I don’t think it’s the consequence of most individuals’ preferences. I think it’s just the result of disproportionate political influence held by the wealthy, who are heavily incentivized to maximize working hours. Since employers mostly have that incentive, and since the political system doesn’t explicitly forbid it, there aren’t a ton of good options for workers seeking shorter hours.
> there aren’t a ton of good options for workers seeking shorter hours.
But you do have that option, right? Work 20 hours a week instead of 40. You just aren't paid for the hours that you don't work. In a world where workers are exchanging their labor for wages, that's how it's supposed to work.
For there to be a "better option" (as in, you're paid money for not working more hours) what are you actually being paid to do?
For all the thoughts that come to mind when I say "work 20 hours a week instead of 40" -- that's where the individual's preference comes in. I work more hours because I want the money. Nobody pays me to not work.
Not really. Lots of kinds of work don’t hire part timers in any volume period. There are very limited jobs where the only tradeoff if you want to work fewer hours is a reduction in compensation proportional to the reduction in hours worked, or even just a reduction in compensation even if disproportionate to the reduction in hours worked.
>nobody pays me not to work.
If you’re in the US, then in theory you’re getting overtime for going over 40hrs a week. That’s time and a half for doing nothing, correct? I’d expect your principles put you firmly against overtime pay.
>But you do have that option, right? Work 20 hours a week instead of 40. You just aren't paid for the hours that you don't work. In a world where workers are exchanging their labor for wages, that's how it's supposed to work.
Look the core of your opinion is the belief that market dynamics naturally lead to desirable outcomes always. I simply don’t believe that, and I think interference to push for desirable outcomes which violate principles of a free market is often good. We probably won’t be able to agree on this.
> I’d expect your principles put you firmly against overtime pay.
No.. if society wants to disincentive over working by introducing overtime, that's fine by me. I'm not making any moral judgement. You just seem to live in a fantasy world where people aren't exchanging their labor for money.
> Look the core of your opinion is the belief that market dynamics naturally lead to desirable outcomes always.
I didn't say that, and I don't believe that. If you're just going to hallucinate what I think, what's the point in replying?
>You just seem to live in a fantasy world where people aren't exchanging their labor for money.
Where did you get that? My entire contention centers around a lack of good options for workers seeking to work fewer hours. A logical assumption, then, would be that I want policies which would give said workers more options. Examples include stronger protections for unions, higher minimum wages, etc. Since I saw these as the logical extrapolations from what I'd said originally, I figured your issue was gov interference in the labor market itself, since you said things like
>In a world where workers are exchanging their labor for wages, that's how it's supposed to work.
>(as in, you're paid money for not working more hours)
You took issue with more money for the same hours, did you not? Why wouldn't overtime be an obvious example? The reason I assumed you were just a libertarian or something was because it doesn't seem like there's an obvious logical juncture to draw a line at. If you're fine with society altering the behavior of the labor market to achieve certain desirable results, then why would this be any different fundamentally?
I think you're confused. I'm not making any moral judgements or prescriptions here. If you want to change society such that we're not working in exchange for money, then go ahead. Overtime is an example of a policy which limits that relationship.
However, while we live in the world where we're exchanging labor for money, it's not as simple as what you originally wrote: "I think it’s just the result of disproportionate political influence held by the wealthy, who are heavily incentivized to maximize working hours."
You're not considering the choices being made by the people actually doing the work. People work for a significant amount of their life because they're paid to do it. There's no council of wealthy people conspiring to achieve this conclusion: they have work that needs to be done, and they're willing to pay for people to do it.
My thesis was just this: while people are exchanging labor for money, people will work. If you introduce a policy where people are given some UBI regardless of employment, they will still work. They want the money. They will buy more televisions, better food, more vacations. If I'm paid my current salary to work for 5 hours a week, I will start interviewing for more jobs. And yes, inflation may soon render the UBI you've introduced to be not so great.
Thanks for clarifying your point. I think the idea you're trying to present is the very real phenomenon that many opt to increase their standard of living rather than reduce their hours. My issue with this point is that I don't think it is the whole story to our long working hours. I think, were there not a strong political interest in maintaining this setup, the populace would use the state to introduce various policies which would make it possible for them to maintain their standard of living on less hours of work. I think that the reason that they can't do this is because, to oversimplify a bit, the levers of political power are disproportionately operated by the wealthy. In other words, I don't think that the long hours are most individuals' choice; I think they're the best choice among bad options, the range of which is deliberately influenced by people incentivized to keep their operating costs low.
I get what you're saying, yeah. I would predict (not an economist, some guy on the internet) that unless you outlaw working over a certain number of hours, people will work more hours than ideal and it would push everyone else to do the same. In other words, having lots of non-working hours is an unstable position, as people work more to satiate their unlimited wants.
You could outlaw or heavily disincentivize working over a certain number of hours (overtime is a step in this direction), although my concern would be that artificially limiting productivity like that would be detrimental. We still need people doing productive things, so slashing their hours might be a Chinese "backyard furnaces" sort of situation. That said, some people think half of our jobs are bullshit anyway.
To your credit though, we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good. Maybe 36 hours is better than 40, and so on.
At least in the US part time work often not really a thing. A while ago I talked to HR about reducing to 32 hours and they didn't seem to get the idea at all. It's either all in or nothing. In the US there is also the health insurance question.
For my relatives in Germany going part time seems easier and more accepted by companies.
> there aren’t a ton of good options for workers seeking shorter hours.
Is that true? Most trades can work fewer hours, medical workers like nurses can, hairdressers, plenty of writers are freelance, the entire gig economy.
It seems like big companies don't provide the option, for software at least. I always chocked that up to more bureaucratic processes which add some fixed cost for each employed person.
No you’re right, it definitely depends on the industry and I’m only seeing my slice of the market. I don’t think it’s untrue for a whole lot of jobs though.
