• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shortening the work week?

Should the work week be reduced?

  • The work week should be increased to more than 40 hours, or eliminated

    Votes: 3 11.1%

  • The work week should remain at 40 hours

    Votes: 17 63.0%

  • The work week should be reduced to 36-39 hours

    Votes: 3 11.1%

  • The work week should be reduced to 32-35 hours

    Votes: 3 11.1%

  • The work week should be reduced to less than 32 hours

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • Total voters
    27
Kandahar

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This poll is mostly directed toward Americans. I was wondering what you thought about the idea of shortening the 40-hour work week. I think it would be a very positive step for our society. We already work far more hours, on average, than any other developed country in the world. I think that most people (with some exceptions) are happier when they're out doing things they enjoy than when they're working.

Furthermore, reducing the work week would be a good way to help tackle our unemployment problem. If an employer needed a certain number of labor-hours and couldn't get as many labor-hours from each worker, they would need to hire more people. This would reduce unemployment.

As I see it, the main cost of this would fall on employers. They would need to either pay more overtime (if they still wanted to have employees work 40 hours) or hire more people (and incur the associated recruiting/processing/training costs). These costs seem rather small, especially since corporate America is doing quite well. I think that this would be a much more worthwhile cost to impose than, say, a lot of the inefficient corporate taxes to which businesses are subjected.

The free market will not reduce the 40-hour work week on its own; if we think it's desirable to work less than that, it will require some government prodding. The 40-hour work week has been in place since 1950, despite the fact that the American worker of today is vastly more productive than his 1950 counterpart. Furthermore, in most industries, companies have an incentive to work employees as many hours as they can get away with, because it reduces training costs.

But what about the fact that some people already struggle to make ends meet with a 40-hour job? OK, but there are lots of other people in the even worse position of working 0 hours per week because they can't find a job. From a macroeconomic perspective, this is very harmful. It would be far better for our economy to have more people working fewer hours, than to have fewer people working more hours.
 
Last edited:
I think the work week should go with just being a societal preference, not something actually regulated... so i'd say eliminating it... if the free-market wouldn't reduce it on it's own, then it's not meant to be reduced below equilibrium.
 
Many working a 40-hour week now struggle to make ends meet and work a second job or OT at their primary work if it is an option. Shortening the work week will simply force many of these people to get a second job or extend hours at an already existing second job.

BTW, Taiwan meets the standards of a developed economy in most definitions (we have a PPP per capita income on par with France) and have a slightly longer workweek than the U.S. (84 hours per two weeks).
 
A shorter work week may be viable if we had the social services that would be out of so many peoples reach if they didnt have those extra few hrs.
 
Kandahar said:
This poll is mostly directed toward Americans. I was wondering what you thought about the idea of shortening the 40-hour work week. I think it would be a very positive step for our society. We already work far more hours, on average, than any other developed country in the world. I think that most people (with some exceptions) are happier when they're out doing things they enjoy than when they're working.

Furthermore, reducing the work week would be a good way to help tackle our unemployment problem. If an employer needed a certain number of labor-hours and couldn't get as many labor-hours from each worker, they would need to hire more people. This would reduce unemployment.

As I see it, the main cost of this would fall on employers. They would need to either pay more overtime (if they still wanted to have employees work 40 hours) or hire more people (and incur the associated recruiting/processing/training costs). These costs seem rather small, especially since corporate America is doing quite well. I think that this would be a much more worthwhile cost to impose than, say, a lot of the inefficient corporate taxes to which businesses are subjected.
The free market will not reduce the 40-hour work week on its own; if we think it's desirable to work less than that, it will require some government prodding. The 40-hour work week has been in place since 1950, despite the fact that the American worker of today is vastly more productive than his 1950 counterpart. Furthermore, in most industries, companies have an incentive to work employees as many hours as they can get away with, because it reduces training costs.

But what about the fact that some people already struggle to make ends meet with a 40-hour job? OK, but there are lots of other people in the even worse position of working 0 hours per week because they can't find a job. From a macroeconomic perspective, this is very harmful. It would be far better for our economy to have more people working fewer hours, than to have fewer people working more hours.
Click to expand...

Why do you want to hurt employers and people who need to work at least 40 hrs? People are complaining now that their hours are cut because of the economy. The only hrs better than 8hr days 5 days a wk are 10hr days 4 days a wk. But few people have that choice.
 
Kandahar said:
This poll is mostly directed toward Americans. I was wondering what you thought about the idea of shortening the 40-hour work week. I think it would be a very positive step for our society. We already work far more hours, on average, than any other developed country in the world. I think that most people (with some exceptions) are happier when they're out doing things they enjoy than when they're working.

Furthermore, reducing the work week would be a good way to help tackle our unemployment problem. If an employer needed a certain number of labor-hours and couldn't get as many labor-hours from each worker, they would need to hire more people. This would reduce unemployment.

As I see it, the main cost of this would fall on employers. They would need to either pay more overtime (if they still wanted to have employees work 40 hours) or hire more people (and incur the associated recruiting/processing/training costs). These costs seem rather small, especially since corporate America is doing quite well. I think that this would be a much more worthwhile cost to impose than, say, a lot of the inefficient corporate taxes to which businesses are subjected.

The free market will not reduce the 40-hour work week on its own; if we think it's desirable to work less than that, it will require some government prodding. The 40-hour work week has been in place since 1950, despite the fact that the American worker of today is vastly more productive than his 1950 counterpart. Furthermore, in most industries, companies have an incentive to work employees as many hours as they can get away with, because it reduces training costs.

But what about the fact that some people already struggle to make ends meet with a 40-hour job? OK, but there are lots of other people in the even worse position of working 0 hours per week because they can't find a job. From a macroeconomic perspective, this is very harmful. It would be far better for our economy to have more people working fewer hours, than to have fewer people working more hours.
Click to expand...


I have never heard someone complaining of having too many hours. Usually people don't get enough hours. Americans want to work. Giving them less hours just means there going to make less money.
 
cpgrad08 said:
I have never heard someone complaining of having too many hours. Usually people don't get enough hours. Americans want to work. Giving them less hours just means there going to make less money.
Click to expand...

Yet were a more productive society than ever... Hrrmz who's eating our pie?
 
Kandahar said:
This poll is mostly directed toward Americans. I was wondering what you thought about the idea of shortening the 40-hour work week. I think it would be a very positive step for our society. We already work far more hours, on average, than any other developed country in the world. I think that most people (with some exceptions) are happier when they're out doing things they enjoy than when they're working.

Furthermore, reducing the work week would be a good way to help tackle our unemployment problem. If an employer needed a certain number of labor-hours and couldn't get as many labor-hours from each worker, they would need to hire more people. This would reduce unemployment.

As I see it, the main cost of this would fall on employers. They would need to either pay more overtime (if they still wanted to have employees work 40 hours) or hire more people (and incur the associated recruiting/processing/training costs). These costs seem rather small, especially since corporate America is doing quite well. I think that this would be a much more worthwhile cost to impose than, say, a lot of the inefficient corporate taxes to which businesses are subjected.

The free market will not reduce the 40-hour work week on its own; if we think it's desirable to work less than that, it will require some government prodding. The 40-hour work week has been in place since 1950, despite the fact that the American worker of today is vastly more productive than his 1950 counterpart. Furthermore, in most industries, companies have an incentive to work employees as many hours as they can get away with, because it reduces training costs.

But what about the fact that some people already struggle to make ends meet with a 40-hour job? OK, but there are lots of other people in the even worse position of working 0 hours per week because they can't find a job. From a macroeconomic perspective, this is very harmful. It would be far better for our economy to have more people working fewer hours, than to have fewer people working more hours.
Click to expand...

Well, most states are right-to-work states, de facto if not de jure. So most state and local governments won't really be able to enforce it.

Also, if you wanted to shorten the work week, you would have to increase wages - and that just isn't going to happen. Remember, businesses want to pay the least amount of wages to their employees that they can. So they won't do anything that would force them to increase wages.

Another aspect is training. The reason why employers would rather hire one person for 40 hours a week rather than hire one person for 20 hours and then hire a different person for the next 20 hours to do the same job is because it costs less to train one person to work 40 hours than it does to train two people to work 20 hours. So if you increase the amount of workers that need to be trained without increasing productivity, employers face a loss on training costs.

So, in theory, I agree with you. I think most people should be able to have a shorter work week. And I don't see this issue as an economic issue but rather a family values issue.

Now, I'm not saying that women should stay at home while men go out and work. But what I am saying is that having one parent at home, and not even all day - just when the kids are home in the morning and in the afternoons - would help a lot of social problems that stem from the home.

But, then again, to help deal with this I also favor a school day that starts and ends later in the day. Rather than go from 8am-3pm, I would rather it start from 10am-5pm. This way, kids would be able to get more sleep and rest and then get home when their parents do. This would help with the problems working parents get with babysitters.

The only way that shortening the work week will get practically implemented is if we get more political organization in our worker force, and that's something that while I support I also doubt that it will happen.
 
ludahai said:
Many working a 40-hour week now struggle to make ends meet
Click to expand...

SE102 said:
A shorter work week may be viable if we had the social services that would be out of so many peoples reach if they didnt have those extra few hrs.
Click to expand...

Barbbtx said:
People are complaining now that their hours are cut because of the economy.
Click to expand...

cpgrad02 said:
Giving them less hours just means there going to make less money.
Click to expand...

I addressed this issue in my original post. Yes, going from 40 hours to 35 hours will slightly reduce the size of paychecks...IF you are one of the people who is working 40 hours. If you're one of the people working 0 hours who is now able to find a job and work 35 hours, it greatly increases your paycheck. From a macroeconomic standpoint, this is far better for the economy. It means fewer people are drawing upon government benefits, and it provides a large, immediate stimulative boost to the economy (because, for example, a person is far more likely to spend their first $10,000 of income than their sixth $10,000 of income).

And aside from the financial aspect, it seems likely that it would increase the level of well-being and happiness within society. It will reduce the number of hours worked, while ensuring that more people actually have jobs. Most people want to be gainfully employed as it improves their sense of self-worth...but those who are employed often wish they had more time to spend with their families. This would help solve both of those problems IMO.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
I addressed this issue in my original post. Yes, going from 40 hours to 35 hours will slightly reduce the size of paychecks...IF you are one of the people who is working 40 hours. If you're one of the people working 0 hours who is now able to find a job and work 35 hours, it greatly increases your paycheck. From a macroeconomic standpoint, this is far better for the economy. It means fewer people are drawing upon government benefits, and it provides a large, immediate stimulative boost to the economy (because, for example, a person is far more likely to spend their first $10,000 of income than their sixth $10,000 of income).

And aside from the financial aspect, it seems likely that it would increase the level of well-being and happiness within society. It will reduce the number of hours worked, while ensuring that more people actually have jobs. Most people want to be gainfully employed as it improves their sense of self-worth...but those who are employed often wish they had more time to spend with their families. This would help solve both of those problems IMO.
Click to expand...

You're trying to spread the wealth around in a sneaky way. Quite socialist of you. :)
Besides, not everyone thinks work is such a dreadful thing and something to avoid. Some people actually like to work.
 
Barbbtx said:
You're trying to spread the wealth around in a sneaky way. Quite socialist of you. :)
Click to expand...

Umm except it would be spreading the wealth because more people are actually WORKING and EARNING their money. The alternative is more people on unemployment living off the taxpayers. Quite socialist of you. :)

Barbbtx said:
Besides, not everyone thinks work is such a dreadful thing and something to avoid. Some people actually like to work.
Click to expand...

Sad that you have to resort to childish strawman attacks.

Yes, people want to be employed. This would give more people that opportunity. Going from 0 hours to 35 hours will generally increase a person's well-being (as well as the government's balance sheet). But income is subject to diminishing returns...each subsequent increase in income provides less of a boost to well-being. Therefore it is much less beneficial to go from 35 to 40 hours than to go from 0 to 5 hours.
 
Last edited:
Barbbtx said:
You're trying to spread the wealth around in a sneaky way. Quite socialist of you. :)
Click to expand...

Defense contractors "spread the wealth" by building factories in as many different states as they can in order to provide jobs in congressional districts in order to put pressure on Congressmen to authorize defense projects. That's pretty socialist, but Republicans favor it because it provides jobs.

Barbbtx said:
Besides, not everyone thinks work is such a dreadful thing and something to avoid. Some people actually like to work.
Click to expand...

It's not that people want to avoid work. It's that some people are getting overworked. And that can lead to other problems.
 
cpgrad08 said:
I have never heard someone complaining of having too many hours. Usually people don't get enough hours.
Click to expand...

Well, this is only true if you're hourly. If you're salaried, then working extra hours sucks, because you don't get anything extra for doing it.

Like a lot of others, I don't really have a problem with the 40-hour work week, but I'd be ecstatic if there were a shift to working 4 ten-hour days a week rather than 5 eight-hour days.
 
Kandahar said:
Umm except it would be spreading the wealth because more people are actually WORKING and EARNING their money. The alternative is more people on unemployment living off the taxpayers. Quite socialist of you. :)



Sad that you have to resort to childish strawman attacks.

Yes, people want to be employed. This would give more people that opportunity. Going from 0 hours to 35 hours will generally increase a person's well-being (as well as the government's balance sheet). But income is subject to diminishing returns...each subsequent increase in income provides less of a boost to well-being. Therefore it is much less beneficial to go from 35 to 40 hours than to go from 0 to 5 hours.
Click to expand...


You want to take hours from one person to give to another. What next ? You going to take someone's A and give part of it to someone with an F so they both have a C?
We need to create jobs so that everyone who wants to work can. We don't need to go cutting people's hours. People who don't want to work 40 hrs can work a part time job.
 
molten_dragon said:
Well, this is only true if you're hourly. If you're salaried, then working extra hours sucks, because you don't get anything extra for doing it.

Like a lot of others, I don't really have a problem with the 40-hour work week, but I'd be ecstatic if there were a shift to working 4 ten-hour days a week rather than 5 eight-hour days.
Click to expand...

That's what I said. I knew someone who got to do that and I was jealous. :)
 
Possibly on some fantasy alien moon colony. Or a communist society. :roll:
 
The idea that jobs will be created by forcing some people to withhold their labour against their will may be visible in some areas in the short-run (assuming all currently unemployed labour is homogeneous and can simply walk into high-skilled jobs - a ridiculous assumption in its own right), but it completely ignores the unseen and long-run effects of such a policy. Production costs will be raised as not every employer will hire new staff to replace the lost labour because the cost of hiring someone to 'fill in' will exceed any additional revenue they could earn from this demand. Higher production costs in turn result in higher prices, lower sales and therefore fewer goods and services and less productive wealth generation in the economy. Everyone's standard of living falls. To quote Hazlitt, "...legal restrictions on the length of the working week cannot in the long run increase the number of jobs. To the extent that they can do that in the short run, it must necessarily be at the expense of production and of the real income of the whole body of workers."
 
Kandahar said:
This poll is mostly directed toward Americans. I was wondering what you thought about the idea of shortening the 40-hour work week. I think it would be a very positive step for our society. We already work far more hours, on average, than any other developed country in the world. I think that most people (with some exceptions) are happier when they're out doing things they enjoy than when they're working.

Furthermore, reducing the work week would be a good way to help tackle our unemployment problem. If an employer needed a certain number of labor-hours and couldn't get as many labor-hours from each worker, they would need to hire more people. This would reduce unemployment.

As I see it, the main cost of this would fall on employers. They would need to either pay more overtime (if they still wanted to have employees work 40 hours) or hire more people (and incur the associated recruiting/processing/training costs). These costs seem rather small, especially since corporate America is doing quite well. I think that this would be a much more worthwhile cost to impose than, say, a lot of the inefficient corporate taxes to which businesses are subjected.

The free market will not reduce the 40-hour work week on its own; if we think it's desirable to work less than that, it will require some government prodding. The 40-hour work week has been in place since 1950, despite the fact that the American worker of today is vastly more productive than his 1950 counterpart. Furthermore, in most industries, companies have an incentive to work employees as many hours as they can get away with, because it reduces training costs.

But what about the fact that some people already struggle to make ends meet with a 40-hour job? OK, but there are lots of other people in the even worse position of working 0 hours per week because they can't find a job. From a macroeconomic perspective, this is very harmful. It would be far better for our economy to have more people working fewer hours, than to have fewer people working more hours.
Click to expand...

Only from a Liberal, an innovative idea.
I remember working Saturday overtime, 6 hours and accomplishing the same as I did during the week -8 hours.
Who came up with 8 hours anyway - this must be questioned.
If a man really works hard, he becomes fatigued and un-productive after 6 hours.
This, of course, varies from man to man.
How do the Japanese do this, or the French, or the Germans ?
We could run a study on a state by state basis.
But we must do something, just to stand still or regress is not good.
 
cpgrad08 said:
I have never heard someone complaining of having too many hours. Usually people don't get enough hours. Americans want to work. Giving them less hours just means there going to make less money. Not necessarily, and, there is more to life than money, people just have to learn how to handle it, as I have...
Click to expand...
I have heard of many doctors and nurses complaining of working excessive hours.....
 
Barbbtx said:
You're trying to spread the wealth around in a sneaky way. Quite socialist of you. :)YES!, this is not the American way. The wealthy must maintain their share of the pie , so why not make it 90%, rather than just 80%. ???
Besides, not everyone thinks work is such a dreadful thing and something to avoid. Some people actually like to work.
Click to expand...
BION, I was one of those who enjoyed working, until the age of 55, then the short term jobs, low pay, lousy conditions were horrible for me.
I would have accepted a 30 hour weeks at BMY in a heartbeat rather than face unemployment and or lousy "jobs".
 
.Earthworm@ YES!, this is not the American way. The wealthy must maintain their share of the pie , so why not make it 90%, rather than just 80%. ???
Click to expand...

Make your own damn pie and stop stealing other people's pie.

When you see a fat man and a skinny man, do you think "oh, look at that. That fat man stole food from the skinny man, so he didn't get enough to eat."?
I'm not wealthy, I'm pretty darn poor, but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to somene else's pie.
 
Many companies are going to shorter work weeks to reduce layoffs.
 
Kandahar said:
I addressed this issue in my original post. Yes, going from 40 hours to 35 hours will slightly reduce the size of paychecks...IF you are one of the people who is working 40 hours. If you're one of the people working 0 hours who is now able to find a job and work 35 hours, it greatly increases your paycheck. From a macroeconomic standpoint, this is far better for the economy. It means fewer people are drawing upon government benefits, and it provides a large, immediate stimulative boost to the economy (because, for example, a person is far more likely to spend their first $10,000 of income than their sixth $10,000 of income).

And aside from the financial aspect, it seems likely that it would increase the level of well-being and happiness within society. It will reduce the number of hours worked, while ensuring that more people actually have jobs. Most people want to be gainfully employed as it improves their sense of self-worth...but those who are employed often wish they had more time to spend with their families. This would help solve both of those problems IMO.
Click to expand...

I guarantee you that some or many will seek out a part-time job to supplement their income, thus negating those gains. Better to expand the economy and create new jobs through economic expansion rather than cut the ability of people to make income at their current jobs through forced reduction of hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom