3 ms·

This 'lower work week thing' misses the point of social dynamics. Yes, we could call work '16 hour weeks' and maintain a 1940's standard of living. But to make

This 'lower work week thing' misses the point of social dynamics. Yes, we could call work '16 hour weeks' and maintain a 1940's standard of living. But to make progress, we need 40 hour weeks. At least for the time being, we've come to resonate around 40 hours as being 'how long someone should work' - and so we will work those kinds of hours. Sure - we could all work less hours, but it would mean another kind of social contract. You can see this in Europe vs. USA vs. Asian attitudes. And yes, 'more hours' generally does mean less productivity per hour, but you still get more output.

Bartweiss 10y ago
> But to make progress, we need 40 hour weeks. Productivity is 5x what it was in 1929. So yeah, most of us wouldn't willingly revert to 1929 standards of living. But realistically, I think a lot of people would take a 20% cut and shave 1-2 hours off their workday. The counterpoint I find most compelling is that "more hours" lowers personal productivity, but raises organizational productivity. If you have a blocking issue that only one person can resolve, the whole organization does better if they're around full time. That's a serious bar to giving out things like time off in lieu of raises.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  So why not do the heavy lifting necessary to not-have blocking issues? That's what I DON'T see - I see blocking issues. I see quite the opposite - I see firemen-as-arsonists because that's what they're rewarded for. People willfully disregard the most basic principles in organizational design and the result is reduced productivity.
snarf21 10y ago
Right, productivity has increased but is probably lagging behind our standard of living which has increased more. Additionally, look at globalization and consolidation of most business. I would venture that there are more companies that are bigger and bigger, and requires more layers of management (and bullshit work) and people concerned with job preservation and not productivity.
- edblarney 10y ago
  Larger companies require more and more areas of micro specialization, and yes, it does get more bureaucratic - but the paradox is - you need that scale to have certain advantages: economies of scale and the ability to micro specialize. So, while individuals might be less productive ... on the whole, it does add to a level of total productivity by the machine. Example: I worked with the 'pricing' team for a large service oriented product with 100's of millions of customers. Sometimes they were inactive, argued for months about things etc. - and at the end of the year they did relatively little - but their impact was huge on the market, and our businesses. Much like a Uni of profs don't seem very productive until every once and a while, one of them strikes it huge with some innovation.
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
If income distribution still worked the way it did in the mid 20th century, most people wouldn't need to work 40 hours a week for the paltry income they receive today.
- nine_k 10y ago
  How, in your eyes, the income distribution has changed?
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    The top tax bracket in the 50s was at 90%, for starters. It all really goes back to tax policy.
    - edblarney 10y ago
      "The top tax bracket in the 50s was at 90%, for starters. It all really goes back to tax policy." The 1% do not earn their income in salary, they earn it in capital gains. What matters is 'actual tax receipts' not necessarily the brackets. The fact you quoted is effectively correct, but it's a common 'internet meme distortion'. Aside from a 'blip' due to WW2, US Government share of GDP has been increasing over time, since the dawn of the Republic, not decreasing - meaning that there has been consistently more socialization of services and industry - not less.
      - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        Ooh I love when somebody calls me out on the "90% in the 50s" figure. Let's play this game. The reason it was ok back then was because it incentivized long term growth. As a result of the tax "reforms" of the 80s, it became easier than ever to leverage yourself into a hostile takeover, gut a company, sell it, and pocket the cash for yourself at a far lower tax rate than most of the corporate raiders had ever seen in their careers. Not to mention the innocent people who had their livelihoods upended and pensions gutted, and blamed, then as now, for not working hard enough. So we have more money chasing financial gain than productive output, less support if not absolute disdain for the average worker, and corporations paralyzed to do anything but push short term gains as high as possible lest Wall St alert an "activist investor" to their next target. How do you make a resilient society to last through generations when the foundation is being sold out from under it?
snrplfth 10y ago
It also has to do with legislation and with marginal value. Above 40 hours or so, a lot of countries have laws, like overtime pay and what have you, that start to kick in and make it less worthwhile for an employer to ask for those hours. As well, most people find that above that amount of time, the value they get from increased income starts to go below the value they get from non-paid-work time. It's sort of a normal equilibrium.

Bartweiss 10y ago

> But to make progress, we need 40 hour weeks. Productivity is 5x what it was in 1929. So yeah, most of us wouldn't willingly revert to 1929 standards of living. But realistically, I think a lot of people would take a 20% cut and shave 1-2 hours off their workday. The counterpoint I find most compelling is that "more hours" lowers personal productivity, but raises organizational productivity. If you have a blocking issue that only one person can resolve, the whole organization does better if they're around full time. That's a serious bar to giving out things like time off in lieu of raises.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
So why not do the heavy lifting necessary to not-have blocking issues? That's what I DON'T see - I see blocking issues. I see quite the opposite - I see firemen-as-arsonists because that's what they're rewarded for. People willfully disregard the most basic principles in organizational design and the result is reduced productivity.

snarf21 10y ago

Right, productivity has increased but is probably lagging behind our standard of living which has increased more. Additionally, look at globalization and consolidation of most business. I would venture that there are more companies that are bigger and bigger, and requires more layers of management (and bullshit work) and people concerned with job preservation and not productivity.

edblarney 10y ago
Larger companies require more and more areas of micro specialization, and yes, it does get more bureaucratic - but the paradox is - you need that scale to have certain advantages: economies of scale and the ability to micro specialize. So, while individuals might be less productive ... on the whole, it does add to a level of total productivity by the machine. Example: I worked with the 'pricing' team for a large service oriented product with 100's of millions of customers. Sometimes they were inactive, argued for months about things etc. - and at the end of the year they did relatively little - but their impact was huge on the market, and our businesses. Much like a Uni of profs don't seem very productive until every once and a while, one of them strikes it huge with some innovation.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

If income distribution still worked the way it did in the mid 20th century, most people wouldn't need to work 40 hours a week for the paltry income they receive today.

nine_k 10y ago
How, in your eyes, the income distribution has changed?
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  The top tax bracket in the 50s was at 90%, for starters. It all really goes back to tax policy.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    "The top tax bracket in the 50s was at 90%, for starters. It all really goes back to tax policy." The 1% do not earn their income in salary, they earn it in capital gains. What matters is 'actual tax receipts' not necessarily the brackets. The fact you quoted is effectively correct, but it's a common 'internet meme distortion'. Aside from a 'blip' due to WW2, US Government share of GDP has been increasing over time, since the dawn of the Republic, not decreasing - meaning that there has been consistently more socialization of services and industry - not less.
    - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
      Ooh I love when somebody calls me out on the "90% in the 50s" figure. Let's play this game. The reason it was ok back then was because it incentivized long term growth. As a result of the tax "reforms" of the 80s, it became easier than ever to leverage yourself into a hostile takeover, gut a company, sell it, and pocket the cash for yourself at a far lower tax rate than most of the corporate raiders had ever seen in their careers. Not to mention the innocent people who had their livelihoods upended and pensions gutted, and blamed, then as now, for not working hard enough. So we have more money chasing financial gain than productive output, less support if not absolute disdain for the average worker, and corporations paralyzed to do anything but push short term gains as high as possible lest Wall St alert an "activist investor" to their next target. How do you make a resilient society to last through generations when the foundation is being sold out from under it?

snrplfth 10y ago

It also has to do with legislation and with marginal value. Above 40 hours or so, a lot of countries have laws, like overtime pay and what have you, that start to kick in and make it less worthwhile for an employer to ask for those hours. As well, most people find that above that amount of time, the value they get from increased income starts to go below the value they get from non-paid-work time. It's sort of a normal equilibrium.