
Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week - mortenjorck
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8513783.stm
======
ryanwaggoner
This caught my eye, but it turns out it's the same old "fixed pie" thinking:
the current workers are taking up all the available "working hours", so they
should cut back to give the unemployed an opportunity to get some. Ridiculous.
Why not be more productive and actually just create more jobs. Just like
wealth, the number of jobs available is not fixed.

~~~
_delirium
That's not the only reason to cut work weeks, though I agree it's a bad one.
This old article by Bertrand Russell starts out by pointing out that the
"fixed pie" view is _not_ a good reason to work less, but that there are
others: <http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html>

The gist of it is that you can take the dividends of increasing productivity
in a lot of ways. As computers get faster, you can keep paying $2k for a new
computer every 3-4 years and get a better one, or you can take some of that
technology-advancement dividend in cash, and buy a netbook that's _still_
better than your old computer. He's basically arguing that you should take
some of the modern era's productivity dividend in leisure time, instead of
just in more income and material wealth.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Oh, don't get me wrong, I think there could be a great case for cutting work
weeks. The article caught my eye because I was hoping that they had done an
actual _study_ that indicated that working fewer hours would lead to higher
_overall_ productivity (though I think that cutting them by 50 - 70% is
probably wishful thinking).

~~~
breck
I think it was focused more on productivity, and not focused on the
unemployment rate. I think the BBC added that twist.

From the author of the report:

"So many of us live to work, work to earn, and earn to consume, and our
consumption habits are squandering the earth's natural resources.

"Spending less time in paid work could help us to break this pattern. We'd
have more time to be better parents, better citizens, better carers and better
neighbours.

"We could even become better employees - less stressed, more in control,
happier in our jobs and more productive.

"It is time to break the power of the old industrial clock, take back our
lives and work for a sustainable future."

Basically, it seems the argument is that the more hours we work, the
externalities of work increase sharply (you don't have time to spend raising
your kids, taking care of your health, and you do have more money to spend on
things you don't need).

Basically, at 21 hours, the marginal return from working another hour at your
job equals the marginal return from spending an hour doing your own stuff.
Beyond 21 hours the marginal return from working (minus externalities), is
less than the return from focusing on your own activities.

------
houseabsolute
I've seen some other reports from this group and they have about as much to do
with economics as a fifteen year old's emo "poetry" blog has to do with high
literature. Consider this publication where they troll the world with a claim
that janitors are more valuable to the world on average than bankers,
supported by nothing more than poorly thought out back-of-the-envelope
calculations.

[http://neweconomics.org/press-releases/hospital-cleaners-
wor...](http://neweconomics.org/press-releases/hospital-cleaners-worth-more-
society-city-bankers-says-new-nef-research)

~~~
Groxx
Reading through this and the thread's link, and scanning a couple others, I
completely agree with you. They're trolls, and little else.

------
patio11
I would be much, much more interested in hearing of how any one of you hacked
life such that you work a non-traditional schedule than reading how a group
thinks the workweek should be established by fiat. (Most especially for a
group which does not demonstrate that it has any experience with, ahem,
working for a living.)

Horse's mouth, incidentally: [http://neweconomics.org/press-releases/shorter-
working-week-...](http://neweconomics.org/press-releases/shorter-working-week-
soon-inevitable-forecasts-think-tank130210)

~~~
zackattack
I need $1300/month for rent, and $700/month for expenses like groceries and
incidentals. That means I need to be making $445/week. I freelance whenever I
feel like working. I'm currently working a charity gig at $42/hr, which means
I need to work 11h/week.

~~~
larrykubin
Here are my stats for Austin, TX for the past three years. Just sharing that
life can be really good here in Austin, and that there's no magic involved in
working less. There's no "hack", you just have to have a valuable skill that
you are able to charge a high hourly rate for (programming, accounting,
lawyer, therapist). My wife is a speech therapist and I am a programmer. So my
suggestions: live in a city that costs less money, see if you can live without
a fancy car or smart phone, and find a good partner.

rent - wife pays $450, I pay $450

For this amount in Texas, you get a duplex with backyard in a nice
neighborhood, a coffee shop and bus stop around the corner, 2 bedrooms, a
garage, and 1200 square feet.

utilities - 150

student loan - 100

monthly unlimited bus pass - $25 (used to be $10 until recently)

shared office in downtown austin - $150 (optional, but has already paid for
itself many times over due to bringing in extra work)

t-mobile prepaid phone - $100 per 1000 minutes, refill this every 4 months or
so.

food costs - never calculated

insurance - on my wife's

------
DaniFong
This reminds me of a conversation I recently had with some Berkeley graduates,
who were mystified at how much I had accomplished, and how quickly, and by the
fact that I might stay up into the wee hours of the morning working or
blasting out an essay or coding or designing. These same people put in 50 hour
sessions in Final Fantasy.

People want to work. Some people want to work hard. Most especially, people
want to achieve. The question is where people put their effort; whether they
'level-up' in real life or some artificial one.

~~~
realitygrill
This is exactly why I quit playing video games. However I haven't been able to
shunt that effort into something productive so easily..

~~~
DaniFong
It takes time, effort, practice, and purpose. Figure out what you really want
to do. That's your first challenge.

------
hartror
"The foundation admitted people would earn less, but said they would have more
time to carry out worthy tasks."

Like starving?

~~~
patio11
That is, perhaps, a little harsh. I'm about as far from them on the political
scale as is possible without being Atilla the Hun, but they do have one
insight shining like a gem among so much donkey offal:

 _There is nothing natural or inevitable about what’s considered ‘normal’
today. Time, like work, has become commodified – a recent legacy of industrial
capitalism. Yet the logic of industrial time is out of step with today’s
conditions, where instant communications and mobile technologies bring new
risks and pressures, as well as opportunities._

This is right in every respect, I think.

It is taken by many as an article of faith that there are 10x productivity
differences in knowledge workers. If we actually mean that, then 2x
differences in numbers of hours worked should be quite sustainable. As I've
said before, why should my daily life be fit to the schedule designed to
maximize the productivity of illiterate water loom operators.

Where this report gets really really wacky is assuming that everyone can do
it, which probably requires massive amounts of wealth flowing around to
support unproductive workers. That might even work, for a while at least, if
you had some sort of unfair advantage which could conceal you from the market
-- taxing authority, perhaps, or such a booming economy that you could afford
extravagances like the demands of the United Auto Workers out of the petty
cash drawer.

There are also hard limits on how much value can be wrung out of the labor of
low-skilled people, and those hard limits work in pretty much direct
proportion to hours labored. I think achieving income parity (and relatedly,
working hour parity) between them and high-skilled workers is probably a lost
cause. I can sell software while sleeping, a trader can act as a productivity
multiplier on millions in capital at the click of a button, but this floor
isn't getting swept until somebody actually pushes a broom over it for an
hour. (Oh, more bad news: robots can already do that, and it will only be a
few more years before the cleaning company we outsource to figures out how to
exploit that differential profitably.)

~~~
lionhearted
> It is taken by many as an article of faith that there are 10x productivity
> differences in knowledge workers. If we actually mean that, then 2x
> differences in numbers of hours worked should be quite sustainable.

This might interest you if you haven't heard of it:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROWE>

Results Only Work Environment - you agree on a set of tasks with your manager,
you complete them, you get paid. Doesn't matter when you do it or how long it
takes you. That lets people choose to work at a slower pace with more goofing
off on Facebook or webcomics, or work in a blaze and hit the beach, or
whatever. People who wish to produce manic levels of work can produce more and
get paid for it as gauged by results, people who want to work less can
complete less tasks can do so and still get paid a reasonable amount. I think
there'll be some kinks to be ironed out, but it's more or less the future.

> (Oh, more bad news: robots can already do that, and it will only be a few
> more years before the cleaning company we outsource to figures out how to
> exploit that differential profitably.)

Cleaning floors is notoriously hard to outsource, but the technology-in-theory
for automating/roboticizing much more of manual labor is already there. It's
why I'd like to see the world get more wealthier - people have a false believe
that if there's no more poor people, everything will get more expensive.
Pretty false idea - if more people are doing R&D, pure science, engineering,
art, programming instead of manual labor, we'll see huge gains in new
innovation and can roboticize/automate much of the manual labor away. Hell,
when I was in China I'd see like 30 guys with chisels tearing up asphalt which
you'd have one guy with a jackhammer doing in the States. The labor was
cheaper than the machinery, but as the Chinese get more educated and into high
skilled work, that'll change and they'll switch over to jackhammers and
whatever we invent next after jackhammers.

------
rjurney
Ever had your project interrupted when a European decides to take six weeks of
consecutive vacation? I'll take puritan productivity any day.

~~~
gaius
Yet, European firms are still comparable to Americans in terms of productivity
and compete successfully in global markets. Intriguing, no?

~~~
houseabsolute
Some types of European firms. You don't see as much innovative software coming
out of that part of the world as the U.S.

~~~
gaius
Dotcom startups, no. But in general high tech, just one example, Airbus gives
Boeing a run for its money. And those Boeings BTW are designed with CATIA,
French CAD software. And Boeing runs its business on SAP, German ERP software.

~~~
rjurney
Airbus had massive state support - hardly an even playing field. They're an
example of what a good state-private collaboration can do, not of productivity
of the private sector in general.

~~~
gaius
As does Boeing, except it's funneled via the DoD. Anyway, that's not the
point. Can European engineers bring equivalent products to market as quickly
as American engineers, despite taking vacations and _being in the office_
fewer hours? Absolutely yes, it happens all the time.

~~~
rjurney
Yeah, don't buy it. Not at startups.

------
camccann
I recall seeing at some point, but alas cannot recall where, a study that
looked at average productivity per hour vs. hours worked each day/week. If
memory serves me, they found that productivity/hr reliably dropped at the
beginning and end of the work day, mostly independent of how many hours were
worked, and also dropped steadily with increasing hours per week beyond some
threshold, up to a (surprisingly low) point where the marginal productivity of
an additional hour was actually negative.

The end result basically said that 4-hr workdays are less than half as
productive as 8-hr workdays, and that diminishing returns make long work weeks
quickly useless. Interestingly, per hour productivity peaked fairly low--
something like 30hrs/week, I think. So, all else equal, if you're paying
people hourly, you get best value for money having more people, working fewer
hours in fewer days.

On the other hand, if you're paying people a salary, you technically always
get more value up to the point of burnout (i.e., negative marginal
productivity), but for whatever work week length, you get best value for money
having people work a few very long days. That is, 12hr days M-R would be more
productive than 8hr days M-S.

Unfortunately, I've been unable to find the study in question again; so take
the above with a grain of salt, as my memory is certainly fallible.

~~~
nfnaaron
"Unfortunately, I've been unable to find the study in question again; so take
the above with a grain of salt, as my memory is certainly fallible."

That's OK, it's late in the week.

------
AFerenci
I Would have to agree with Ryan on the "fixed pie" thinking. This isn't an
allocation issue, its based on productivity.

In the book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People," Stephen Covey explains
a great theory called the P/PC ratio (production to production capacity). In
other words, take care of your physical and mental self, and you will produce
far better results in your work related endeavors.

People don't realize that not exercising and not eating healthy will severely
limit your ability to work productive 40-100 hour work weeks.

------
yannis
All 'wealth' is created by labor, either directly or indirectly. (Think of an
economy with no money). The more people work - subject to efficiency, the more
wealth being generated. However, people do not produce wealth equally. Suppose
there is a 10% unemployment. If these people's efficiency is an average 70%
and the employed had an overall efficiency of 80%, there is an optimum hours
per week for full employment.

~~~
lsc
well, even given the exact same person, one hour is not equal to the next. at
90 hours a week, after the first or second week, I get less useful work done
than if I just work 20 hours.

I imagine 'optimal' productivity for one person varies considerably from
person to person, and situation to situation, (and I imagine /on average/
optimal productivity means working more than 20 hours a week)

Which is why I was so disappointed by this article. I thought they were going
to do some research on the optimal number of hours/week to work for maximum
productivity. (I suppose I shouldn't be too disappointed; just measuring
productivity is /hard/)

~~~
yannis
Agreed and to measure productivity over a year is more difficult. The authors
present some data in their report, but some of the examples are difficult to
accept (like Utah public servants). However, if you make a thought experiment
in has merits. Assume 5 programmers with equal skills and a 'fixed work load'.
From a social point of view it will be better for them to be all employed
working for less hours than 4 of them working full hours.

~~~
lsc
as an employer (sortof... everyone is an 'independent contractor' a mostly
defensible position right now, as everyone works from home, and pretty much
takes stuff off the list of things that needs to be done when they feel like
doing them.) I think that if you can talk employees into this arrangement, and
retain them, having 2 20hr/week guys is better than having 1 40hr/week guy.

the first, most obvious benefit is redundancy. If one employee gets sick or
gets another job, I've still got the other guy, and can often talk him or her
into working more temporarily to cover until I get someone else.

The other benefits are that I think nerds often under bill. A person working
for me 20 hours a week ideally (well, ideally for me, the employer) gives me
as much 'inspiration' as someone working 40 hours.

I also think employees are vastly more productive when they feel like working.
In my situation, if I pick the right people, I get to pay them when they feel
like working, when they are most productive, and then not pay them when they
are unmotivated, and thus less productive.

Now, if I hired everyone as employees, then we'd have interesting issues with
health insurance; each employee would have a per-month cost not dependent on
hours I got out of them (I'm assuming that I'd have a better retention rate if
I offered health insurance) But it's possible that cost would be low enough to
justify the scheme; maybe I would just pay them a lower wage than I otherwise
would?

(man, health insurance is fucked up... as far as I can tell, if I want to get
people tax deductible insurance, I have to get everyone insurance; If someone
wants to opt-out, as far as I can tell, I can't give them the cash I'd
otherwise be spending on them.)

------
shaayak
This might actually be a reasonable idea, but I can't see something like this
taking off with the current conditions. And more than that, I don't think the
American philosophy is to work less, I think that's something a lot more
likely to take off in Europe.

------
jff
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week>

------
thinkbohemian
I love working, what would i do with the rest of the time i "save" ?

------
mofey
4HWW anyone?

------
pw0ncakes
It depends how you define "work". Sitting in an office doing what is told for
40 hours is ridiculous and hellish, and it's much of why that system doesn't
work. People "revolt" by showing up and working at 1/8 speed.

If we extend the definition of "work" to include self-directed projects,
education and enrichment, 40-55 is about right; 40 for most people and 55 for
the more ambitious.

Beyond 60 hours per week, marginal productivity is minimal.

