3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.