4 ms·

This caught my eye, but it turns out it's the same old "fixed pie" thinking: the current workers are taking up all the available "working hours", so they should

This caught my eye, but it turns out it's the same old "fixed pie" thinking: the current workers are taking up all the available "working hours", so they should cut back to give the unemployed an opportunity to get some. Ridiculous. Why not be more productive and actually just create more jobs. Just like wealth, the number of jobs available is not fixed.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
Androsynth 17y ago
It caught my eye too and I thought it might have been a meaningful study. By the end of the article I thought it was an early april fools joke.
_delirium 17y ago
That's not the only reason to cut work weeks, though I agree it's a bad one. This old article by Bertrand Russell starts out by pointing out that the "fixed pie" view is not a good reason to work less, but that there are others: http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html The gist of it is that you can take the dividends of increasing productivity in a lot of ways. As computers get faster, you can keep paying $2k for a new computer every 3-4 years and get a better one, or you can take some of that technology-advancement dividend in cash, and buy a netbook that's still better than your old computer. He's basically arguing that you should take some of the modern era's productivity dividend in leisure time, instead of just in more income and material wealth.
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  Oh, don't get me wrong, I think there could be a great case for cutting work weeks. The article caught my eye because I was hoping that they had done an actual study that indicated that working fewer hours would lead to higher overall productivity (though I think that cutting them by 50 - 70% is probably wishful thinking).
  - breck 17y ago
    I think it was focused more on productivity, and not focused on the unemployment rate. I think the BBC added that twist. From the author of the report: "So many of us live to work, work to earn, and earn to consume, and our consumption habits are squandering the earth's natural resources. "Spending less time in paid work could help us to break this pattern. We'd have more time to be better parents, better citizens, better carers and better neighbours. "We could even become better employees - less stressed, more in control, happier in our jobs and more productive. "It is time to break the power of the old industrial clock, take back our lives and work for a sustainable future." Basically, it seems the argument is that the more hours we work, the externalities of work increase sharply (you don't have time to spend raising your kids, taking care of your health, and you do have more money to spend on things you don't need). Basically, at 21 hours, the marginal return from working another hour at your job equals the marginal return from spending an hour doing your own stuff. Beyond 21 hours the marginal return from working (minus externalities), is less than the return from focusing on your own activities.
- olefoo 17y ago
  Not only that but in an era where one's productivity is directly tied to one's creativity, more downtime is more productive.
  - gaius 17y ago
    That isn't the case for the vast majority of the workforce.
- sb 17y ago
  Thank you very much for the interesting link to Bertrand Russel's take on this issue. Some time ago, another very interesting piece of Betrand Russel was linked by another HN user, and I have to say that reading Mr. Russel's essays should be required reading for some classes; probably in addition to reading some of his mathematical work, which is highly recommended, too. That aside, I think that the article does not address another important (probably too recent) reason/ambition for increased work load: improving ones social status. As already indicated this probably was a non-issue when the article was authored, but then again my comment would fall into the just-for-the-record category...
  - gridspy 17y ago
    Increasing your status at work is seductive and easy, but temporary. Increasing your status in society at large requires investment of time and/or money in your local community, open source or building a community on-line. Spending less time at work makes it possible to do all these things and it is something that I would very much like to do. Of course, since I am working 60-70 hour work weeks, perhaps doing other stuff is just seductive to me right now.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  You can take the modern era's productivity dividend in leisure time. About 37 million Americans do. For this group of people, the average family is supported by only 800 hours of work/year (about 16 hours/week). This group of people has all the food they need (in fact, they typically eat vastly more than they need), a house to live in (about half own the home), most own an AC, a car, a TV, all the basic comforts. You can read about this group of people, their lifestyle and their choices here: http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm
  - jbooth 17y ago
    There are not 37 million people collecting welfare. Go look at some budget graphics, welfare and human services are a tiny, tiny slice of our budget. It's a small dividend that they're getting. (FYI: For things regarding welfare, do not read heritage unless you're applying a skeptical eye. Everyone has an agenda, but their entire purpose of being is an agenda.)
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      Neither I, nor the article, made the claim that there are 37 million people collecting welfare. Perhaps you should read sources before declaring them incorrect? Incidentally, this article is simply an aggregations of statistics available from various government sources (e.g., census, BLS). Regardless of their agenda, their facts seem well supported.
      - jbooth 17y ago
        The article's an aggregation of ridiculous statistics designed to justify instinctive conservative feelings that the poor are siphoning away their wealth. "Average poor american has bigger living arrangements than the average Paris resident" -- really? The average subsistence farmer has bigger living arrangements than the average Manhattan banker, as well. The US is a very capitalistic country (in a good way) and we have very little in the way of social welfare (in a sometimes inefficient way) -- being poor here isn't easy, even if it's not an automatic death sentence.
codexon 17y ago
First, I'd like to say I agree the reasoning behind the article is unconvincing. Now that's out of the way, I disagree with extending PG's "Pie Fallacy" like this. As PG mentions in his article repeatedly, wealth is not the same thing as money. The pie of products that people will trade money for is quite limited, and unless you have a farm and don't mind living in a shack, you will need money. The probability that people made obsolete will then create something useful in order to barter their "wealth" for money, money for supplies, and finally supplies for a living, is exceedingly small. Think about how many of you here are making niche web-apps that would be the first things to drop off of a customer's expenses when the market declines. It is true that overall wealth would increase if everyone just worked on something else (even if it is unlikely to be traded for currency), but that is exactly what the article is suggesting: generating wealth in the community. In the end, all this illustrates is a power struggle. A business owner will seek to turn all productivity increases into profit. Employees will seek to maintain or increase salary per effort. These two goals are fundamentally opposed. The reason the article sounds so absurd is because it is arguing in the favor of employees at the expense of business owners.
gaius 17y ago
This is the thinking that led the French to the 35-hour work week. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have occurred to them (probably because they were more-or-less interchangeable bureaucrats themselves) that an out-of-work bricklayer can't work the hours freed up by restricting the work-week of a plumber...

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

Androsynth 17y ago

It caught my eye too and I thought it might have been a meaningful study. By the end of the article I thought it was an early april fools joke.

_delirium 17y ago

That's not the only reason to cut work weeks, though I agree it's a bad one. This old article by Bertrand Russell starts out by pointing out that the "fixed pie" view is not a good reason to work less, but that there are others: http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html The gist of it is that you can take the dividends of increasing productivity in a lot of ways. As computers get faster, you can keep paying $2k for a new computer every 3-4 years and get a better one, or you can take some of that technology-advancement dividend in cash, and buy a netbook that's still better than your old computer. He's basically arguing that you should take some of the modern era's productivity dividend in leisure time, instead of just in more income and material wealth.

ryanwaggoner 17y ago
Oh, don't get me wrong, I think there could be a great case for cutting work weeks. The article caught my eye because I was hoping that they had done an actual study that indicated that working fewer hours would lead to higher overall productivity (though I think that cutting them by 50 - 70% is probably wishful thinking).
- breck 17y ago
  I think it was focused more on productivity, and not focused on the unemployment rate. I think the BBC added that twist. From the author of the report: "So many of us live to work, work to earn, and earn to consume, and our consumption habits are squandering the earth's natural resources. "Spending less time in paid work could help us to break this pattern. We'd have more time to be better parents, better citizens, better carers and better neighbours. "We could even become better employees - less stressed, more in control, happier in our jobs and more productive. "It is time to break the power of the old industrial clock, take back our lives and work for a sustainable future." Basically, it seems the argument is that the more hours we work, the externalities of work increase sharply (you don't have time to spend raising your kids, taking care of your health, and you do have more money to spend on things you don't need). Basically, at 21 hours, the marginal return from working another hour at your job equals the marginal return from spending an hour doing your own stuff. Beyond 21 hours the marginal return from working (minus externalities), is less than the return from focusing on your own activities.
olefoo 17y ago
Not only that but in an era where one's productivity is directly tied to one's creativity, more downtime is more productive.
- gaius 17y ago
  That isn't the case for the vast majority of the workforce.
sb 17y ago
Thank you very much for the interesting link to Bertrand Russel's take on this issue. Some time ago, another very interesting piece of Betrand Russel was linked by another HN user, and I have to say that reading Mr. Russel's essays should be required reading for some classes; probably in addition to reading some of his mathematical work, which is highly recommended, too. That aside, I think that the article does not address another important (probably too recent) reason/ambition for increased work load: improving ones social status. As already indicated this probably was a non-issue when the article was authored, but then again my comment would fall into the just-for-the-record category...
- gridspy 17y ago
  Increasing your status at work is seductive and easy, but temporary. Increasing your status in society at large requires investment of time and/or money in your local community, open source or building a community on-line. Spending less time at work makes it possible to do all these things and it is something that I would very much like to do. Of course, since I am working 60-70 hour work weeks, perhaps doing other stuff is just seductive to me right now.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
You can take the modern era's productivity dividend in leisure time. About 37 million Americans do. For this group of people, the average family is supported by only 800 hours of work/year (about 16 hours/week). This group of people has all the food they need (in fact, they typically eat vastly more than they need), a house to live in (about half own the home), most own an AC, a car, a TV, all the basic comforts. You can read about this group of people, their lifestyle and their choices here: http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm
- jbooth 17y ago
  There are not 37 million people collecting welfare. Go look at some budget graphics, welfare and human services are a tiny, tiny slice of our budget. It's a small dividend that they're getting. (FYI: For things regarding welfare, do not read heritage unless you're applying a skeptical eye. Everyone has an agenda, but their entire purpose of being is an agenda.)
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Neither I, nor the article, made the claim that there are 37 million people collecting welfare. Perhaps you should read sources before declaring them incorrect? Incidentally, this article is simply an aggregations of statistics available from various government sources (e.g., census, BLS). Regardless of their agenda, their facts seem well supported.
    - jbooth 17y ago
      The article's an aggregation of ridiculous statistics designed to justify instinctive conservative feelings that the poor are siphoning away their wealth. "Average poor american has bigger living arrangements than the average Paris resident" -- really? The average subsistence farmer has bigger living arrangements than the average Manhattan banker, as well. The US is a very capitalistic country (in a good way) and we have very little in the way of social welfare (in a sometimes inefficient way) -- being poor here isn't easy, even if it's not an automatic death sentence.

codexon 17y ago

First, I'd like to say I agree the reasoning behind the article is unconvincing. Now that's out of the way, I disagree with extending PG's "Pie Fallacy" like this. As PG mentions in his article repeatedly, wealth is not the same thing as money. The pie of products that people will trade money for is quite limited, and unless you have a farm and don't mind living in a shack, you will need money. The probability that people made obsolete will then create something useful in order to barter their "wealth" for money, money for supplies, and finally supplies for a living, is exceedingly small. Think about how many of you here are making niche web-apps that would be the first things to drop off of a customer's expenses when the market declines. It is true that overall wealth would increase if everyone just worked on something else (even if it is unlikely to be traded for currency), but that is exactly what the article is suggesting: generating wealth in the community. In the end, all this illustrates is a power struggle. A business owner will seek to turn all productivity increases into profit. Employees will seek to maintain or increase salary per effort. These two goals are fundamentally opposed. The reason the article sounds so absurd is because it is arguing in the favor of employees at the expense of business owners.

gaius 17y ago

This is the thinking that led the French to the 35-hour work week. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have occurred to them (probably because they were more-or-less interchangeable bureaucrats themselves) that an out-of-work bricklayer can't work the hours freed up by restricting the work-week of a plumber...