A Four-Day Work Week? Be Careful What You Wish For

All of a sudden we're learning that Microsoft is "testing" a 4 day work week. Indeed, the company had already commenced with an experiment earlier this year in Japan.   We also learn from a recent Denver Post Business article ('In Test Run, Four -Day Work Week Boosts Output', Nov, 10, p. 5K):

"Even in a country known for its extreme overwork, the shorter week had a big boost in prdoctivity".

Adding:

"The test run, which took place in august and gave employees five consecutive Fridays off, boosted sales per employee by 40 % compared to the same month a year earlier....The test was billed as being part of a 'work life choice;  strategy helping employees work more flexibly."

A great boon to workers, especially with families?  Hold strain!  The shorter work week comes with a cost: less free time each day because you will now be working TEN hour days, not 8-hour.  And because corporate employers will still want to squeeze out that extra face time - just as 8 hour days becoming 9 or 10, look for 10 hour days becoming 11 or 12.  Don't think that's possible? Then you are fooling yourself. As one UK website points out:

"In reality, most employees on a four day week will most likely be expected to work the same 40-hour weeks, but in four days instead of five. In this case, shifts might be extended to 10 hours. Longer days could have a significant effect on your employees' stress levels and therefore their overall wellbeing and productivity. "

  As the Post piece also warns:

"Some smaller companies that have tried the idea cheer its benefits ...but they have also said it can lead to workers pushing the limits on long weekend scheduling and result in more pressure- filled days when people are on the job,"

Adding:

"Some have warned the push could cut workers' pay, hurt competitiveness, and that a move toward reducing hours rather than legislating  cap is more desirable"

Indeed, futurist writers like Alvin Toffler, e.g.  in his two books,  'Future Shock' and 'The Third Wave', had predicted vastly increased leisure time for future U.S. citizens. For example, in the latter book, he wrote (p. 276):

"Thus we are moving toward a future economy to which very large numbers never hold full time paid jobs, or in which 'full time' is redefined .. .to mean a shorter or shorter work week or work year."

He then cited the case of Sweden in which a "full time" work year continued to mean "1840 hours" or in more practical terms, 1600 hours.   Using that example, then under the currently offered "4 day work week" one ought to expect 4 days with eight hours a day put in, no more.  This would be the work week redefined downward as Toffler indicated.

 We know that never came to pass given that more computers, added gizmos etc. simply compounded the volume of work and thereby increased the demand for more productivity.  All this tied to the GDP or GNP (gross national product)

Let's also please note that comparing the workaholic Japanese  and their productivity gains to those of American workers is  like comparing chalk and cheese.  This is perhaps why, according to the Post article:

"None of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates had embraced the idea (of the four day week) even though they have backed other ambitious ideas, such as universal basic income or a federal jobs guarantee."

But there really is no mystery in their avoidance here, as opposed to their embrace of the two other proposals. The reason is that they would know - as the UK website pointed out - there's vast room for corporate exploitation of this 4 day week, especially without legal caps on work hours.  So as the site noted, repeating it again:

"Longer days could have a significant effect on your employees' stress levels and therefore their overall wellbeing and productivity. 

SO why would any Dem candidate worth a grain of salt back such a daft proposal?  UBI or universal basic income on the other hand is a :"plus one" for workers in that they receive that money (most estimates are $1,000 a month) in addition to their wages.  Hence, can more easily pay off debts and keep up with medical bills etc.  As for the federal jobs guarantee, that is an unconditional plus for any unemployed but qualified person, again not open to exploitation like a four day work week would be.

What the Dem candidates WOULD back, but which we are unlikely to see from the Neoliberal corporatists,  is a TRUE 4 day week, meaning four,  eight -hour work days but with the pay scaled to a 5 day, 40 hour week.  In other words, less total hours worked but still receiving the same pay as for the longer, original  5-day  work week.

But as I wrote in previous blog posts, don't look for this alternative to happen anytime soon.  That better option isn't what's on offer  because economists keep to a rigid definition of GDP and what constitutes paid work.  As Toffler explained at the time (pp. 282-83):

"Should not a man or woman who stays home and rears a child, thereby contributing to the productivity of Sector B (the formal exchange sector market)  through his or her efforts in Sector A (the informal self-directed, unpaid labor market) receive some income even if he or she does not hold down a job in Sector B?"

This echoes what I wrote in a Feb. 5, 2018 post on the need to redefine the GDP:

"GDP is supposed to measure the total production and consumption of goods and services in the United States. But the numbers that make up the Gross Domestic Product by and large only capture the monetary transactions we can put a dollar value on  ....Almost everything else is left out.  ....In addition, there are hundreds of other contributions not registered that arguably have  major economic impacts. For example, a 2015 Forbes article highlighted how 40 million family caregivers in the U.S. are putting their own careers on hold to provide unpaid care — sometimes for decades.   The estimated  total value of the care has been put at nearly $1 trillion. This isn't reckoned into the GDP but IF it were,  the labor productivity would surely be much higher in the years since 2007."


As Toffler further observed (p. 280):

"There is no recognition as yet that actual production also takes place in Sector A  - that the goods and services produced for oneself are quite real, and that they may displace or substitute for goods and services turned out in Sector B.  Conventional production figures, especially GNP figures, will make less and less sense until we expand them to include what happens in Sector A."

To simplify all this further, if American workers are already doing much "Sector A" work, say care giving for a child or spouse, it should be a no brainer that a 32 hour (4 day) work week makes eminent sense. It allows the worker to commit 32 hours to "Sector B" paid work but also allows him or her time to take care of family needs on the 8 other hours (for which he will now be paid, but are not worked in the formal job).  The issue here is that a 4 day, 10 hour a day job does not make that cut and I am sure Toffler would agree with me - if he was still alive.

The problem we face is that the wealthy owners and capitalists (especially hedge fund owners of hospitals, banks etc) who largely  fund economists' research,  still are committed to reducing pay as much as possible while squeezing every last additional hour of toil from hapless, already overworked (Sector B working) citizens. No one, therefore, ought to be fooled that this 4-day work week now on offer is any kind of boon.

Unless one is a confirmed workaholic, of course.  Or has no family that requires outside of (paid) work attention.

See also:


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/06/modern-economics-its-evil-basis-pareto.html

and

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/06/modern-economics-its-evil-basis-pareto_13.html

Why Having Kids Is Not An Unambiguous Investment In Happiness - Yet More Reasons To Ignore Economists' Pleas To Make Babies

The face of a whiny infant screaming his head off.   And a major reason why many of us chose to never have these creatures.

There is a good reason why most physical scientists consider the majority of economists to be blockheads and simpletons: they don't use rational or testable models. One of the most irritating aspects of market economics posits that population growth is essential for future economics growth. The classic example of this simpleton proposition was expressed several years ago in a Wall Street Journal column (p. A1, 'Population's Flagging Growth Undermines Global Economy')

The author, Greg Ip, writing:

"Previous generations fretted about the world having too many people. Today's problem is too few. This reflects two long-established trends: lengthening lifespans and declining fertility.

Simply put, companies are running out of workers, customers or both. In either case economic growth suffers"


Which is total, unadulterated balderdash which no serious rational person should buy.  And indeed I lampooned it in a number of posts, indicating that in the OECD nations right now there are over 200 million unemployed workers who could do many of the jobs going unfilled.  Hell, in this country alone it appears that over 8 million willing workers over 65 years of age are finding a dearth of positions, opportunities to be hired e.g.

'Just Unbearable.' Booming Job Market Can't Fill the Retirement Shortfall

https://www.wsj.com/.../even-a-booming-job-market-cant-fill-retirement-shortfall-for-ol...

 

As noted in the above cited piece:

"For older Americans, the last few years of work can be a vital chance to patch up thin savings or pay down debt to ease their way into retirement. Many aren’t getting that opportunity.."


So clearly it is merely PR and propaganda to claim there aren't enough workers and we need to generate more babies.   How can any thinking person swallow this rubbish?    Especially given that adding more workers by birthing them is  a solution we simply cannot afford.  See, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/04/earth-day-alert-biggest-problem-remains.html

There has been no lack of economic pushback on falling fertility in the U.S. ever since Ip's infamous piece appeared.  Thankfully, at least now many women are thinking two or three times before spawning more rugrats.  And merely because some pointy-headed wonk ensconced in an ivory tower Rightist think tank says they must.  Besides, more people today - one hopes - think long and hard before they have children, given the psychological as well as financial costs.

According to a recent NY Times piece on modern parenting:

"Parenthood in the United States has become much more demanding than it used to be. Over just a couple of generations, parents have greatly increased the amount of time, attention and money they put into raising children. Mothers who juggle jobs outside the home spend just as much time tending their children as stay-at-home mothers did in the 1970s.   The amount of money parents spent on children, which used to peak when they were in high school, is now highest when they are under 6 and over 18 and into their mid-20s."

Even before the modern era, parenting was not something I relished and fortunately, neither did Janice.  Hence we chose a child-free life.   This, despite the RC Church's edict that artificial birth  control is a big 'no-no'  and "mortal sin". All that codswallop did is provide one more reason to finally leave the Church by the age of twenty-nine.  

Of course, money is the other aspect which too few consider before they jump into parenting, given the costs  to raise ONE kid through college is roughly a quarter million smackeroos.  Let me put it this way: had we opted 40  years ago to have five offspring like my parents did , e.g.

We'd never have been able to save up enough to afford a decent retirement, including the ability to travel, work on our own creative projects and donate to multiple charitable organizations.  How did my parents do it?  Well, because in the 1950s, early 60s, the economy enabled a degree of support and the bank savings rate (4-5%) allowed families to save without risking money in the stock market.  Let's also record the high marginal tax rate,  targeting the richest,  was 91 percent  - not the 38.6% today.

Back to kids as a not so great investment.  According to former WSJ columnist Jonathan Clements ('Are Kids A Good Investment ?  Will They Make You Happier?', Market Watch, Dec, 13)there are still far too many Americans who don't think carefully enough before taking the parenthood step.  As he frames it:

"Prospective parents are convinced children will enrich their lives. The data suggest otherwise."

What evidence might that be?   He notes that many—perhaps most—U.S. parents spend more on their children than they end up saving for their own retirement. The Department of Agriculture estimates it costs almost $234,000 for a middle-class family to raise a child through age 17. If the kid goes on to an in-state university, that would add another $85,000 to the tab.  We are now talking about more than 300 grand per kid. Who today can afford that, even for two  kids, far less five?

Much of the problem is only seen in retrospect after a kind of "buyer's remorse"  sets in.  Thus, parents belatedly confronted with evidence that their choice wasn’t necessarily the right one rebel and resist using assorted rationalizations.  According to Clements:

"I see this with retirees who have already claimed Social Security—and are now told they would have been better off delaying. I see it with folks who lease cars or buy overly large homes. And I see it with parents who are shown the sorry data on children and happiness."


Clements says he first came across such data a dozen years ago. He references an  academic paper which charted satisfaction with life, as reported by parents who were approaching their first child’s birth. As the happy day got nearer, reported life satisfaction climbed ever higher—only to come crashing down in the years after the birth. By the time the kids were age 3 or 4, both mothers and fathers were reporting life satisfaction that was significantly below their long-term baseline. Well, think of it!  Faced with a screeching little rugrat such as the one shown, keeping you up all hours of the night, and making endless demands on your time and resources. Selfish? Of course!  That's what many of us knew about ourselves beforehand - we the child-free - which is why we opted not to have kids despite all the yammering of well-meaning outsiders.  (I still recall the Headmistress of Janice's Queen's College telling both of us at a cocktail party that we owed it to Barbados to have children to compensate for all the progeny generated by lower intellects.  Yes, seriously!)

I mean, let's be honest here, it isn't all about just sparing the planet more millions of resource-consuming American kids.  Another huge reason is self-interest and a stark honesty (and self-knowledge)  that includes knowing you are not a child person.  Clements goes on:

“It seems parental happiness has a lot to do with the amount of work and aggravation involved.  Indeed, countless studies suggest children either don’t have much impact on happiness or the effect is somewhat negative. One study even found that women rated child care 16th out of 19 daily activities, putting it just above commuting and just below housework.

The least happy parents seem to be those who have young children, are young themselves, are raising kids alone or have children with problems."

Again, this isn't rocket science or plasma physics.  Young children (2 - 5 yrs.)  are almost universally a pain in the ass.  Walking- talking Donald Trumps in miniature, grabbing, demanding, sassing and worse- crapping nonstop making endless messes to clean up - often requiring tons of disposable diapers to be added to already over strained landfills.

The most interesting Clements' observation of all, and one worth noting in the USA's individualist capitalist culture:

"That brings me to an intriguing study that looked at 22 countries. It found wide disparities in happiness: Parents in Portugal, Hungary, Spain and five other countries were happier than nonparents in those countries. But in the other 14 nations, nonparents were happier. The bad news: The U.S. sat at the bottom of this ranking, just below Ireland and Greece.

What drove differences in national happiness? The study’s authors conclude that the results were heavily influenced by government policies. Parents were happier in those countries with family-friendly laws that mandated such things as paid family leave, subsidized child care, and guaranteed paid sick and vacation days."

In other words, the democratic socialist nations like Denmark, Norway and Sweden assured parents the highest probability of being content because they knew they had state support and benefits - which the stingy U.S. refuses to offer.  Opting to confer most tax cut benefits on the wealthiest. I mean, given this is it any wonder young adults are choosing to have fewer or no children?  Why should they when the government inveighs against their own interests?

In this sick sort of society what are the options for those intent on still undertaking parenthood?  Clements' suggested strategy is to have plenty of moola saved up, say to afford expensive child care (almost as much as private school tuition) and also make sure to live close to "family" and hope they will provide support when needed. Well, good luck!

In the end, let's be clear the condition of lower U.S. fertility is a direct result of the U.S. cowboy capitalist system which demands citizens go it alone, stand on their own. What the child free citizens are saying is: "Fuck you! If you aren't going to support us we aren't gonna have kids to become your future precious consumers!"

In other words, why should they "invest" in having children if the government refuses to invest in their kids as essential future citizens, or consumers?  Can't anyone see that when the Neolibs demand higher birth rates - for whatever reason - they are insisting on having their cake and eating it? They want their precious Pareto-based economic system of endless consumption supported indefinitely by the "Proles", but they don't want to raise the Proles' wages (or social benefits via taxes)  to assist that endeavor.