3 ms·
I'm a little torn. On one hand, I have an aversion to things like this being done in law. It seems wrong to limit people and it makes sense to me that some peop
by netcan 13y ago
I'm a little torn. On one hand, I have an aversion to things like this being done in law. It seems wrong to limit people and it makes sense to me that some people would prefer to work 40 hour weeks or 50 hours every other week. I'm not extremist in these regard or a libertarian by most definitions but I do see an inherent bad in coercion like this. It seems to outlaw so many potentially win-win arrangements.
OTOH, I think the dynamic in labour economies is such that it doesn't seem to correctly value employee "surplus." I do think that empirically it's hard to ignore the fact that regulation of labour markets has had successes, some of them very important. I think most employees would be worse off without labour laws.
Labour economies (maybe norms is a better word) seem to be much more influenced by "cultural" forces than "economic" ones. If this market was functioning in a healthy way, I would expect to see much more variation in arrangements and less standardization within companies. I believe there's an explanation to be found in Ronald Coase's "The Nature of The Firm" (1937 Economics paper), but I don't have a mature enough idea to be able to boil it down to an HN comment.
Laissez Faire vs labour laws aside, I think that the notion that the number of hours we work today should be lower than 20 years ago is reasonable.
In an increasing number of jobs more hours doesn't mean more work gets done. For a shopkeeper, dermatologist or factory worker, output per hour is fairly fixed (and transparent). More hours = more work. For a graphic designer, policy analyst, medical researcher or social media manager the relationship is fuzzier. Productivity varies a lot and shorter days can boost productivity. At the same time, worker productivity is opaque and a 'last person at his desk' culture often develops with employees trying to demonstrate their commitment. We are shedding the first kind of job and adding the second.
- rwallace 13y agoAs a moderate libertarian, I share your aversion to things like this being done in law. I default to the assumption that the free market is the right way to solve problems, and I accept the need for government intervention only when compelled to do so by an overwhelming weight of evidence. This is an area where I now accept the need for government intervention because I am compelled to do so by an overwhelming weight of evidence. We now know that the optimum working week for economic output, let alone quality of life, is substantially less than forty hours. We also know that it cannot be left to individual employees to negotiate with their employers. In a perfect world perhaps it could, but in the real world it cannot. It's one of those problems that just has to be solved by collective rather than individual action.
- BoardsOfCanada 13y agoAs a Swedish employer myself I'm not worried that I will have this forced on me. (Not that I think that a 6 hour working day would be bad) Sweden actually doesn't regulate many of these things in law, for example there is no law for minimum wage unlike most other countries. Instead the government has traditionally let unions and employers' organizations hash it out.