To: johann_opitz@smtp.svl.trw.com,gcf@panix.com Date: Fri, 28 Oct 94 12:41:54 CST From: "jim blair" To: alt-politics-economics@cs.utexas.edu,anowicki@delphi.com Cc: BCc: Subject: RE: shorter workweek RE: SHORTER WORK WEEK A posting by anowicki@delphi.com called for support of a reduction in the standard work week from its current 40 hours. Responses were generally unfavorable. Bill Elswick points out that when people work less they produce less with the obvious consequence that they will have less. Boudewijn Bertsch says that in Holland a short work week combined with high taxes has resulted in high unemployment. CWRL user suggests that those who want to work less are lazy. I think there is some merit in all these comments, but still favor the anowicki proposal. For starters, I think the high taxes and employer mandates have more to do with high unemployment in western Europe than the shorter work week. All else being equal, spreading the same amount of work over more people who work fewer hours each should reduce unemployment. The current trend is the other way: overtime for the already employed rather than new hiring. I think this is bad social policy for several reasons too obvious to elaborate. To make a convincing case, the supporters of the reduced work week should be honest about the Elswick point Less work should be for the same pay per hour, and consequently less pay per week. The benefit to the individual worker is in more time for personal and family interests. The benefit to society is in a wider distribution of income and greater opportunity for the unemployed who really want a job to find one. It will be seen as a gimmick if supporters claim we can have more by working less. It probably won't happen unless current employer mandates are reduced to make two half-time jobs no more expensive to the employer than one full time one. Then there would probably be a slight gain since most people lose efficiency after working a long time. That is, I bet two people each working 25 hours a week will on average get more done than one person working 50 hours. Most people come to realize that money and the things it buys are only one component of what they want in life. Time is another, and there is often a tradeoff between money and time. (Health of course is more important than either, but enters into this balance only in that long hours can lead to stress that impairs health- and may then be another argument for a shorter workweek). In my own case, my first real job when just out of school with a PhD in chemistry, was in New Jersey at a high salary (by the standards of the time) but it was demanding, stressful and unsatisfactory. It left me with little time for my family or my (many) other interests. I quit that job after two years to teach at a small college in Wisconsin at about 70% the annual pay. But I had much more leisure time, found the work exciting, and was much happier. A shorter standard work week gives individual workers more options: if you want more money, take one and a half or two jobs, or use you extra "leisure time" to pursue profitable hobbies or your own business. It would probably expand the "underground economy" . In my case, I did much more work around the house, and took up gardening (growing much of our food) and beer making when I was teaching I also became in effect a Virgin Island scuba tour guide as a consequence of Winterterm and spring break trips with students of oceanography - an avocation I still pursue (SEE My Life as a Virgin Island Tour Guide) And it is not just a case of some people wanting time rather than money. The same person will probably want a difference balance at different times in life. Many will prefer more money when young and buying a house , car, etc. As they get older they may want more time to enjoy the things they have. I think it is tragic to see people who have worked full time all of their life retire to full time "leisure" when they have developed no other interests but their work. It would make more sense to encourage a gradual transition from 40 to 30 to 20 to 10 hours a week over a period of 4 or more years as a transition from work to retirement. With the increase in productivity that has come with industrialization, we can have much more in goods and services for the same amount of work. But at some point we may want to have more time rather than more goods.