3 ms·

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.

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.