Interesting the figure 1 shows productivity per hour worked (rather than absolute productivty). So in the UK the line is flat, so the more hours worked the more

Interesting the figure 1 shows productivity per hour worked (rather than absolute productivty). So in the UK the line is flat, so the more hours worked the more "production" there is. So just work the workers harder. In Iceland by comparison (and taking the report at face value), productivity per hour increases from ~1880 to ~1980 (~5%) for a 5 hour (12.5%) reduction in hours.So - assuming there is a plentiful labour supply - better to work lots of people for fewer hours than to work fewer people for lots of hours. Not a bad strategy from an overall absolute producttivity point of view - assuming, of course, that labourers are plentiful and interchangeable. So where do we end? Clearly we can work people harder over shorter periods than we can over longer periods (hello young doctors). Economists generally agree on this as increasing productivty (barring some quibbling ove incidentals) - but at what cost?