Shorter work week bleg 7

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   charlesjustice Posted 8:52 am
   22 Jan 2008

   shorter work weekYou might want to check out the "Work Less Party" in Canada.  You can find them on the net at http://www.worklessparty.org.  Conrad Schmidt the party's leader has written a book called,  "Workers of the World Relax".  It's humerous and convincing at the same time.  
        I think the idea of a shorter work week is a natural for environmentalists.  It's simple, it's attractive, and it's a positive way to look at overconsumption and overproduction. You can only go so far with critiques, and they end up turning people off when some might be more amenable to a positive message.
      Also worth rereading is JK Galbraith's  "The Affluent Society".

   Permalink

2. 

   Sean Casten Posted 8:59 am
   22 Jan 2008

   Didn't France try that?Recall the mandated 35 hour work week that they rolled out with the idea that it would create 40/35s more jobs for their economy.  I believe the data pretty well disproved that original theory, but perhaps you could pull some before & after data to see if it had any environmental impacts...
   (My personal guess: more 40/35s more off-hours Gitanes!)

   Permalink

3. 

   NSaggie Posted 9:27 am
   22 Jan 2008

   re: work less partyThe 35 hour week week is part of the Green Party of Canada platform as well. Part of their Child and Family Well Being plank, but they don't really go into much depth on the subject.

   Permalink

4. 

   dissociated Posted 11:08 am
   22 Jan 2008

   More TimeSort of a backwards approach maybe, but with more time away from work it becomes easier to live more sustainably. One easy example is to think how the modern world would change without packaged foods and restaurants that let you eat and run. If you spend more time at work it's difficult to live without processed or prepared-by-others foods. Maybe not so much restaurant foods, but packaged foods are packed with unhealthy ingredients and chemicals, not to mention the packaging itself, and they require more energy to make than foods closer to their natural state. If you have more time you might choose a greener option for commuting too, and possibly not commute as much at all, if your work week is cut down to fewer days, not just shorter days.
   If people work less, they might consume less because the economy is producing less. That's hard to prove though. Many people have suggested that if people aren't at work they'll trample the natural environment spending resources, energy, etc. on entertainment. It depends on what the new free time is spent doing, really. Does a shorter work week translate into less income? Does it mean employers have to pay more per hour of time worked? That would mean less money in corporate hands and more in employees'/consumers' hands. Is that money just shoveled back into more consuming? I don't have enough knowledge of economics to really sort it out. There's also the psychological/sociological aspect of possibly reduced stress from better work-life balance. Maybe if people have more time they won't feel so much pressure to make themselves happy by buying more stuff or showing off through purchases.
   I doubt the true impact of a shorter work week can be known without it really being implemented, although I don't think 35 hours is that substantial a change. Many European countries have experimented with this. France is a well-known example. A reduced work week might mean more jobs to go around but there's apparently still high unemployment in the country. There are lots of books on the topic. The bottom line seems to be that most people still aren't interested in giving up any income to have extra time.

   Permalink

5. 

   JakDMSY Posted 11:39 am
   22 Jan 2008

   Please see this article for more informationOne of my fellow writers at groovy green, Aaron Newton has recently transitioned to a 4 day work week.  He gave his thoughts and reasoning for the decision here:
   The Four Day Work Week
   An exerpt:
   Reason #4 The 4 Day Work Week would mean less traffic congestion.
   Rush hour exists because everyone needs to get to work at about the same time. Anyone who's lived in a city of size can tell you that early in the morning and late in the afternoon the roads fill up. The average 16 mile commutes takes 26 minutes each way. That's 52 minutes a day traveling at roughly 35 miles per hour. Imagine if 1/5 of the cars suddenly disappeared? If the work week was staggered so that 1/5 of all workers took a different day off, the U.S. commuter would see a 20% reduction in rush hour congestion without building a single new road. Which leads nicely to the next reason...
   Reason #5 The 4 Day Work Week would reduce money spent on new road construction and existing road maintenance.
   With 1/5 few cars making the commute each day, fewer new road projects would be necessary and existing roads would last longer with less maintenance. This is not to say that we shouldn't take advantage of this cost savings to invest in alternative transportation systems. In fact it's the opposite. This could be a gift to the tax payer who would receive new and better options for travel without any rise in taxes.
   Reason #6 The 4 Day Work Week would result in a reduction in personal expenses.
   From http://www.ridetowork.org,
   "2002 annual household private vehicle expense is $7,371. This is divided into $3,665 for vehicle purchases, $1,235 for gas and oil and $2,471 for insurance and misc."
   If workers used there cars 20% less often to drive to work, they would see a reduction in the frequency of oil changes, tune ups and the purchase of new tires just to name a few savings. The above numbers also reflect the price of gasoline in 2002. We all know it has increase since then and will continue to increase now that global oil production has peaked.
   You can read all 16 of Aaron's reasons that the 4 day work week would be personally and environmentally beneficial here.

   Permalink

6. 

   JohnMashey Posted 4:11 pm
   22 Jan 2008

   Shorter work weekI love the idea, especially as a half-retired consultant.
   Does this wish apply to farmers, by the way?  I'd have loved it when I was a kid on a farm, given that we worked 7 days a week.  A 4-day week would ahve been wonderful.
   
   -John Mashey

   Permalink

7. 

   Tim Worstall Posted 7:52 pm
   22 Jan 2008

   Not Surprised"I'm writing a short piece on the environmental benefits of a shorter work week. There's lots of stuff out there on the social benefits (more time for family, better health, etc.) and the economic benefits (higher productivity, higher employment), but very little on the environmental benefits."
   The reason you don't see anything on the environmental benefits of a shorter work week is because there are none.
   Think it through: in order to achieve a certain standard of living (any such standard) we have to mix the factors of production, land, labour and capital. If we reduce one input (and still wish to stay at that same standard of living, whatever that standard is) then we have to increase our use of the others.
   
   Thus, reducing the work week means that we have to use more land (which to an economist includes all sorts of raw materials) and capital. Not the sort of out turn that an environmentalist is likely to want.

   Permalink