5 ms·

I think competition is the main villain here. Zero-sum games, prisoner's dilemmas, arms races and tragedies of the commons stole the four-hour workday from us,

I think competition is the main villain here. Zero-sum games, prisoner's dilemmas, arms races and tragedies of the commons stole the four-hour workday from us, and many other good things besides. A nice toy example is "20% time" at companies like Google, which tends to evaporate as soon as your performance evaluation compared to your peers becomes tied to your performance at your main project. The only solution to competition is centrally enforced precommitment. First, the government should actually enforce the eight-hour workday. Then it should reduce the workday, for all employers at once, so no one can get ahead by cheating. I don't see any other solution.

privong 12y ago
> The only solution to competition is centrally enforced precommitment. First, the government should actually enforce the eight-hour workday. Then it should reduce the workday, for all employers at once, so no one can get ahead by cheating. I don't see any other solution. This would not really be a solution. All it would result in is more people taking work home, because job evaluations would still be based on how much progress one made on the primary project. To get ahead and get that next promotion, many people would still feel compelled to work extra (unreported) hours. I suspect a madate such as what you propose would simply push the long work-days into being unreported. This is basically what happens in graduate school (in the US, at least). I just finished a PhD program; as part of our contrats students agreed to only work 20 hours per week. There is no way one could finish a dissertation working on 20 hours per week, so everyone worked longer hours. Sure, you could complain about how many hours you worked (and some people did), but that did not change the fact that only 10–20% of Astronomy PhDs get faculty jobs, so if you want that faculty job, you need to put in the hours to do great research, regardless of the mandated 20 hour limit.
- bmj 12y ago
  Do you think there /is/ a solution to the problem? Or is this just one of the side effects of capitalism? I'm not trolling here...just curious. My own mind tends to go in the direction of the parent, but, I also see how enforcement would be next to impossible.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - privong 12y ago
    I am not sure there is an institutional or global solution. But I am also not convinced it is an institutional or global problem. There are certainly individual solutions—accepting a different standard of living in exchange for fewer working hours, selecting careers which have better working hours—but I have trouble envisioning a global change (short of a cultural attitude shift) which would "solve" this "problem".
    - cousin_it 12y ago
      Sorry, tragedies of the commons don't have individual solutions. If everyone else is overfishing the common supply, you overfish as well, or go out of business. If everyone else is using performance enhancing drugs, you use them as well, or drop out. If everyone else is working 80 hour weeks and thus bidding up the price of houses, you do the same, or you can't buy a house. These things are very well studied in game theory, and I wasn't kidding when I said the only solution is centrally enforced precommitment.
      - privong 12y ago
        Is this issue really a tragedy of the commons though? What resource is being depleted?
        cousin_it 12y ago
        The market value of labor, relative to other goods. Also see the book "Two-Income Trap", it basically describes how households didn't become better off from making both partners work, because that just bid down the price of labor relative to housing and education. Everyone ended up in the same position as before, but now they work 2x more and cannot opt out. Also the non-working partner in the family provided a safety net because they could start working if things got rough, and now that safety net is gone.
RivieraKid 12y ago
Forcibly reducing the workday doesn't sound like a good idea, the optimal number of work hours depends on your specific situation. If I love my job, I could be ok with 9 hours a day. If I hate my job but it pays really really well, I could be ok with 4 hours a day or less.
- inscrutablemike 12y ago
  You have to understand that no proposal for the government to enforce specific outcomes is ever an attempt to solve an actual problem. It's always, in every case, someone's attempt to make reality conform to their own ideological prejudices.
  - SupremumLimit 12y ago
    You have to understand that no comment is about describing reality as it is, but rather someone's attempt to make reality conform to their own ideological prejudices.
JamesBarney 12y ago
I think the economic theory that is more appropriate is Tournament Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_theory
- cousin_it 12y ago
  Thanks for the link! I wasn't aware of it.

privong 12y ago

> The only solution to competition is centrally enforced precommitment. First, the government should actually enforce the eight-hour workday. Then it should reduce the workday, for all employers at once, so no one can get ahead by cheating. I don't see any other solution. This would not really be a solution. All it would result in is more people taking work home, because job evaluations would still be based on how much progress one made on the primary project. To get ahead and get that next promotion, many people would still feel compelled to work extra (unreported) hours. I suspect a madate such as what you propose would simply push the long work-days into being unreported. This is basically what happens in graduate school (in the US, at least). I just finished a PhD program; as part of our contrats students agreed to only work 20 hours per week. There is no way one could finish a dissertation working on 20 hours per week, so everyone worked longer hours. Sure, you could complain about how many hours you worked (and some people did), but that did not change the fact that only 10–20% of Astronomy PhDs get faculty jobs, so if you want that faculty job, you need to put in the hours to do great research, regardless of the mandated 20 hour limit.

bmj 12y ago
Do you think there /is/ a solution to the problem? Or is this just one of the side effects of capitalism? I'm not trolling here...just curious. My own mind tends to go in the direction of the parent, but, I also see how enforcement would be next to impossible.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- privong 12y ago
  I am not sure there is an institutional or global solution. But I am also not convinced it is an institutional or global problem. There are certainly individual solutions—accepting a different standard of living in exchange for fewer working hours, selecting careers which have better working hours—but I have trouble envisioning a global change (short of a cultural attitude shift) which would "solve" this "problem".
  - cousin_it 12y ago
    Sorry, tragedies of the commons don't have individual solutions. If everyone else is overfishing the common supply, you overfish as well, or go out of business. If everyone else is using performance enhancing drugs, you use them as well, or drop out. If everyone else is working 80 hour weeks and thus bidding up the price of houses, you do the same, or you can't buy a house. These things are very well studied in game theory, and I wasn't kidding when I said the only solution is centrally enforced precommitment.
    - privong 12y ago
      Is this issue really a tragedy of the commons though? What resource is being depleted?
      - cousin_it 12y ago
        The market value of labor, relative to other goods. Also see the book "Two-Income Trap", it basically describes how households didn't become better off from making both partners work, because that just bid down the price of labor relative to housing and education. Everyone ended up in the same position as before, but now they work 2x more and cannot opt out. Also the non-working partner in the family provided a safety net because they could start working if things got rough, and now that safety net is gone.

RivieraKid 12y ago

Forcibly reducing the workday doesn't sound like a good idea, the optimal number of work hours depends on your specific situation. If I love my job, I could be ok with 9 hours a day. If I hate my job but it pays really really well, I could be ok with 4 hours a day or less.

inscrutablemike 12y ago
You have to understand that no proposal for the government to enforce specific outcomes is ever an attempt to solve an actual problem. It's always, in every case, someone's attempt to make reality conform to their own ideological prejudices.
- SupremumLimit 12y ago
  You have to understand that no comment is about describing reality as it is, but rather someone's attempt to make reality conform to their own ideological prejudices.

JamesBarney 12y ago

I think the economic theory that is more appropriate is Tournament Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_theory

cousin_it 12y ago
Thanks for the link! I wasn't aware of it.