3 ms·
I think you're forgetting to take into account the effect of longer hours on productivity (negative), and the fact that our working hours are a choice which (wi
by lsy 10y ago
I think you're forgetting to take into account the effect of longer hours on productivity (negative), and the fact that our working hours are a choice which (within a certain range) don't seem to have a strong effect on actual results in the "marketplace".
In the developed world, the 40-hour week is standard both because 60-hour weeks are less-productive, and because as a society we've chosen to prioritize health and happiness over the (mostly imagined) productivity of a longer workweek. But 40 isn't a magical number, it's possible 30 would work just as well or better.
- atemerev 10y agoAs long as the productivity stays the same or increased, this option is viable. But if not, it isn't. Increased productivity from shorter hours is good, of course, but Keynes thought that even decreased productivity could be fine, as at some point it will be "enough". Here's the catch: under competitive market economy, there is never "enough". And if you pass on market economy in your country, there are other countries who will outcompete you, both economically and militarily.
- johnward 10y agoI wouldn't necessarily say we prioritize health and happiness though. We still spend the majority of our time awake working.