Halt in the Decline of Work Hours
I'm sure someone must have done more serious research on this, but I'm curious as to why the work week has been frozen at 40 hours. Going back 200 years, farmers worked sunup to sundown (and perhaps then some), 7 days a week. Through the 19th century, various laws in England, the US, and elsewhere were passed, sometimes following private practice, reducing the hours to 12, then 10, then 8, while the workweek was reduced from 7 to 6 and then to 5. So far as I know, with the sole exception of France, that trend stopped at the 5 x 8 = 40 hour week in the 1920 or 1930s. Yet productivity continues to climb, so why haven't work hours continued to follow suit?
1) Due to the passage of the 16th Amendment and then SSI legislation, taxes have eaten up all of the surplus since then.
2) Health care insurance has absorbed all of the gains.
3) The period in which it has become feasible to drop to 20-30 hours per week has coincided with the rise in globalization. The competition won't let us slow down.
4) It is a coordination problem: high income workers prefer to work longer weeks, and want/need someone to be on the other end of the phone whenever they call.
5) It is a different coordination problem: because of the explosion in labor legislation at the state and federal level in the Progressive and New Deal eras, it is simply too complex to change all of the relevant law.
6) There has been a realization that such legislation shackles those at the bottom who would like to get ahead by working longer hours.
7) The productivity gains have been apparent, not real.
8) Some of us *are* working less, it just isn't showing up. One way is by retiring early. The other is by switching to alternative work schedules (4 x 10) or work arrangements (telecommuting, comp time, better vacation and sick leave packages). Yes, 4 x 10 is still 40, but the off-book time to commute is less, and the one day per week to run errands without taking time off is significant.
I think 1 is overplayed. 2 is a strong contender, but doesn't explain all of it, especially outside the U.S. 3 might make a slight contribution. I doubt 4, 5, and 6; not the truthiness of them, but rather the strength of these arguments to dissuade a majority from obtaining the desired change; after all, the same arguments in 6 apply to minimum wage laws. I doubt the truth of 7. There might be something to 8, but probably not as much as we would like; the benefits described have fallen to high income workers, whereas previous work hour reductions helped those on the low end.
1) Due to the passage of the 16th Amendment and then SSI legislation, taxes have eaten up all of the surplus since then.
2) Health care insurance has absorbed all of the gains.
3) The period in which it has become feasible to drop to 20-30 hours per week has coincided with the rise in globalization. The competition won't let us slow down.
4) It is a coordination problem: high income workers prefer to work longer weeks, and want/need someone to be on the other end of the phone whenever they call.
5) It is a different coordination problem: because of the explosion in labor legislation at the state and federal level in the Progressive and New Deal eras, it is simply too complex to change all of the relevant law.
6) There has been a realization that such legislation shackles those at the bottom who would like to get ahead by working longer hours.
7) The productivity gains have been apparent, not real.
8) Some of us *are* working less, it just isn't showing up. One way is by retiring early. The other is by switching to alternative work schedules (4 x 10) or work arrangements (telecommuting, comp time, better vacation and sick leave packages). Yes, 4 x 10 is still 40, but the off-book time to commute is less, and the one day per week to run errands without taking time off is significant.
I think 1 is overplayed. 2 is a strong contender, but doesn't explain all of it, especially outside the U.S. 3 might make a slight contribution. I doubt 4, 5, and 6; not the truthiness of them, but rather the strength of these arguments to dissuade a majority from obtaining the desired change; after all, the same arguments in 6 apply to minimum wage laws. I doubt the truth of 7. There might be something to 8, but probably not as much as we would like; the benefits described have fallen to high income workers, whereas previous work hour reductions helped those on the low end.
Labels: management, organization
<< Home