Limit Working To 20 Hours/week

[frozen_out]

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.

So what would be the problem with the trend continuing in this direction?

[mfp123]

sharing work is fine, theres nothing wrong with that. its like hiring 2 part time workers instead of 1 full time worker. in terms of hours and pay it can be the same.

but of course youd need to share your resources and money with someone else.

if someone wants to halve their hours and let an unemployed person take up that slack they can do that already. but youve got to expect half the pay thats all.

Edited January 15, 2012 by mfp123

[corevalue]

This might help.

Norbert Weiner devoted a whole chapter in his 1948 book "Cybernetics" to the problem of technology reducing the need for human labour. He tried to raise the issue with politicians and union leaders of the day, and expressed his frustration at the ignorance and lack of imagination of them. It seems we have not progressed far.

[exiges]

So what would be the problem with the trend continuing in this direction?

Like I said, if lenders only took one earning into consideration, then for couples at least only one of them needs to do a 40hr week.. while the other helps improve the quality of life around the house.. (he/she does the shopping while the other is at work, so they don't have to go food shopping after work.. gets the washing/ironing done etc.) This way, people can enjoy their free time more, rather than running around doing thing things they have no time to do in the week.

[cells]

I am beginning to think this working fewer hours isn’t that bad an idea

I bet we would see a nearly doubling of productivity if we cut the hours worked in half, that is to say we would produce and hence consume about the same amount just be at work less hours.

Would also be environmentally friendly as we consume a lot less energy when on non work days

[frozen_out]

Like I said, if lenders only took one earning into consideration, then for couples at least only one of them needs to do a 40hr week.. while the other helps improve the quality of life around the house.. (he/she does the shopping while the other is at work, so they don't have to go food shopping after work.. gets the washing/ironing done etc.) This way, people can enjoy their free time more, rather than running around doing thing things they have no time to do in the week.

Surely you are arguing in favour of a 20 hour week here though?

A couple, with one person working a 40 hour week is an average of 20 hours per week. We seem to be on the same side of the fence but debating about the allocation of the proceeds of the labour.

In some ways it comes down to human nature. I don't begrudge giving my wife 20 hours of my labour, I do however resent giving it to a stranger.

[alexw]

sharing work is fine, theres nothing wrong with that. its like hiring 2 part time workers instead of 1 full time worker. in terms of hours and pay it can be the same.

but of course youd need to share your resources and money with someone else.

if someone wants to halve their hours and let an unemployed person take up that slack they can do that already. but youve got to expect half the pay thats all.

The thing is the current system seems to have 'useful' workers already giving half of their productivity to people who are doing stuff but not work that is 'useful' in terms of what it provides to society. And it seems that the only reason this is so, is so they can be seen to be at least doing something and so deserving of a share of the economic pie. Think of the housebuilders during the boom, the diversity consultants and other non-job public sector workers, the 20%+ of our youth on benefits and the 50% in university, the zero-sum financial sector, etc, etc.

[lulu]

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.

Sounds good but somewhere along the line it became normal that the cost of putting a roof over ones head required two full time salaries. Now house and land prices are so high there is no choice but to make everyone work more and more to be able to not only afford a roof over their heads but also to buy all the associated crap that apparently keeps our economy going...

I

[tinker]

Sounds good but somewhere along the line it became normal that the cost of putting a roof over ones head required two full time salaries. Now house and land prices are so high there is no choice but to make everyone work more and more to be able to not only afford a roof over their heads but also to buy all the associated crap that apparently keeps our economy going...

I

All part of the plan.

Can't have people with too much time on their hands.

[MrMagoo]

In principle I like the idea, but implementation would be incredibly difficul if not impossible if done by any government we've seen in recent years!

Bing bang approach? would cause chos

Slow drip approach: would cause hardship for those with jobs, with little in return fore those without. who's going to hire someone for a few hours a week whils the adjustment is made? Certainly companies would not be made to carry costs which would ease the pain for workers!

Having said that, I quite like the notion of taking more time off as a reward/dividend for performance. I.e rather than take a pay rise, take a pro rata reduction in hours. Something I was coincidentally discussing this evening with my partner not long before i noticed this thread: more pay or more time off work.

The big problem is that the practicalites in the workplace for many jobs/professions, don't lend themselves to such discussions.

[oracle]

I am beginning to think this working fewer hours isn’t that bad an idea

I bet we would see a nearly doubling of productivity if we cut the hours worked in half, that is to say we would produce and hence consume about the same amount just be at work less hours.

Would also be environmentally friendly as we consume a lot less energy when on non work days

but if the company has to hire an extra pair of hands for those days,the transport effect goes straight back up again......daft idea.

['Bart']

her response was to the effect that over time, people would come around to the idea of shorter hours due to a 'reeducation' programme.

[StainlessSteelCat]

but if the company has to hire an extra pair of hands for those days,the transport effect goes straight back up again......daft idea.

I agree the net environmental impact is uncertain. A good example of this is internet shopping. I believe it was thought that internet shopping would reduce environmental impact because people wouldn't need to travel so much to go shopping. I think it turns out that they quite often used the time saved through shopping on the net to go out travelling somewhere else.

It seems to me that almost no-one would object to a target (rather than enforced) reduced working week if they could enjoy a similar lifestyle or better than they currently do. The problem lies with the idea of it being enforced and the suspicion that most of us would be poorer than richer as a result. And, of course, it needs to be a global aspiration towards the same target - because barriers to knowledge and the means to implement productivity improvements are much lower nowadays. It doesn't have to be universal though - I suspect the average Chinese already works longer than the average British person.

The transition would be difficult. Essentially it would be the reverse of what happened during the credit bubble. The credit bubble meant that the average person could borrow more money to buy the average house so the price rose accordingly. But for most of all of those on the housing ladder - their relative positions hadn't changed. A taxi driver living in a terrace still couldn't buy a big house in the country. To reduce the average working week would run this in reverse. And like the housing market - there would be people who would lose out. Also hard to do given that the value of labour seems to be decreasing rather than increasing.

I agree with cells in that it is possible productivity would increase. Would it increase enough to cover the additional overheads?

[Bloo Loo]

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.

it wont work...companies screamed blue death when 1 day strikes hit them...thats 1 day out of 220.

[nmarks]

This, at a time when our competitors in Asia, especially Hong Kong and Singapore, are working ever longer hours.

I can only assume the proponents of such drivel are either not taking their meds or are working for the other side.

Surely this is the MSM equivalent of trolling?

Edited January 15, 2012 by nmarks

[exiges]

A couple, with one person working a 40 hour week is an average of 20 hours per week. We seem to be on the same side of the fence but debating about the allocation of the proceeds of the labour.

Having two people doing 40hrs between them is much less efficient, not only in terms of their increased transportation (in both time and cost), the impact on the environment, but also the additional burden on business managing twice the staff and the inconvenience (see: cost) of staff "not being there" when needed.

By logical extension, why not double our population even further and have 4x the staff each working just 10hrs a week. ? It wouldn't work.

[Frugal Git]

I work 22 hours a week as a salaried employee in an industry where it is extremely uncommon to work part time. I did so initially for medical reasons, and now it's a way of life. 3 days a week is as full time as I'd want to go. I've even been promoted working this pattern. I live without any state hand outs comfortably on the salary (though I think I should be paid more as frankly my productivity is 85% of my 5 day output because I'm less stressed and able to concentrate more clearly), and I'm able to do things that I didn't have time to do working full time like:

* I shop around and pretty much always cook from scratch

* I fix things myself that I might have paid someone to do.

* I am a hell of a lot fitter than I was.

To go back to working a 5 day week (aside from the medical issues), it feels to me like my salary would have to be multipled by 5 (no joke) to compensate - and even then I'd be unlikely to accept it as the value of free time is so high. To me, the final number from the study is correct, though my reasons would be less to do with unemployment and more to do with quality of life - and it definitely should be a voluntary decision.

[leigh delamere]

An idea so stupid I can't even begin to say why.

I'm sure people said the same when the idea that people worked five days a week instead of the normal six was first put about.

[Timak]

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.

Agreed I've been doing 21 hour weeks since the age of 27.

About 10% of people say "wow that sounds great", and 90% just really struggle to cope with the concept.

In the olden days a 7 day working week was standard, that became 6 then eventually, after a huge amount of protest by the ruling classes became 5.

If it became standard that everyone worked 4 of the 5 days and had a 3 day weekend people would soon get used to the idea. It wouldn't mean that businesses only operated 4 days a week simply that the staff only worked 4 days with additional staff covering the work when you weren't in but the business wasn't open.

I think a lot of the problem is that people think they are important and that if they aren't there the business would fail whilst in reality 99.9% of us are replaceable with about 2 weeks training.

[leigh delamere]

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.

I think this (or a less extreme adjustment) should be achieved by a change in cultural norms, rather than by legislation.

These days a 40 hour Monday to Friday working week is the norm, yet we know there are people that work 100+ hours per week.

How many people waste hours of the working week in pointless meetings that achieve nothing?

[blackgoose]

We are all working for the paymasters who own the land and the energy. They sell/ rent their wares to the highest bidder, and working 20 hours a week, even though the rental cost would go down, others would simply buy energy instead of us.

No doubt we would see sob stories of those on benefits not able to afford to heat their homes and demands on those who work to either work more hours or sacrifice more in tax in order to keep those on benefits.

[Timak]

This, at a time when our competitors in Asia, especially Hong Kong and Singapore, are working ever longer hours.

I can only assume the proponents of such drivel are either not taking their meds or are working for the other side.

Surely this is the MSM equivalent of trolling?

The businesses would still be open but it would not be the same workers.

Very few workers have any independence of thought within a business, they simply carry out predefined processes that can be quickly learnt and passed on to other workers.

That might not be the case for the vital business brains on HPC who manage not only to be the best damn workers in the world but also generate thousands of internet posts a year but it is true for most.

Instead of having 80 employees working 5 days a week you'd have 100 employees working 4 days a week on a rota.

Employment up, leisure time up, costs of living down, taxes spent on unemployment benefits down.

World becomes a better place.

[Bloo Loo]

snip

Instead of having 80 employees working 5 days a week you'd have 100 employees working 4 days a week on a rota.

no, you'd have more employees than 100 as each and every one would have 20 days statutory holidays, ie, 200 working days off rather than 160, so you'd need 40 days cover just for holidays, and Im not sure the maths of your rota would work out...as I had to do one to prove to my wifes firm their rota had the same hours, but the shifts didnt work out, specially with holiday cover, sickness and training.

They insisted it would, but it has proved not to work and the staff have to put in extra hours to cover.

[Lewis Gordon Pugh]

This will never happen because they dont want people sitting around at home watching youtube videos and forums like this that show how badly they are being shafted.

The elites main method of control is to keep people busy and distracted.

And why would they allow people to work for 20 hours and pay them for 20 hours when they know most people are brainwashable enough to work for 40 hours for 20 hours pay.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Lewis Gordon Pugh

[thod]

The ONLY way one may save is to produce more than one consumes. Yet if everyone where to do this, all that excess would result in stockpiles. Thus for every over-producer, there must be an under-producer. The incentive for the over-producer to over-produce is a transfer from the under-producer and can only continue whilst the under-producers have things to transfer.