I'm not arguing that work weeks shouldn't be reduced naturally. Absent government regulation (RE: Willy's post) the pricing mechanism determines this. If we are producing too much then prices go down and companies produce less leading to reduced man-hours needed to complete the work. If prices go up then we are underproducing and companies will increase production requiring them to give workers more hours or hiring more workers. When government messes with this equilibrium you end up with all kinds of unintended consequences and malinvestments.

 

Originally Posted by saxman

only if the growth in population is accompanied by disposable income and affordable goods and services in that specific market place. This is why china and india developing a middle class is so important to us. They have the fastest growing populations but as of yet, an undeveloped middle class and therefore limited consumerism.

My point being that the more we produce the more work is required thus the more disposable income that is available thus more stuff is consumed. It is a self regulating equilibrium as I noted in my previous post.

 

Originally Posted by saxman

it may be a self regulating equilibrium over time, but the question is, over what time period? These adjustments in supply / demand curves are not smooth transitions and it's the shock of the peeks and valleys that can be so harmful. This is the age old debate between Keynes and the bad guys.

Well in reality it never reaches true equilibrium. That's why there are always ways to make a profit. You find the area where it is out of whack and take advantage by expanding or selling or whatever is called for. It is just always approaching equilibrium. In a purely free market, all profits are made by helping to move the system closer to true equilibrium.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

The breakthrough could be 1000 work-hours away. I'd rather the guy be working 40 hours per week compared to only 21.

true, i also thinks this type of work environment works a lot better for lower skilled type jobs. not highly specialized ones. it doesnt have to be implemented across the board.

Dyz- the prob with just the natural ebb and flow of hiring/firing employees u perpetuate a system that may not be ideal. Maybe it is better to increase/decrease work hrs over a broader range of workers. Just something to consider.

 

Originally Posted by AmSlim22

Dyz- the prob with just the natural ebb and flow of hiring/firing employees u perpetuate a system that may not be ideal. Maybe it is better to increase/decrease work hrs over a broader range of workers. Just something to consider.

The reason the system isn't ideal is because government regulation messes with the equilibrium. As Willy noted, we don't have a 40 hour work week because that's what business owners and workers decided was best. We have it because of US labor laws. Most likely if those laws were removed you would slowly see businesses and workers start to try out other kinds of work schedules that fit their needs better, both from a owner's perspective and a worker's perspective. As an example, when I was young and working retail I wanted to make more money than I could by working 40 hours. Unfortunately, because of overtime rules my employer wasnt willing to give me more hours. Because of this I had to take a part time job with a different employer that paid a little less. So basically those overtime laws hurt both my earning potential and my employers' production potential. Instead of perhaps working an extra 2 hours per day to make more money I was forced to invest an extra 4 hours per day for the same result due to increased travel, clothing requirements, etc. It makes no sense to me that people are allowed to work more than 40 hours in a week without getting overtime as long as they work for more than one company.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

. It makes no sense to me that people are allowed to work more than 40 hours in a week without getting overtime as long as they work for more than one company.

This is a good point, it would be interesting to see how businesses would adapt models if labor laws such as these weren't in place. It would most definitely happen.

After BF, I started working at a restaurant near my house. I put in 25-35 hrs a week most of the summer. But winters are slow here, and I'm back in school, so I'm only scheduled for 3 shifts a week now, which amounts to 15-18hrs a week. Over the x-mas break I started going in on days when I wasn't scheduled and volunteering my time. I do a lot of piddly crap like dishes, breaking down boxes, light cleaning and organizing or whatever, and occasionally do actual work that I would normally be paid to do during a scheduled shift. I go in every single day now and do about 2-3hrs of stuff for no pay, though the owners often offer to buy me lunch or a couple drinks or whatever when I'm done and I usually take them up on it. Overall, I'm now putting in 30-40hrs a week for basically half the pay I was getting in the summer.

I can't put my finger on why it is exactly, but I am so much happier working now than I was in the summer. There's something about doing work on a volunteer basis that just makes it a lot more enjoyable. I've also noticed that I'm a lot more productive and in a better mood during my scheduled shifts.

The craziest part of all of it is that I haven't noticed myself being any worse off financially. I'm working more, for less money, but am somehow just as well off, if not slightly better. I think this has something to do with how working less changes our mentality about money and consumption. When I worked more (for pay), I felt like I had to spend more to justify the time I was giving up to earn the money. Now that I work less (for pay), I don't feel such a strong desire to consume, and instead find myself with a growing desire to spend my time helping coworkers, friends, family, etc.

The bottom line I guess is that I'm in favor of shorter work weeks. It's changed my approach to work and consumption dramatically, and I think it could have a similar effect on others. I wouldn't suggest a gov't mandate for it, but I think employers who choose to salary workers for even 30ish hour weeks would see some benefits, and employees would certainly benefit.

 

Originally Posted by zeppelinzoso16

This is EXACTLY what I was getting to, just didn't make it that far in putting my thoughts on paper. Said perfectly



Don't disagree that some jobs do require the hours to be put in. However, I think so many hours are wasted. A lot of people don't really have 40 hours of work to do but have to be there for 40 hours anyway. There have been studies released how many hours are spent by people browsing the internet on company time. I'm not going to google it but in a lot of fields it is a lot. I talk to people on fb chat while they are "working" all the time and like I said we all know a lot of P5 posts happen while people work.

Would love to see a P5 poll asking something like: How many hours of an 8 hour day on average are spent actually working?
Or In how many hours could you accomplish what you do in an average 8 hour shift at your most efficient level of working?


Some people do love what they do for a living and look forward to go to work everyday. For those people congratulations, you win at life. I think you are in the minority. Most people don't love their job. I certainly hope when I finally do get a job I will love what I do, otherwise I'm wasting my life and precious time away

yes i fully agree that a few hours are wasted each day on talking or browsing the internet. But these same people will probably still do this even if they worked 30 hour weeks instead of 40. So there is a fine line. In fact many employers allow this side chat to exist because they know people need it for their sanity.

its an interesting discussion. The fact that we discuss it is good because i believe we would all like to work the optimal amount of hours in our job.

 

Originally Posted by Prestonluv

yes i fully agree that a few hours are wasted each day on talking or browsing the internet. But these same people will probably still do this even if they worked 30 hour weeks instead of 40. So there is a fine line. In fact many employers allow this side chat to exist because they know people need it for their sanity.

its an interesting discussion. The fact that we discuss it is good because i believe we would all like to work the optimal amount of hours in our job.

but the same sanity would exist if you had that down time somewhere besides your cubicle.

 

Originally Posted by winwin07

Might I just say how blessed we are to think having a job that both provides for us and our families and gives us a sense of personal fulfillment is a realistic possibility. Everybody else in the pantheon of human history would hate us.

agree, one might call it a win win

Wow at how much you all work and think it's right/natural.
sick brag - I had 8 weeks off 2010 + I took numerous afternoons off to catch good weather and play golf. Granted I'm self employed, but do all my work for 1 company, and as long as the work is done on time, they don't care if i take an afternoon off here and there. If I'm not there I don't get paid anyway.
2011 I only had 4 weeks + a few afternoons.

Work to live, don't live to work.

 

Originally Posted by coolhandkev

Yeah 6 weeks vacation time would be amazing. I think I'd do like 3 different two week type things. Definitely one two week snowboarding trip each year. Then maybe a vegas trip. Then one random location.

I get 5 days vacation right now. It's enough for a 4 day weekend in vegas and 2-3 other random days. It feels like nothing.

Sorry for you man, but they are raping you.

I would say in the first 1.5 years of my old job I worked about 10 hours/week. Up to about 25/week the last 6 months when we got a new VP.

 

Originally Posted by rocket5

Where are you getting money from?

This is my point. MBN to not have to work, but food, thread, and roof cost x, therefore I must bring in x at minimum to survive. The thread is mind boggling to me.

I mean that comment just makes Zep seem like an entitled brat, which is nit at all the way I view him fwiw.