4 ms·

I used to think that mandatory vacation laws were an undesirable restrictions on worker freedom. I figured workers should have the freedom to choose their own b

I used to think that mandatory vacation laws were an undesirable restrictions on worker freedom. I figured workers should have the freedom to choose their own balance between compensation and vacation time. I changed my mind on the issue. For a long version of my new thinking, I have a blog post: The Four Economic Classes and Their Respective Plights http://intellectual-detox.com/2013/01/20/economic-classes/ http://intellectual-detox.com/2013/01/20/economic-classes/ I'll try and give a shorter version here. The problem is that an increasing percentage of jobs in the economy are either zero-sum or positive sum but very competitive or winner-takes-all in nature. In such a situation, unilaterally choosing to take a vacation can be a death sentence. But if everyone takes a vacation, everyone could be better off. This is a classic prisoners dilemma problem. As a sales person at a software company, I might want more vacation time. But if I take off the time, I might lose the sale to a competing firm, who does not take time off (the I lose, they win quadrant of the game). So both might work the extra day, and we both lose because we are working more. But if there is a law mandating a national holiday, then we both can take the day off, without losing the sale to the competing firm. For the minimum wage worker, yes, that particular worker might be fighting for more hours. But when all the low wage workers fight for more hours and give up benefits, it just drives down the wages for everyone. The U.S. is rich enough to both give all workers a living wage and enough vacation, so why not enact the policies to do so? (Just mandating more vacation alone, might not be a good idea, but mandating vacation plus giving some sort of wage subsidy either in the form of cash or in health benefits, might be a quite good idea).

tptacek 13y ago
It is always great to read your comments on subjects like these. I'm left though wondering whether society's attentions should be focused on the plight of your "rat-racers" --- the doctors, lawyers, software salespeople. They may be caught in any number of collective action problems, but on the whole American productivity is high and the parts of society that rat-racers engage with are generally not dysfunctional. Rat-racers in the US are not generally working themselves to death, like they are in Asia. So I'm not sure how concerned I should be about the work-life balance of someone making $250,000/yr. The median household income in the US is $44,000. Does mandatory vacation help a family of 4 making $44,000? Or would they be better off with higher wages? Perhaps I have 'yummyfajitas to blame for this, but every time an issue like this comes up on HN, I can't help but think about the differing quality of life between the US middle class and the rural poor of Asia. Humanity's big problem is probably not improving the lot of Americans.
- bokonist 13y ago
  So I'm not sure how concerned I should be about the work-life balance of someone making $250,000/yr. Well, most rat-racers are not making $250k. A more typical example of a rat-racer is a Dunder Mifflin sales reps in The Office, who would probably make between $40-$70k. The median household income in the US is $44,000. Does mandatory vacation help a family of 4 making $44,000? Or would they be better off with higher wages? I do not see any reason why the right policies could not both raise purchasing power and grant more vacation time. Keep in mind, as I say in the essay, that the output of most goods in the modern economy is not bound by labor. Most output is bound by natural resource production, land, regulation, and natural monopoly. So if you decrease total labor output by 5%, that does not necessarily mean a decrease in output of food or housing or fuel oil by 5%. So there could be ways of increasing vacation time without lowering people's income. Humanity's big problem is probably not improving the lot of Americans. Well yeah, but this article is about America, and I'm a lot more involved in the problems of America than the problems of India. I do not know what I can contribute to solving the problems of India.
splintercell 13y ago
The problem is that an increasing percentage of jobs in the economy are either zero-sum or positive sum but very competitive or winner-takes-all in nature. In such a situation, unilaterally choosing to take a vacation can be a death sentence. But if everyone takes a vacation, everyone could be better off. I wouldn't be. I don't wanna trade money for vacation. I am young, immigrant, I wanna save up money, I don't wanna trade vacation time for my salary. You can make your case if you want, but please avoid taking anonymous authority and say things like "if everyone takes a vacation, everyone could be better off, if we just used the government to force every employer to give everyone vacation time".
- bokonist 13y ago
  "I don't wanna trade money for vacation." My point is that the tradeoff between money and vacation does not exist in the aggregate. You get the vacation for free simply from moving to the lose-lose quadrant of the prisoner's dilemma to the win-win quadrant.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  Note that we are talking about paid vacation. You get both. Your paycheck still comes, but you don't go to work.
  - nijk 13y ago
    In many occupations, unpaid vacation doesn't exist, as employees don't choose their shifts. "Paid" vs "unpaid" vacation is an accounting illusion. What matters is annual income and time spent at work.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

tptacek 13y ago

It is always great to read your comments on subjects like these. I'm left though wondering whether society's attentions should be focused on the plight of your "rat-racers" --- the doctors, lawyers, software salespeople. They may be caught in any number of collective action problems, but on the whole American productivity is high and the parts of society that rat-racers engage with are generally not dysfunctional. Rat-racers in the US are not generally working themselves to death, like they are in Asia. So I'm not sure how concerned I should be about the work-life balance of someone making $250,000/yr. The median household income in the US is $44,000. Does mandatory vacation help a family of 4 making $44,000? Or would they be better off with higher wages? Perhaps I have 'yummyfajitas to blame for this, but every time an issue like this comes up on HN, I can't help but think about the differing quality of life between the US middle class and the rural poor of Asia. Humanity's big problem is probably not improving the lot of Americans.

bokonist 13y ago
So I'm not sure how concerned I should be about the work-life balance of someone making $250,000/yr. Well, most rat-racers are not making $250k. A more typical example of a rat-racer is a Dunder Mifflin sales reps in The Office, who would probably make between $40-$70k. The median household income in the US is $44,000. Does mandatory vacation help a family of 4 making $44,000? Or would they be better off with higher wages? I do not see any reason why the right policies could not both raise purchasing power and grant more vacation time. Keep in mind, as I say in the essay, that the output of most goods in the modern economy is not bound by labor. Most output is bound by natural resource production, land, regulation, and natural monopoly. So if you decrease total labor output by 5%, that does not necessarily mean a decrease in output of food or housing or fuel oil by 5%. So there could be ways of increasing vacation time without lowering people's income. Humanity's big problem is probably not improving the lot of Americans. Well yeah, but this article is about America, and I'm a lot more involved in the problems of America than the problems of India. I do not know what I can contribute to solving the problems of India.

splintercell 13y ago

The problem is that an increasing percentage of jobs in the economy are either zero-sum or positive sum but very competitive or winner-takes-all in nature. In such a situation, unilaterally choosing to take a vacation can be a death sentence. But if everyone takes a vacation, everyone could be better off. I wouldn't be. I don't wanna trade money for vacation. I am young, immigrant, I wanna save up money, I don't wanna trade vacation time for my salary. You can make your case if you want, but please avoid taking anonymous authority and say things like "if everyone takes a vacation, everyone could be better off, if we just used the government to force every employer to give everyone vacation time".

bokonist 13y ago
"I don't wanna trade money for vacation." My point is that the tradeoff between money and vacation does not exist in the aggregate. You get the vacation for free simply from moving to the lose-lose quadrant of the prisoner's dilemma to the win-win quadrant.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
lawnchair_larry 13y ago
Note that we are talking about paid vacation. You get both. Your paycheck still comes, but you don't go to work.
- nijk 13y ago
  In many occupations, unpaid vacation doesn't exist, as employees don't choose their shifts. "Paid" vs "unpaid" vacation is an accounting illusion. What matters is annual income and time spent at work.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]