4 ms·

> Riding to work the other day, I heard about protests occurring in France. Workers were complaining about potential changes in labor regulations that would ma

> Riding to work the other day, I heard about protests occurring in France. Workers were complaining about potential changes in labor regulations that would make their jobs less secure. In brief, French workers like it the way things are: they can’t be pushed beyond 35 hours a week, and employers’ ability to terminate them is subject to a drawn-out, torturous and uncertain program. They also like their lengthy vacations and the extensive benefits provided by the state. The question is where the ability to pay for above average benefits will come from if neither the hours worked nor the productivity per hour is above average. Governments and regulations can’t produce prosperity. This memo neatly glosses over where the productivity gains in the last 100 years have gone, and makes it seem as if it's fair for wages of the American worker to stagnate while the megawealthy get all the profit. If a worker in 2016 can build a car in a-fourth the time it took a worker in 1935 to build a car, why is it implausible for them to work 35 hours a week with better benefits and more vacation time?

mac01021 10y ago
> why is it implausible for them to work 35 hours a week with better benefits and more vacation time? People could do that if they were all willing to live like people lived in 1935. It turns out that many (most?) people prefer to live a more expensive lifestyle which requires more hours of work. One consequence of this is that, since the number of people who prefer this is large enough that they've established a norm in many industries which makes it harder to find an employer willing to hire a worker that's going to put in fewer hours. If you do really want a 1935 quality of life, though, you can probably attain it working 20 or 30 hours per week at a restaurant or supermarket. It's important to note that this life could be very different from what you have now. You would likely live in a household containing three generations of your family and seldom travel outside the town/county you live in, among other things.
- uola 10y ago
  Not sure why discussions on HN always have to turn into fictional comparisons, but to play along I would note that everything else has also gotten more efficient and will continue to get even more so.
- laaph 10y ago
  > It turns out that many (most?) people prefer to live a more expensive lifestyle which requires more hours of work. I don't know that this is quite true. I have asked many employers for fewer hours and more vacation time in exchange for less money. I am always refused. I am frequently offered more money but never more vacation time. I work as a contractor now, but even now my main client is begging me for more hours. The only people I've seen who successfully negotiate for fewer hours are those so vital to the business that they'd rather have that part time employee than no employee at all. Mind you that's anecdotes and all that. > One consequence of this is that, since the number of people who prefer this is large enough that they've established a norm in many industries which makes it harder to find an employer willing to hire a worker that's going to put in fewer hours. I actually see it as the ones with the power get to write the rules, and make things seem normal. Even if I'd prefer to work fewer hours, I still need some money to survive, and can't quite go jobless.
  - fweespeech 10y ago
    > I don't know that this is quite true. I have asked many employers for fewer hours and more vacation time in exchange for less money. I am always refused. I am frequently offered more money but never more vacation time. I've managed, once, to get the full vacation time for seniority (i.e. At N years you get +1 week) by threatening to quit after being offered a 5 figure raise. So I'd agree with you. I've never known anyone to get away with pushing past the upper limit on their seniority track for vacation.
    - mac01021 10y ago
      At my company everyone gets 3 weeks, nonnegotiable. But they let you supplement it with unpaid leave, which works out to the approximately the same thing if you get a corresponding pay raise. I guess other companies are probably frequently less accommodating.
  - natrius 10y ago
    Buying lots of stuff from one person is cheaper than buying some stuff from lots of people. This difference is caused by transaction costs—the effort required to go from desire to purchased solution—and it's core to the theory of why firms form in the first place[1]. Every employer wants as few employees as possible to get a given amount of value because it costs less. They're not against fewer hours just because they're mean or stuck in their ways. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  > It turns out that many (most?) people prefer to live a more expensive lifestyle The "luxuries" which have had the greatest inflation over the last 30 years: * Rent/house prices * Education * Health care But hey, at least we have iPhones, right? Totally makes up for the rest.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Not sure why you're downvoted, famous comment about "I can't eat an iPad": http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-dudley-ipad-idUSTRE72A4AC20110311 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-dudley-ipad-idUSTR...
Animats 10y ago
Productivity per hour in France is higher than the UK. So is productivity per worker. [1] It may be higher than in the US.[2] [1] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c413ca76-ce3c-11e4-86fc-00144feab7de.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c413ca76-ce3c-11e4-86fc-00144feab7... [2] http://www.insee.fr/en/insee-statistique-publique/connaitre/colloques/acn/pdf14/acn14-session1-3-diaporama.pdf http://www.insee.fr/en/insee-statistique-publique/connaitre/...
- nickbauman 10y ago
  Swiss workers are among the most productive on earth and they work fewer hours than most of the OECD. Coincidence? In many fields, (software, hello!) the number of hours worked does not necessarily translate into more profit.
- greenshackle 10y ago
  I don't find it too surprising that fewer hours worked results in a higher productivity per hour. EDIT: But I am surprised by the higher productivity per worker, compared to UK.
fweespeech 10y ago
> This memo neatly glosses over where the productivity gains in the last 100 years have gone, and makes it seem as if it's fair for wages of the American worker to stagnate while the megawealthy get all the profit. If a worker in 2016 can build a car in a-fourth the time it took a worker in 1935 to build a car, why is it implausible for them to work 35 hours a week with better benefits and more vacation time? Because you are both comparing oranges to oranges. France's problem (frankly) is their labor protections are too strong. America's problem (frankly) is their labor protections are too weak. The parallels to be drawn here are not what you or the OP would like them to be. The standard of living since 1916 has improved substantially and maintaining a modern level of living is expensive. If I want to live like a college student (2 to a room, no car, and only food I prepare myself) I could be retired in my late 30s. I don't live that way and that costs something. http://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/workday/weekend/timeline.html http://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/workday/weekend/timeline.html Similarly, the gains from 1916 -> now are mostly in things we take for granted. The 40 hour work week (it used to be 60 then it became 48 and then 40), the access to quality medical care wasn't common, people lived two to a room in smaller homes, people didn't have the mobility of a car but relied on their own muscles, etc. A good 50% of the productivity gains over the last 100 years went to moving things from 60 hour work weeks to 40. Modern conveniences represent the other half. The reality is we got screwed in the 1980s -> 2016 in the US but that is a separate problem and conflating the two doesn't help anyone. Labor needs to start acting like its the 1920s again and get organized and push back politically.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  > Labor needs to start acting like its the 1920s again and get organized and push back politically. But it's not the 1920s again. Acting like it is isn't going to work in this climate. You want to demand higher wages? Great. Yet more jobs go overseas, priced out of the US by the higher labor costs. You want to protect against cheap imports (created by cheap workers) with tariffs? Well, you just made everything everyone buys from overseas more expensive, so the cost of living went up. You also just broke a bunch of trade agreements, and there will probably be retaliation from quite a few trade partners, resulting in fewer exports, which will cost jobs. The world is a much more complicated place than it was in the 1920s. Simple responses aren't likely to fix things. We need to fix things - I'm with you there, there's a lot that's broken from the point of view of the working person - but an antagonistic power struggle is unlikely to produce an improvement.
robotresearcher 10y ago
> If a worker in 2016 can build a car in a-fourth the time it took a worker in 1935 to build a car... If the car is 1/4 the price[0], that's a wash on the income of the worker. A huge benefit to society, but a wash for that guy. [0] in real terms, i.e. normalized to cost of living
bcheung 10y ago
You can if you want to have the same lifestyle of someone from 1935. But standards have risen so it costs more as well.

mac01021 10y ago

> why is it implausible for them to work 35 hours a week with better benefits and more vacation time? People could do that if they were all willing to live like people lived in 1935. It turns out that many (most?) people prefer to live a more expensive lifestyle which requires more hours of work. One consequence of this is that, since the number of people who prefer this is large enough that they've established a norm in many industries which makes it harder to find an employer willing to hire a worker that's going to put in fewer hours. If you do really want a 1935 quality of life, though, you can probably attain it working 20 or 30 hours per week at a restaurant or supermarket. It's important to note that this life could be very different from what you have now. You would likely live in a household containing three generations of your family and seldom travel outside the town/county you live in, among other things.

uola 10y ago
Not sure why discussions on HN always have to turn into fictional comparisons, but to play along I would note that everything else has also gotten more efficient and will continue to get even more so.
laaph 10y ago
> It turns out that many (most?) people prefer to live a more expensive lifestyle which requires more hours of work. I don't know that this is quite true. I have asked many employers for fewer hours and more vacation time in exchange for less money. I am always refused. I am frequently offered more money but never more vacation time. I work as a contractor now, but even now my main client is begging me for more hours. The only people I've seen who successfully negotiate for fewer hours are those so vital to the business that they'd rather have that part time employee than no employee at all. Mind you that's anecdotes and all that. > One consequence of this is that, since the number of people who prefer this is large enough that they've established a norm in many industries which makes it harder to find an employer willing to hire a worker that's going to put in fewer hours. I actually see it as the ones with the power get to write the rules, and make things seem normal. Even if I'd prefer to work fewer hours, I still need some money to survive, and can't quite go jobless.
- fweespeech 10y ago
  > I don't know that this is quite true. I have asked many employers for fewer hours and more vacation time in exchange for less money. I am always refused. I am frequently offered more money but never more vacation time. I've managed, once, to get the full vacation time for seniority (i.e. At N years you get +1 week) by threatening to quit after being offered a 5 figure raise. So I'd agree with you. I've never known anyone to get away with pushing past the upper limit on their seniority track for vacation.
  - mac01021 10y ago
    At my company everyone gets 3 weeks, nonnegotiable. But they let you supplement it with unpaid leave, which works out to the approximately the same thing if you get a corresponding pay raise. I guess other companies are probably frequently less accommodating.
- natrius 10y ago
  Buying lots of stuff from one person is cheaper than buying some stuff from lots of people. This difference is caused by transaction costs—the effort required to go from desire to purchased solution—and it's core to the theory of why firms form in the first place[1]. Every employer wants as few employees as possible to get a given amount of value because it costs less. They're not against fewer hours just because they're mean or stuck in their ways. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm
crdoconnor 10y ago
> It turns out that many (most?) people prefer to live a more expensive lifestyle The "luxuries" which have had the greatest inflation over the last 30 years: * Rent/house prices * Education * Health care But hey, at least we have iPhones, right? Totally makes up for the rest.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Not sure why you're downvoted, famous comment about "I can't eat an iPad": http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-dudley-ipad-idUSTRE72A4AC20110311 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-dudley-ipad-idUSTR...

Animats 10y ago

Productivity per hour in France is higher than the UK. So is productivity per worker. [1] It may be higher than in the US.[2] [1] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c413ca76-ce3c-11e4-86fc-00144feab7de.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c413ca76-ce3c-11e4-86fc-00144feab7... [2] http://www.insee.fr/en/insee-statistique-publique/connaitre/colloques/acn/pdf14/acn14-session1-3-diaporama.pdf http://www.insee.fr/en/insee-statistique-publique/connaitre/...

nickbauman 10y ago
Swiss workers are among the most productive on earth and they work fewer hours than most of the OECD. Coincidence? In many fields, (software, hello!) the number of hours worked does not necessarily translate into more profit.
greenshackle 10y ago
I don't find it too surprising that fewer hours worked results in a higher productivity per hour. EDIT: But I am surprised by the higher productivity per worker, compared to UK.

fweespeech 10y ago

> This memo neatly glosses over where the productivity gains in the last 100 years have gone, and makes it seem as if it's fair for wages of the American worker to stagnate while the megawealthy get all the profit. If a worker in 2016 can build a car in a-fourth the time it took a worker in 1935 to build a car, why is it implausible for them to work 35 hours a week with better benefits and more vacation time? Because you are both comparing oranges to oranges. France's problem (frankly) is their labor protections are too strong. America's problem (frankly) is their labor protections are too weak. The parallels to be drawn here are not what you or the OP would like them to be. The standard of living since 1916 has improved substantially and maintaining a modern level of living is expensive. If I want to live like a college student (2 to a room, no car, and only food I prepare myself) I could be retired in my late 30s. I don't live that way and that costs something. http://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/workday/weekend/timeline.html http://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/workday/weekend/timeline.html Similarly, the gains from 1916 -> now are mostly in things we take for granted. The 40 hour work week (it used to be 60 then it became 48 and then 40), the access to quality medical care wasn't common, people lived two to a room in smaller homes, people didn't have the mobility of a car but relied on their own muscles, etc. A good 50% of the productivity gains over the last 100 years went to moving things from 60 hour work weeks to 40. Modern conveniences represent the other half. The reality is we got screwed in the 1980s -> 2016 in the US but that is a separate problem and conflating the two doesn't help anyone. Labor needs to start acting like its the 1920s again and get organized and push back politically.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> Labor needs to start acting like its the 1920s again and get organized and push back politically. But it's not the 1920s again. Acting like it is isn't going to work in this climate. You want to demand higher wages? Great. Yet more jobs go overseas, priced out of the US by the higher labor costs. You want to protect against cheap imports (created by cheap workers) with tariffs? Well, you just made everything everyone buys from overseas more expensive, so the cost of living went up. You also just broke a bunch of trade agreements, and there will probably be retaliation from quite a few trade partners, resulting in fewer exports, which will cost jobs. The world is a much more complicated place than it was in the 1920s. Simple responses aren't likely to fix things. We need to fix things - I'm with you there, there's a lot that's broken from the point of view of the working person - but an antagonistic power struggle is unlikely to produce an improvement.

robotresearcher 10y ago

> If a worker in 2016 can build a car in a-fourth the time it took a worker in 1935 to build a car... If the car is 1/4 the price[0], that's a wash on the income of the worker. A huge benefit to society, but a wash for that guy. [0] in real terms, i.e. normalized to cost of living

bcheung 10y ago

You can if you want to have the same lifestyle of someone from 1935. But standards have risen so it costs more as well.