5 ms·

It’s been about a century since the economist John Maynard Keynes first touted the six-hour workday, predicting that by 2030 only extreme workaholics would work

It’s been about a century since the economist John Maynard Keynes first touted the six-hour workday, predicting that by 2030 only extreme workaholics would work more than 15 hours a week. Still waiting for flying cars too.

antisthenes 9y ago
Realistically, many workers do about 15 hours of actual solid work in a week. It's likely represented as a 10-20 range, but still much closer to ~15 than ~40. The rest of the time is filler spent on lunches/meetings/communication and 'butts-in-seats' dog and pony show for bad managers. So I wouldn't say the prediction is that far off-base. Plus we have another 12 years to go.
snarf21 9y ago
It is generally held that this is because of a rapid change in standard of living. If we were willing to live with less, we could have a job of only 15 hours a week. It would be interesting to compare standard of living to today and estimate how many hours would be required to meet the old levels.
- ecshafer 9y ago
  Except even if you are willing to have less, the jobs that will accept 15 hours a week and pay well are very few and far between. Most that pay in that range are minimum wage, and even then they usually want more like 30+
- wgj 9y ago
  It's not just standard of living. There's a lot of safety net you forego. In the US, you won't qualify for employer health insurance, and in most states you won't qualify for unemployment. You won't be eligible for promotions, career advancement, or vacation benefits. It's remarkable how many policies are in place to ensure a 40 hour work week.
- iza 9y ago
  Nothing to do with the standard of living, it's about exploiting as much surplus value from the workers as possible.
  - xeromal 9y ago
    A century again. People didn't have cell phones, cell phone plans, TV, internet, computers, high-end cars, student loans, and other luxuries. All that is at least an additional 12,000 USD a year.
acconrad 9y ago
I feel like we totally could, and because of politics and lifestyle inflation, we don't. Take for example, doctors. We don't have enough doctors, they're overworked, and to incentivize that system, we pay them quite a bit (at least in the US). 15/40 is 37.5%, and that "magic number of salary" that doesn't increase happiness is like $75k (I'd offer a better number here but this is one people tend to cling to), so if anyone makes over $200k/yr (most doctors, some lawyers and engineers), they could choose to work 15 hrs a week, still make a "satisfying" $75k/yr, and by being part-time, allow for more positions for the same work. This would especially be useful for doctors since there is a lack of them and their very nature is around the clock, so it would be useful to have more in the rotation. We have the means and the capital, but our society willfully chooses not to adopt this, and it seems a big part is because there is a stigma against being a part-time worker, as if only working part-time makes you a lower class citizen.
tonyedgecombe 9y ago
Take out holidays, early retirement, extended education, part-time working and unemployment and you'll find the overall figure isn't much higher than that. Jeffrey Sachs has an interesting talk on this at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1AAdZnF7xQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1AAdZnF7xQ

antisthenes 9y ago

Realistically, many workers do about 15 hours of actual solid work in a week. It's likely represented as a 10-20 range, but still much closer to ~15 than ~40. The rest of the time is filler spent on lunches/meetings/communication and 'butts-in-seats' dog and pony show for bad managers. So I wouldn't say the prediction is that far off-base. Plus we have another 12 years to go.

snarf21 9y ago

It is generally held that this is because of a rapid change in standard of living. If we were willing to live with less, we could have a job of only 15 hours a week. It would be interesting to compare standard of living to today and estimate how many hours would be required to meet the old levels.

ecshafer 9y ago
Except even if you are willing to have less, the jobs that will accept 15 hours a week and pay well are very few and far between. Most that pay in that range are minimum wage, and even then they usually want more like 30+
wgj 9y ago
It's not just standard of living. There's a lot of safety net you forego. In the US, you won't qualify for employer health insurance, and in most states you won't qualify for unemployment. You won't be eligible for promotions, career advancement, or vacation benefits. It's remarkable how many policies are in place to ensure a 40 hour work week.
iza 9y ago
Nothing to do with the standard of living, it's about exploiting as much surplus value from the workers as possible.
- xeromal 9y ago
  A century again. People didn't have cell phones, cell phone plans, TV, internet, computers, high-end cars, student loans, and other luxuries. All that is at least an additional 12,000 USD a year.

acconrad 9y ago

I feel like we totally could, and because of politics and lifestyle inflation, we don't. Take for example, doctors. We don't have enough doctors, they're overworked, and to incentivize that system, we pay them quite a bit (at least in the US). 15/40 is 37.5%, and that "magic number of salary" that doesn't increase happiness is like $75k (I'd offer a better number here but this is one people tend to cling to), so if anyone makes over $200k/yr (most doctors, some lawyers and engineers), they could choose to work 15 hrs a week, still make a "satisfying" $75k/yr, and by being part-time, allow for more positions for the same work. This would especially be useful for doctors since there is a lack of them and their very nature is around the clock, so it would be useful to have more in the rotation. We have the means and the capital, but our society willfully chooses not to adopt this, and it seems a big part is because there is a stigma against being a part-time worker, as if only working part-time makes you a lower class citizen.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago

Take out holidays, early retirement, extended education, part-time working and unemployment and you'll find the overall figure isn't much higher than that. Jeffrey Sachs has an interesting talk on this at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1AAdZnF7xQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1AAdZnF7xQ