4 ms·

How does a three-hour work day make sense for anyone who isn't wealthy? In a lot of the world we have what are, in the short term at least, zero sum games. An

How does a three-hour work day make sense for anyone who isn't wealthy? In a lot of the world we have what are, in the short term at least, zero sum games. An example would be housing in a place like SF or London (and seemingly creeping down the scale as time goes on). If Person A works three hours a day, Person B is going to work six and end up with twice as much as you. If they can't do it at one job, they'll take two. Low paid individuals already do this, they'll have multiple jobs because they don't get enough hours at any of them. In the current situation - A will be living in student-like conditions, or homeless, and the B that works six hours will have a flat or house to themselves. Forecast that out a few years or decades and A is in poverty whilst B has established wealth via savings and investments. It feels like one of those ideas that would work if there were less scarcity in the environment.

perfunctory 7y ago
Exactly the same argument could have been put forth back in the days when 40-hour workweek and 2-days weekend were introduced. Somehow we managed.
- esotericn 7y ago
  I imagined someone would write a response to this effect, but surely there's a line _somewhere_. People already do get an advantage by working >40 hours, but there are diminishing returns. You can't realistically work double that for extended periods, and having two distinct 40 hour jobs would be practically impossible. Not only that, but the "40-hour" work week, and weekends, are something that apply more to labourers, which at least as far as I can see in the UK are almost uniformly struggling to get 40 hours as it stands (zero hour contracts, shift work, part time, ...... etc).
  - perfunctory 7y ago
    Reduced working time doesn't have to be accompanied by reduced pay https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/asia/four-day-workweek-new-zealand.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/asia/four-day-workw... We just need to realise that most office workers don't work 40 hours anyway and adjust cultural norms accordingly. > (zero hour contracts, shift work, part time, ...... etc). These are fairly recent phenomena, not only in the UK but all over the world, aren't they. We need to fight against it. > It feels like one of those ideas that would work if there were less scarcity in the environment. Isn't it obvious that there IS less scarcity since the beginning of the 40-hour culture? Perhaps it just wasn't distributed fairly.
    - esotericn 7y ago
      Your former comment doesn't address my point. The "pay" as such is almost irrelevant. We're all competing with others in our local market for housing. Perhaps we could go on a massive building spree. The fact remains though, that a big old semi in London is in limited supply. A ton of people are still going to compete over it. If one ten hour job means I get to live in a flat share and a forty hour job means I get a semi-detached house, I'm going for the latter. Empirically so, since I work 40 hours as it is whilst not having to.
ben_w 7y ago
I imagine that if we all worked 3-hour-days the price of housing would massively reduce, as rent and purchase prices can only be what the market can pay, and that goes for the land they’re built on too. I doubt this would be a perfect 1-to-1 match to income changes, even if it happened in every country at the same time.
- esotericn 7y ago
  "If we all worked 3-hour days" is an imaginary situation that doesn't reflect the fact that a ton of people are immediately going to attempt to outbid each other by working more, though. Hand waving it away with some sort of "but all the prices would reduce" assumes some sort of co-operative prisoner's dilemma situation. I would immediately defect, take two jobs, and have twice as much as anyone else. Most people I know would.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    > co-operative prisoner's dilemma situation That’s what governments are for ;) Seriously though, as with so much else in economics and politics, there are many more things that need to be determined than just a nice end-state. That doesn’t mean the nice end state isn’t nice or worth searching for routes towards.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  We have a housing cartel ensuring the supply of homes remains lower than demand in areas with decent jobs. So the person who wants to work a 3 hour day can't compete with the person who says "well, I'm willing to work a 5 hour day to afford a home, at least for now". Of course, in reality it often comes down to the person who wants to work a 40 hour week competing with the workaholic who works all weekend on a regular basis. Similarly, a lot of couples might prefer to have one partner stay at home and do childcare, but this is impossible (except for the rich) with a housing shortage, because homes will always go to the wealthiest (usually those willing to be two income full-time households). Once you have 100 households seeking 101 homes instead of 90 homes (etc.) it _does_ become possible. When you're competing with "I'd like a bigger home" vs. "I need any home at all" it gets easier.

perfunctory 7y ago

Exactly the same argument could have been put forth back in the days when 40-hour workweek and 2-days weekend were introduced. Somehow we managed.

esotericn 7y ago
I imagined someone would write a response to this effect, but surely there's a line _somewhere_. People already do get an advantage by working >40 hours, but there are diminishing returns. You can't realistically work double that for extended periods, and having two distinct 40 hour jobs would be practically impossible. Not only that, but the "40-hour" work week, and weekends, are something that apply more to labourers, which at least as far as I can see in the UK are almost uniformly struggling to get 40 hours as it stands (zero hour contracts, shift work, part time, ...... etc).
- perfunctory 7y ago
  Reduced working time doesn't have to be accompanied by reduced pay https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/asia/four-day-workweek-new-zealand.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/asia/four-day-workw... We just need to realise that most office workers don't work 40 hours anyway and adjust cultural norms accordingly. > (zero hour contracts, shift work, part time, ...... etc). These are fairly recent phenomena, not only in the UK but all over the world, aren't they. We need to fight against it. > It feels like one of those ideas that would work if there were less scarcity in the environment. Isn't it obvious that there IS less scarcity since the beginning of the 40-hour culture? Perhaps it just wasn't distributed fairly.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    Your former comment doesn't address my point. The "pay" as such is almost irrelevant. We're all competing with others in our local market for housing. Perhaps we could go on a massive building spree. The fact remains though, that a big old semi in London is in limited supply. A ton of people are still going to compete over it. If one ten hour job means I get to live in a flat share and a forty hour job means I get a semi-detached house, I'm going for the latter. Empirically so, since I work 40 hours as it is whilst not having to.

ben_w 7y ago

I imagine that if we all worked 3-hour-days the price of housing would massively reduce, as rent and purchase prices can only be what the market can pay, and that goes for the land they’re built on too. I doubt this would be a perfect 1-to-1 match to income changes, even if it happened in every country at the same time.

esotericn 7y ago
"If we all worked 3-hour days" is an imaginary situation that doesn't reflect the fact that a ton of people are immediately going to attempt to outbid each other by working more, though. Hand waving it away with some sort of "but all the prices would reduce" assumes some sort of co-operative prisoner's dilemma situation. I would immediately defect, take two jobs, and have twice as much as anyone else. Most people I know would.
- ben_w 7y ago
  > co-operative prisoner's dilemma situation That’s what governments are for ;) Seriously though, as with so much else in economics and politics, there are many more things that need to be determined than just a nice end-state. That doesn’t mean the nice end state isn’t nice or worth searching for routes towards.
CalRobert 7y ago
We have a housing cartel ensuring the supply of homes remains lower than demand in areas with decent jobs. So the person who wants to work a 3 hour day can't compete with the person who says "well, I'm willing to work a 5 hour day to afford a home, at least for now". Of course, in reality it often comes down to the person who wants to work a 40 hour week competing with the workaholic who works all weekend on a regular basis. Similarly, a lot of couples might prefer to have one partner stay at home and do childcare, but this is impossible (except for the rich) with a housing shortage, because homes will always go to the wealthiest (usually those willing to be two income full-time households). Once you have 100 households seeking 101 homes instead of 90 homes (etc.) it _does_ become possible. When you're competing with "I'd like a bigger home" vs. "I need any home at all" it gets easier.