4 ms·

From a macroeconomic perspective, this doesn’t seem like the best time to be trying this sort of thing. We already have a labour shortage and a lot of inflation

From a macroeconomic perspective, this doesn’t seem like the best time to be trying this sort of thing. We already have a labour shortage and a lot of inflationary pressure! If we had high productivity, high unemployment, and low inflation, then introducing a 4 day week would be a great solution.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
This is the best time to try it. Labor has all the power, and will into the future due to structural demographics. For capital, it never seems to be a good time to try anything that doesn’t allow for maximum extraction or any semblance of labor power or quality of life improvements. For example, US railroad workers are about to strike because they dare ask for paid sick leave. It’ll cost $2B/day to the US economy, not because of unreasonable demands (paid sick leave!), but because of unreasonable management and shareholders. Edit: (can’t reply, HN throttling) Good luck attempting to solve for labor power with immigration. Folks who lean right (and a cohort of centrists) don’t want it, and they still have enough voting power to be somewhat relevant for the next 5-10 years (in the US, the UK, and many parts of Europe; Italy’s most recent elections showcase this), as electorate turnover takes time, not to mention declining fertility rates everywhere squeezing the young, productive cohort globally. https://www.npr.org/2022/11/21/1137640529/railroads-freight-rail-unions-vote-contract-strike https://www.npr.org/2022/11/21/1137640529/railroads-freight-...
- mantas 4y ago
  Capital will just push for ever bigger immigration to counter labour.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    How? Labour has all the voting power, capital only wins if they can manipulate labour to vote against its own interests like they managed in USA.
    - mantas 4y ago
      It looks like in US labour can vote either for corporations or for importing ever more cheap labour. Some in Europe were labour was manipulated to vote for migration-friendly parties. Although now this seems to be changing with growing economically left but anti-immigration so-called „right wing“ parties.
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      "Labor" in many EU countries have been manipulated into voting against their own interests on several topics (Brexit, anti nuclear energy, pro illegal immigration, anti taxes for the rich, longer working hours, etc.) to the point most voters don't care anymore. And plus, even if the "pro-labor" leader would win elections, there's nothing that forbid him/her from following up on the election promises till the end of his/her term. They can just do whatever their campaign donors/lobbyists pay them to do as once their political career is over, they'll have a cushy job guaranteed in the private sector enterprises they "helped" during their term. It's the classic political-private sector revolving dor. Case in point, all EU leader have promised to tackle housing, and yet, during their terms, housing has gotten more and more out of reach with each passing year, proving that your voted leaders are not on your side, they just claim they are to win your votes. German and Austrian politicians who helped kill nuclear, took major lucrative jobs in Russian oil and gas companies afterwards. The list can go on. We basically have legalized high level corruption.
    - hdjdnnsbsbs 4y ago
      Doesn't European labor want to move to the US for the higher wages?
      - Philip-J-Fry 4y ago
        Eh? The majority don't. Quality of life in western Europe is generally excellent. Pay in the US is attractive, but doesn't make up for what you lose from being in many European countries. Health care, public transport, well maintained roads, better work-life balance, more vacation time, less poverty, won't get murdered in a mass shooting etc. Your mobility as a citizen in the EU is excellent as well, free to travel to so many different cultures. I live in the UK, and this country is probably going to get much worse. But I still wouldn't trade it just for a higher US salary.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    Only sub-Saharan Africa is left with fertility rates above replacement. China is likely to start seeing population decline within 15 years or so. Which is not to say that they won't try, but we're about to see competitive pressure applied to immigration as well, coupled with a significant number of voters still opposed to immigration.
    - Reason077 4y ago
      > ”China is likely to start seeing population decline within 15 years or so.” China’s population may already be declining. 2022 is likely to be the first time China’s population has declined in over 60 years. https://www.forbes.com/sites/franklavin/2022/10/12/chinas-demographics-it-gets-worse/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/franklavin/2022/10/12/chinas-de... (Incidentally, India will overtake China as the world’s most populous country in 2023.)
    - mantas 4y ago
      So? There's still lots and lots and lots of cheap labor to import for decades. The „competitive pressure“ will just worsen corporate pressure on local labour. Oh, immigration is getting lower, so we need more tax exemptions for new arrivals! Think „digital nomads“ (or whatever fancy term nowadays) visas.
      - vidarh 4y ago
        It's insufficient to have cheap unskilled labour. Shortages of skilled labour will come much sooner. More importantly, even small changes in demand means immigrants can and will be more picky about where to go. Growth in their original countries also means a reduced supply of willing candidates. E.g. the UK saw that with Polish immigrants in the building trade who started returning as salaries increased at home, despite the disparity still being huge. As the demographics shift starts hitting more countries, it's not just that the total number of people in working age in those countries drop, but the proportion of them who has it financially bad enough at home to want to leave drops.
        Reason077 4y ago
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >Folks who lean right (and a cohort of centrists) don’t want it Right wing isn't really that popular in most developed/rich EU countries though. Most of them have quite left leaning population and leaders. And many of the richer countries want immigration but not publicly admitting it, but do it under the table, due to pressure from business groups and lobbyists, who hope this will aid with the labor shortage (translation for jobs with shitty pay and downward pressure on wages) while also pushing up demand for housing/rents, and demand for consumer goods in the retail sector. All of which benefit the business and ruling elite. Immigration to UK is at its highest year ever despite Brexit and Covid having thrown wrenches in immigration movements. Same for continental Europe. Refugees and migrants are coming weekly by the thousands by sea and land, and there's nothing the right wing parties can do about it, as long as migrants can cross the border then claim refugee status and know how to play the refugee game, the host country can't deny them that as it's guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and if they do deny them that right, then the country can be sued and will lose. So, for that to work, the right wing leaders would have to first get their country out of the ECHR, and then they can deny refugees/migrants.
rainsford 4y ago
The argument is that in a lot of jobs, working 4 days a week isn't significantly less productive than working 5 days a week but you get all the benefits of an extra day off every week (less time/money spent commuting, more free time, etc). If the productivity argument is true, then not only would going to a 4 day work week not have economic downsides, but it would potentially be even better economically. I'm not sure I 100% buy that argument, but I do think many jobs have a non-linear relationship between time spent working and productivity and you end up reaching the point of diminishing returns. I also think it would be a mistake to assume that 2 days vs 3 days off per week is the optimal trade-off just because that's what we're already used to.
- swagasaurus-rex 4y ago
  Thats why for me, I want it. It increases my days off by 150%. I’d gladly take a 20% pay cut to have proportionally far more free time
bratbag 4y ago
With problem solving jobs, like software engineering, you end up with equal or greater productivity. There is a low-level of constant burnout that occurs with 5 day weeks, but you don't notice the difference between feeling normal and that low-level burnout until the first week back from holiday (after which it starts again). I've simulated 4-day-weeks before using annual leave one day a week spread out over a prolonged period, and those times have been some of my most productive. Every week has had that post-holiday high.
ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
There's no such thing as a labor shortage, only a pay shortage.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

This is the best time to try it. Labor has all the power, and will into the future due to structural demographics. For capital, it never seems to be a good time to try anything that doesn’t allow for maximum extraction or any semblance of labor power or quality of life improvements. For example, US railroad workers are about to strike because they dare ask for paid sick leave. It’ll cost $2B/day to the US economy, not because of unreasonable demands (paid sick leave!), but because of unreasonable management and shareholders. Edit: (can’t reply, HN throttling) Good luck attempting to solve for labor power with immigration. Folks who lean right (and a cohort of centrists) don’t want it, and they still have enough voting power to be somewhat relevant for the next 5-10 years (in the US, the UK, and many parts of Europe; Italy’s most recent elections showcase this), as electorate turnover takes time, not to mention declining fertility rates everywhere squeezing the young, productive cohort globally. https://www.npr.org/2022/11/21/1137640529/railroads-freight-rail-unions-vote-contract-strike https://www.npr.org/2022/11/21/1137640529/railroads-freight-...

mantas 4y ago
Capital will just push for ever bigger immigration to counter labour.
- Jensson 4y ago
  How? Labour has all the voting power, capital only wins if they can manipulate labour to vote against its own interests like they managed in USA.
  - mantas 4y ago
    It looks like in US labour can vote either for corporations or for importing ever more cheap labour. Some in Europe were labour was manipulated to vote for migration-friendly parties. Although now this seems to be changing with growing economically left but anti-immigration so-called „right wing“ parties.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    "Labor" in many EU countries have been manipulated into voting against their own interests on several topics (Brexit, anti nuclear energy, pro illegal immigration, anti taxes for the rich, longer working hours, etc.) to the point most voters don't care anymore. And plus, even if the "pro-labor" leader would win elections, there's nothing that forbid him/her from following up on the election promises till the end of his/her term. They can just do whatever their campaign donors/lobbyists pay them to do as once their political career is over, they'll have a cushy job guaranteed in the private sector enterprises they "helped" during their term. It's the classic political-private sector revolving dor. Case in point, all EU leader have promised to tackle housing, and yet, during their terms, housing has gotten more and more out of reach with each passing year, proving that your voted leaders are not on your side, they just claim they are to win your votes. German and Austrian politicians who helped kill nuclear, took major lucrative jobs in Russian oil and gas companies afterwards. The list can go on. We basically have legalized high level corruption.
  - hdjdnnsbsbs 4y ago
    Doesn't European labor want to move to the US for the higher wages?
    - Philip-J-Fry 4y ago
      Eh? The majority don't. Quality of life in western Europe is generally excellent. Pay in the US is attractive, but doesn't make up for what you lose from being in many European countries. Health care, public transport, well maintained roads, better work-life balance, more vacation time, less poverty, won't get murdered in a mass shooting etc. Your mobility as a citizen in the EU is excellent as well, free to travel to so many different cultures. I live in the UK, and this country is probably going to get much worse. But I still wouldn't trade it just for a higher US salary.
- vidarh 4y ago
  Only sub-Saharan Africa is left with fertility rates above replacement. China is likely to start seeing population decline within 15 years or so. Which is not to say that they won't try, but we're about to see competitive pressure applied to immigration as well, coupled with a significant number of voters still opposed to immigration.
  - Reason077 4y ago
    > ”China is likely to start seeing population decline within 15 years or so.” China’s population may already be declining. 2022 is likely to be the first time China’s population has declined in over 60 years. https://www.forbes.com/sites/franklavin/2022/10/12/chinas-demographics-it-gets-worse/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/franklavin/2022/10/12/chinas-de... (Incidentally, India will overtake China as the world’s most populous country in 2023.)
  - mantas 4y ago
    So? There's still lots and lots and lots of cheap labor to import for decades. The „competitive pressure“ will just worsen corporate pressure on local labour. Oh, immigration is getting lower, so we need more tax exemptions for new arrivals! Think „digital nomads“ (or whatever fancy term nowadays) visas.
    - vidarh 4y ago
      It's insufficient to have cheap unskilled labour. Shortages of skilled labour will come much sooner. More importantly, even small changes in demand means immigrants can and will be more picky about where to go. Growth in their original countries also means a reduced supply of willing candidates. E.g. the UK saw that with Polish immigrants in the building trade who started returning as salaries increased at home, despite the disparity still being huge. As the demographics shift starts hitting more countries, it's not just that the total number of people in working age in those countries drop, but the proportion of them who has it financially bad enough at home to want to leave drops.
      - Reason077 4y ago
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Folks who lean right (and a cohort of centrists) don’t want it Right wing isn't really that popular in most developed/rich EU countries though. Most of them have quite left leaning population and leaders. And many of the richer countries want immigration but not publicly admitting it, but do it under the table, due to pressure from business groups and lobbyists, who hope this will aid with the labor shortage (translation for jobs with shitty pay and downward pressure on wages) while also pushing up demand for housing/rents, and demand for consumer goods in the retail sector. All of which benefit the business and ruling elite. Immigration to UK is at its highest year ever despite Brexit and Covid having thrown wrenches in immigration movements. Same for continental Europe. Refugees and migrants are coming weekly by the thousands by sea and land, and there's nothing the right wing parties can do about it, as long as migrants can cross the border then claim refugee status and know how to play the refugee game, the host country can't deny them that as it's guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and if they do deny them that right, then the country can be sued and will lose. So, for that to work, the right wing leaders would have to first get their country out of the ECHR, and then they can deny refugees/migrants.

rainsford 4y ago

The argument is that in a lot of jobs, working 4 days a week isn't significantly less productive than working 5 days a week but you get all the benefits of an extra day off every week (less time/money spent commuting, more free time, etc). If the productivity argument is true, then not only would going to a 4 day work week not have economic downsides, but it would potentially be even better economically. I'm not sure I 100% buy that argument, but I do think many jobs have a non-linear relationship between time spent working and productivity and you end up reaching the point of diminishing returns. I also think it would be a mistake to assume that 2 days vs 3 days off per week is the optimal trade-off just because that's what we're already used to.

swagasaurus-rex 4y ago
Thats why for me, I want it. It increases my days off by 150%. I’d gladly take a 20% pay cut to have proportionally far more free time

bratbag 4y ago

With problem solving jobs, like software engineering, you end up with equal or greater productivity. There is a low-level of constant burnout that occurs with 5 day weeks, but you don't notice the difference between feeling normal and that low-level burnout until the first week back from holiday (after which it starts again). I've simulated 4-day-weeks before using annual leave one day a week spread out over a prolonged period, and those times have been some of my most productive. Every week has had that post-holiday high.

ThrowawayTestr 4y ago

There's no such thing as a labor shortage, only a pay shortage.