has been triggered.
Regarding tactics, I take no issue with your statement. I think these issues are imperatives, even if cribbing off the playbook of less decent folks is a requirement. Regarding these policies benefiting me, I am financially independent. These policies would only cause me to pay more for goods and services (and possibly higher capital gains taxes), which I’m happy to do. If someone does not advocate for the disadvantaged, who will?
Finally, I did not downvote any of your comments. HN is not showing downvote arrows to me for any comments in the thread, I assume because a flame war or similar heuristic has been triggered.
"older voters are most conservative, and die at a rate of ~1.8 million per year; public policy progress is a function of the death rate)"
At which moment someone inherits their property and starts being interested in protecting it against high taxation or outright confiscation.
I can see social norms such as racism or gay-friendliness moving in one direction only by the older generations dying out, but attitudes towards economic questions tend to move back and forth since the early 1920s at least, often as a correction (or even overcorrection) to the excesses of the previously dominant side.
At which moment someone inherits their property and starts being interested in protecting it against high taxation or outright confiscation.
I can see social norms such as racism or gay-friendliness moving in one direction only by the older generations dying out, but attitudes towards economic questions tend to move back and forth since the early 1920s at least, often as a correction (or even overcorrection) to the excesses of the previously dominant side.
I am sure my ancestors worked 12+ hours a day 6 days a week and they lived far more spartan a lifestyle than I do now.
So yes you can "we want to work less, but be paid the same or greater".
I understand what your getting at but your statement above just goes against the economic historical reality of the last 250 years.
So yes you can "we want to work less, but be paid the same or greater".
I understand what your getting at but your statement above just goes against the economic historical reality of the last 250 years.
> Let's be clear: what some people who advocate for this want is "we want to work less, but be paid the same or greater".
1. It is clear.
2. All people, not some people.
3. It's nothing like asking your child whether we should buy a bigger house.
1. It is clear.
2. All people, not some people.
3. It's nothing like asking your child whether we should buy a bigger house.
[deleted]
> It's like asking your child whether we should buy a bigger house. "Yes! That would be great!"
If my parents were billionaires, I would definitely assume they could buy a bigger house.
The only $ missing are on your end. You’ve not mentioned that nearly all profit is currently being hoarded by executives and investors. People aren’t blind to this and have correctly come to the decision to work as little as possible since all the gains will be captured by those at the top.
If my parents were billionaires, I would definitely assume they could buy a bigger house.
The only $ missing are on your end. You’ve not mentioned that nearly all profit is currently being hoarded by executives and investors. People aren’t blind to this and have correctly come to the decision to work as little as possible since all the gains will be captured by those at the top.
[deleted]
I can absurd you that I spend at least one working day each week fucking around, procrastinating, banging my head against the wall, looking out the window, planning how to do errands and meet the plumber etc, so my produktivity- my output that my boss pays for would stay the same. I think you, my boss and everyone should be more interested in the amount of work I do, not the amount of hours I am physically present in the office. Thats the part of the question you are missing.
Hey, there is a person in America who spends less than 100% of their time at work being totally productive.
Shut the whole system down. we are going to need to totally rethink this one.
Shut the whole system down. we are going to need to totally rethink this one.
Here in Brazil its very common for healthcare workers to have a 12h/36h schedule. They work 12 hours and rest one and a half day, in theory. This kind of schedule was heavily pushed by unions and even coded into law. The end result is that I don't know of a single healthcare worker who doesn't have more than one job. They are working 60 hours/week...
[deleted]
It takes about the 15 seconds of thinking through these laws before the holes the size of planets start to appear.
What percentage of Americans work exactly 40 hour work weeks. What percentage of those jobs can be economically supported at 4/5 of the hours. The answer is surely in the millions. it's not 0. but that's much different than it being some universal. All of retail is out which is a big percentage of the 40 or 40+ hour a week hourly cohort.
Maybe it makes sense specifically for government employees or something.
Anyway arguing it is besides the point. it's such a poorly framed ask that there is 0 chance of it happening at scale so no need to fight it.
Also, obligatory to point out that Jacobin makes Fox News look impartial. it's an absolute junk source of journalism.
What percentage of Americans work exactly 40 hour work weeks. What percentage of those jobs can be economically supported at 4/5 of the hours. The answer is surely in the millions. it's not 0. but that's much different than it being some universal. All of retail is out which is a big percentage of the 40 or 40+ hour a week hourly cohort.
Maybe it makes sense specifically for government employees or something.
Anyway arguing it is besides the point. it's such a poorly framed ask that there is 0 chance of it happening at scale so no need to fight it.
Also, obligatory to point out that Jacobin makes Fox News look impartial. it's an absolute junk source of journalism.
Many USA creative agencies have half days on Friday in the summer. That's gotten me to thinking...
What I'm looking for is 40 hrs one week, but 32 the next. The result would be every other Friday off. Then align thoses Fridays with Monday holidays, that would yield a number of 4 day weekends.
So an average of 36 hrs per week (10% less than the current standard) with a beautiful increase in recovery time.
What I'm looking for is 40 hrs one week, but 32 the next. The result would be every other Friday off. Then align thoses Fridays with Monday holidays, that would yield a number of 4 day weekends.
So an average of 36 hrs per week (10% less than the current standard) with a beautiful increase in recovery time.
Companies doing that are very smart in my opinion. What do people actually get done on a Friday afternoon? Might as well get the PR points and make people happy.
It's akin to how some companies just close the office between Christmas and New Year's Eve. Again, a smart move. What do people actually get done during these 4 days? Might as well look like a nice, caring company.
It's akin to how some companies just close the office between Christmas and New Year's Eve. Again, a smart move. What do people actually get done during these 4 days? Might as well look like a nice, caring company.
Interestingly, I always got done quite a lot more on Friday afternoon, with much less buzz around, thus more concentration.
I'll be honest, despite my previous comment, I'm the same. I actually love the Holiday week where half the company is out traveling and the other half is just futzing. But I recognize that I (and apparently you as well :) ) am an outlier.
Companies that are ahead of the curve:
4dayweek.io
thelistofcompanies.com
Personally I think a shorter week is a much more compelling competitive advantage for hiring than other benefits - give people more of their own time back.
4dayweek.io
thelistofcompanies.com
Personally I think a shorter week is a much more compelling competitive advantage for hiring than other benefits - give people more of their own time back.
The advantages are numerous but one of the key advantages is increased productivity.
A 4 day week = a 50% longer weekend.
(Knowledge) workers are more productive with this extra day off meaning there is almost no drop in output from the employers perspective. From a personal perspective, I get much less work done on a Friday than on a Monday
This increase in productivity has been documented in many studies and is one of the main reasons I started https://4dayweek.io