We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor • Hacker News Board

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#31

Post by rndmize » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 2:27 AM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #2

Until we come to grips with what will likely be a post-labor world, this is a good transitional approach. The 40 hour week is an arbitrary standard, and it may now be rational to reduce that number. Few jobs are now so arduous that 70 year olds cannot perform well. We are suffering from outdated standards for work weeks and retirement age, and un-sticking our assumptions is likely to benefit the situation.

I'm fairly sure the 40 hour week is far from arbitrary. There's someone on HN who has a long post about working hours and the wide variety of studies that were done demonstrating that 40 hours resulted in higher efficiency than 50 or more as far back as the 1930s, and that peak efficiency for white collar work is even less (6 hour days). I'll have to see if I can find it.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#32

Post by _delirium » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 2:27 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #26

_delirium wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of standardization on "normal" workweeks, it's pretty hard to have the choice even if you're willing to forego salary for fewer hours. Google won't let you work a 4-day week for 80% of the regular salary, for example (or even for 60% of it!), and more traditional companies are even less likely to. You take their 5-day, 40-hour offer or you don't. You typically only have an option to work a 25-hour week if you…

Note that the standardization you are talking about is also heavily driven by work regulations, saying that a work week is x hours and nothing else. If such restrictions were abolished I believe there would be much more flexibility (up and down) in the job market.

The regulations just put a maximum; there is nothing preventing companies from offering lower hours if they wish. Before those maximums were brought in, you had the same situation as now, just with more hours being standard: you had to agree to 6-days-a-week, 10+ hour days, or nothing. The union movement successfully negotiated that down to 5-days-a-week, 8-hour days as a cap, which was at least an improvement.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#33

Post by sievert » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 2:28 AM UTC

lnanek2 wrote: post #14

That would be nice, then startups where people work 80 a week will be even more magical and money earning. :)

This is exactly what I thought when reading the article. One of the reasons I'm interested in start-ups is the idea of condensing my career so I can have more time to do the things I love later on.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#34

Post by mattschoch » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 2:29 AM UTC

Zuph wrote: post #18

mattschoch wrote: post #15

Great idea in theory, but there's a reason young people work such long hours: money. If a 22 year old graduates from college and works 25 hours a week, they won't have enough money to pay off their (almost certain) debt and live comfortably, much less have excess money to spend traveling and doing fun things. Young people work so hard so they can have the money to buy and do the things they want. Most just never stop…

Not every country saddles their young graduates with tens (to hundreds!) of thousands of dollars in debt.

Touché. I guess I'm speaking of the average middle-class American.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#35

Post by _delirium » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 2:30 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #23

Zigurd wrote: post #2

Until we come to grips with what will likely be a post-labor world, this is a good transitional approach. The 40 hour week is an arbitrary standard, and it may now be rational to reduce that number. Few jobs are now so arduous that 70 year olds cannot perform well. We are suffering from outdated standards for work weeks and retirement age, and un-sticking our assumptions is likely to benefit the situation.

> what will likely be a post-labor world Says who ? This preposterous way of thinking has been around for x years already. "when the world population will reach 4 billions people, there will be no jobs for everyone", yet the population is still increasing beyond 6 billions and most people still work to live/survive. There is no hint we are moving to a post-labor world. You will see that there is a strong relationship…

> And somehow most of the countries which went down that way have now humongous public debt problems to solve.

This is just ideology, and not factually accurate. (P.S. Cheers from Scandinavia.)

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#36

Post by learc83 » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 2:30 AM UTC

danso wrote: post #16

bertzzie wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Few jobs are now so arduous that 70 year olds cannot perform well. I think it's mostly physical jobs that 70 year olds cannot perform well. And that kind of job can be automated by robots anyway. For job like programming or CEO, I kind of think that 70 year olds can do better than say 20 year olds.

Mental acuity is very much a physical quality. Yes, there are 70 year olds who can think and mentally adapt exceptionally well, just as there are 70 year olds who can do one arm push-ups and live till 100. But it doesn't mean that 70 year old are just like 30 year olds, but with more experience.

Most of the studies that showed rapid mental decline in old age have been debunked. A 70 year old with no actual problems (e.g., Alzheimer's) is very likely to function perfectly fine mentally.

A 2002 study (published in the Alzheimer's and Dementia Journal) found that ~91% of people 70 and older were capable of normal mental function.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#37

Post by ekianjo » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 2:32 AM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #35

ekianjo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what will likely be a post-labor world Says who ? This preposterous way of thinking has been around for x years already. "when the world population will reach 4 billions people, there will be no jobs for everyone", yet the population is still increasing beyond 6 billions and most people still work to live/survive. There is no hint we are moving to a post-labor world. You will see that there is a strong relationship…

> And somehow most of the countries which went down that way have now humongous public debt problems to solve. This is just ideology, and not factually accurate. (P.S. Cheers from Scandinavia.)

Not just ideology, the size of government in Scandinavia is way smaller than in other developed countries. See the economist article last week about this subject.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#38

Post by rndmize » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 2:32 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #23

Zigurd wrote: post #2

Until we come to grips with what will likely be a post-labor world, this is a good transitional approach. The 40 hour week is an arbitrary standard, and it may now be rational to reduce that number. Few jobs are now so arduous that 70 year olds cannot perform well. We are suffering from outdated standards for work weeks and retirement age, and un-sticking our assumptions is likely to benefit the situation.

> what will likely be a post-labor world Says who ? This preposterous way of thinking has been around for x years already. "when the world population will reach 4 billions people, there will be no jobs for everyone", yet the population is still increasing beyond 6 billions and most people still work to live/survive. There is no hint we are moving to a post-labor world. You will see that there is a strong relationship…

You seem to be misunderstanding something. A post-labor has nothing to do with population and everything to do with automation. As it becomes more efficient to have robots and computers to do what was previously human work, we will eventually reach a point where just about every conceivable job that we currently employ people for could be automated.

Most likely, a post-labor world should be capable of arriving well before that. Once we can automate the production of basic necessities, working should become largely optional.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#39

Post by harshpotatoes » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 2:33 AM UTC

As a 26 year old, I can agree with his conclusion (or at least want his conclusion to be true). With 40-60 hour work weeks for both my girlfriend and I, it can be difficult sometimes. Similarly, new friendships can be hard to come by. With current job dynamics, moving can be an almost certainty, increasing the difficulty of maintaining friendships.

However, I have to wonder, would 25 hour work weeks actually increase the length of our employ-ability, allowing us to work until the age of 80? I thought part of today's current long term unemployment problem (in the US), is that finding employment for older, more skilled, adults was difficult, due to perceived overqualifications or lack of training in newer technologies. I thought part of the point of work hard while you're young, was to save enough money to allow you to survive the possibility of permanent unemployment in old age (either due to health or over qualification in unused technologies).

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#40

Post by _delirium » Mon, Feb 04, 2013, 2:33 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #37

_delirium wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And somehow most of the countries which went down that way have now humongous public debt problems to solve. This is just ideology, and not factually accurate. (P.S. Cheers from Scandinavia.)

Not just ideology, the size of government in Scandinavia is way smaller than in other developed countries. See the economist article last week about this subject.

It's true that regulations are relatively low, in terms of invasive bureaucracy in the economy. Yet in Denmark we have a 37-hour maximum workweek, 8 weeks of vacation, and strong unemployment benefits, and all that doesn't seem to be ruining the country. Perhaps that can't be replicated elsewhere, but I don't see a solidly established relationship between working hours, unemployment benefits, and economic prosperity.