The Knimbies who say No Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/08/cut-working-week-urges-thinktank ..... A thinktank, the New Economics Foundation (NEF), which has organised the event with the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School of Economics, argues that if everyone worked fewer hours – say, 20 or so a week – there would be more jobs to go round, employees could spend more time with their families and energy-hungry excess consumption would be curbed. Anna Coote, of NEF, said: "There's a great disequilibrium between people who have got too much paid work, and those who have got too little or none." ... The reason I highlight this is because it seems to have resurfaced. I first heard an article about this on the Today program many months ago, and after a comprehensive demolition job, I thought it would sink without trace. But no, on 'Start the week' this week, a lady(presumably the one quoted above) from the think tank in question, the New Economics Foundation, was given substantial airtime to push the line, and the Trots at GMG seemed to have jumped on the bandwagon to boot. The previous 'Today' interview was revealing- when asked about people who just enjoy working full time, or at any rate above the threshold decided by the NEF, her response was to the effect that over time, people would come around to the idea of shorter hours due to a 'reeducation' programme. When pressed on the point of individuals who want to work full time irrespective, she admitted that people would ultimately be prevented from taking full time work by legislation. The first time it surfaced I thought it was an error of judgement on behalf of Auntie, but now it is back and being given more airtime than before. Weird. Edit engerlush. Edited January 14, 2012 by cheeznbreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammo Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Do they mean public sector jobs, or all jobs? Sorry, can't be bothered to RTFA. So do they intend to force people to get two jobs? What is this all about then? Edited January 14, 2012 by jammo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Knimbies who say No Posted January 14, 2012 Author Share Posted January 14, 2012 A bit of Googling has turned up that Ms Coote is married to Laurie Taylor, presenter of Radio 4's 'Thinking Allowed'. Case closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 On Newsnight this week the FT girlie even raised the situation of Japan when, when questioned whether we could get out of this mess like Japan(?), that women who become pregnant in Japan are obliged to become housewives and mothers - i.e. they must give up work. The FT girlie raised the issue of whether Brit women would be prepared to give up freedoms but the girlie presenter quickly brushed past this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Knimbies who say No Posted January 14, 2012 Author Share Posted January 14, 2012 Do they mean public sector jobs, or all jobs? Sorry, can't be bothered to RTFA. So do they intend to force people to get two jobs? What is this all about then? All jobs, 20 hours/week max. Only one job allowed, so you can enjoy more free time and the warm gooey feeling that comes with knowing that you are being shafted in the name of Socialism. Clearly a bonkers article from a fringe looney group, but interesting that it turns up again the better part of a year after the first slapdown. Good old nepotism seems to be at work though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulfar Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 It doesn't have to be done all in one go. You could phase it in, reduce the working week by 1 hour per year, people would effectively get 0% pay rises for that year as their pay rise would be negated by their pay cut. To protect the low paid I would raise the minimum wage by Inflation + 3%. As for house prices well we all think they need to come down and this would help. As for other costs well multi national companies refer to the UK as the Golden isle as we pay higher prices for a lot of goods compared to their other markets. As for goods or work going to cheaper countries then there would have to be some protectionism. This would take 28 years to bring the maximum working week down, personally I think it needs to be done quicker as we already have more people than jobs. At the end of the day it is going to have to happen as automation is going to reduce the number of jobs. We cannot continue as we are indefinitely our economic system will fail, you cannot have growth and inflation for ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hywel Dda Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 What on earth is so bad about this idea.? Is it a macho thing or are our identities so entwined with our work that we would cease to exist. This used to be the dream years ago "in years to come we will be working one afternoon a week...." I have always thought that overtime deprives somebody else of a job. 20 Hours sounds a tad extreme, we need some sort of a paradigm shift Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easy2012 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 It doesn't have to be done all in one go. You could phase it in, reduce the working week by 1 hour per year, people would effectively get 0% pay rises for that year as their pay rise would be negated by their pay cut. To protect the low paid I would raise the minimum wage by Inflation + 3%. As for house prices well we all think they need to come down and this would help. As for other costs well multi national companies refer to the UK as the Golden isle as we pay higher prices for a lot of goods compared to their other markets. As for goods or work going to cheaper countries then there would have to be some protectionism. This would take 28 years to bring the maximum working week down, personally I think it needs to be done quicker as we already have more people than jobs. At the end of the day it is going to have to happen as automation is going to reduce the number of jobs. We cannot continue as we are indefinitely our economic system will fail, you cannot have growth and inflation for ever. Do you think people work for monopolies with no competitions (internal and external) ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiges Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 An idea so stupid I can't even begin to say why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen_out Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 An idea so stupid I can't even begin to say why. Please try. Long term, surely it would be better. Full employment, lower cost of living and more leisure time. Our culture has never caught up with the pace of automation, we should start to at least try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Knimbies who say No Posted January 14, 2012 Author Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Please try. Long term, surely it would be better. Full employment, lower cost of living and more leisure time. Our culture has never caught up with the pace of automation, we should start to at least try. What about those that either: Wish to work full time, or Are 'irreplaceable' eg top brains etc. Who decides who is allowed a dispensation from the rules and who is not? What about the self employed? Would they be forced to take on staff if they were working above the limit? There are so many practical problems with this that we need not go so far as the ideological arguments. Edited January 14, 2012 by cheeznbreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) You can be sure that if people in the UK decided to take up that Think Tank (more jobsworths daft tanking ideas) suggestion that before long there would be another Think Tank saying something like UK people are working too few hours and more cheap labour needs to be imported - or jobs exported overseas because people just won't work the hours. The Think Tanks used to publish that sort of stuff (more leisure time through technology and automation) decades ago but all that's happened is young people, desperately looking for jobs - even 20 hour per week jobs , working for free for the likes of Poundland (see earlier thread). Think Tanks Edited January 14, 2012 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiges Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Please try. For many many reasons, not limited to the following: 1. Halving the hours worked per person doesn't automatically follow that twice the people will want to work to pick up the slack. 2. Halving the hours worked will halve our industrial output, and therefore wealth unless you double the workforce. 3. If you try to maintain productivity by doubling staff, then you double the overheads in looking after them making businesses less competitive, double the traffic, double the pollution etc. 4. If you work 4 hours a day, then you spend a disproportionate time commuting, or if you work fewer days then there's the age old problem of trying to get stuff done when people are on a "day off". 5. For us to provide goods that are competitive with other nations and still maintain a lifestyle superior to theirs we need to keep the output-per-person high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiges Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 A flippant answer would be that the public sector have been experimenting with 20hrs weeks for some time now.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admann Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Why is this idea stupid, we all compete for goods and services (not the other way round), if we all had half the amount of money, everything would be half the price. All the work done in the 1950s could be done by 1/10 of the population. Most work done today does not need doing, it is done for the sake of working and consuming. Our current system seeks to maximise not to optimise, which is why it must fail. The reason this idea cannot work is that all countries must do it multilaterally - it is a case of prisoners dilemma, if all countries do it we have utopia, if one does it unilaterally they are toast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corevalue Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Didn't we have all this tripe, oh, around 1970? Yes, I'm sure we did, paperless offices and all that. Nothing new under the sun. The issue that is never addressed, is how the "common wealth" is to be distributed, after all, 90% of it is owned by the top 10% who decide on it's distribution. And they have decided that we (the rest of us) must fight like rats in a sack for survival. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiges Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 if we all had half the amount of money, everything would be half the price. .. but we'd get paid half the amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen_out Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Why is this idea stupid, we all compete for goods and services (not the other way round), if we all had half the amount of money, everything would be half the price. All the work done in the 1950s could be done by 1/10 of the population. Most work done today does not need doing, it is done for the sake of working and consuming. Our current system seeks to maximise not to optimise, which is why it must fail. The reason this idea cannot work is that all countries must do it multilaterally - it is a case of prisoners dilemma, if all countries do it we have utopia, if one does it unilaterally they are toast. I agree with your point about optimisation completely. I've got a simple example... Essentially we can produce everything we need in 400 hours, but we have 800 hours of labour at 40 hours/week. So we employ 10 people then tax them to pay the other 10 to do nothing. This can not be optimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Years ago there used to be science programmes that talked about the leisure society and how in the future automation would mean we'd have more time for leisure activities. However, in spite of such advances it seems people are working harder and are more under the cosh to merely to exist, and pay those ever increasing bills and taxes. It will be an interesting debate, if we get more efficient at producing things and an ever increasing population means that there aren't enough jobs to go round, then is it not sensible to reassess how we live our lives and how we measure success - GDP per capita would take a hit, and heaven forbid we might have to settle to cheaper shelter, but wouldn't the world be a nicer place if things were a bit less pressured and we had time for pleasure and people. We'd have less money so the cost of living would definitely have to come down. Somehow. Maybe we could all be loved up hippies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admann Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Years ago there used to be science programmes that talked about the leisure society and how in the future automation would mean we'd have more time for leisure activities. However, in spite of such advances it seems people are working harder and are more under the cosh to merely to exist, and pay those ever increasing bills and taxes. It will be an interesting debate, if we get more efficient at producing things and an ever increasing population means that there aren't enough jobs to go round, then is it not sensible to reassess how we live our lives and how we measure success - GDP per capita would take a hit, and heaven forbid we might have to settle to cheaper shelter, but wouldn't the world be a nicer place if things were a bit less pressured and we had time for pleasure and people. We'd have less money so the cost of living would definitely have to come down. Somehow. Maybe we could all be loved up hippies. If we all worked 10 hours more per week, we would all have more money, but as everyone has more money you would be in the same place as before financially, so you just gave up 10 hours/week for nothing. Now reverse that argument. We would be no worse off if we all worked less hours. If the extra money in the argument above had been printed by the Bank of England and given to everyone, no-one would question that the money in circulation would still not buy any more than before. Why does working for it make any difference. The key fact here is that the majority of work done has no value - i.e. it is not essential, it is done to pay the bills, and as such the real pay for such work will and is diminishing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StainlessSteelCat Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I guess I am left wondering who decides how long an average working week should be anyway? 40 hours a week seems as arbitrary as 20 hours a week - why not 10, 15, 50, 60, 70 or 100 hour weeks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) Isn't the problem that as soon as it only takes 20 hours to achieve a reasonable standard of living the greedy crooked corporate psychos along with their crooked bankers and dodgy politician pals etc (hey the MPs have only just NOW returned from their extended Christmas holidays) will decide that people have 20 or 30 plus hours spare time to work for free to boost their own pay packets and golden pensions. See the recent Poundland thread - work for them for free. Edited January 15, 2012 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gardener Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) Whoaaaa there! Is this think tank suggesting I increase my hours? I work 18.75 hours per week and I'm very happy. I don't want to be doing any more thank you very much. It is a good idea and one which I have been shouting from the rooftops about for a long time. I don't think it'll catch on though as far too many people are indocrinated with the idea that full-time work is the only way. Basically people have been slaves so long that they have come to love and find comfort in their shackles. I despair. Edited January 15, 2012 by the gardener Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiges Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 but wouldn't the world be a nicer place if things were a bit less pressured and we had time for pleasure and people. It's not that ago in history that people worked 6-7 days a week, a 12-14 hour day, with no holidays at all, no pensions, no employees rights, and kids as young as 5 went to work. Are we really that pressured these days ? I'd say not. That said, I think banks now lending based on joint earnings has ruined "home life" as it was in the 50s-70s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenzdawg Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Please try. Long term, surely it would be better. Full employment, lower cost of living and more leisure time. Our culture has never caught up with the pace of automation, we should start to at least try. This might help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.