Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Politics and Religion
Whatever Happened to the 20-Hour Workweek?

Whatever Happened to the 20-Hour Workweek?

Last updated on: September 25, 2017 at 10:05 am by Jane the Actuary

Whatever Happened to the 20-Hour Workweek? 2017-09-25T10:05:48-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Remember that?

Well, OK, not a historical 20-hour week, but predictions of such?

I remember a book I had as a child in the 70s, that imagined life in the year 2000. Yes, video phones instead of smartphones, and also futuristic clothing. I don’t recall whether there were Jetson-like robot maids or hovercraft, but I do clearly remember the statement that people would work only half as much as they do now.

And more recently I stumbled on a book for adults, written in the 60s, again predicting life in the year 2000. I’d like to find it again, but I wouldn’t have the least idea of where to start with a search, and it now strikes me as rather odd that it was at the library at all, given how aggressively they cull outdated books. Maybe it was long enough ago that I read this, that it precedes their aggressive culling policy.

It seems to me, if I remember correctly, that it very cautiously guessed that we might have video phones and some sort of computer connectedness, but failed to anticipate the internet and smartphones (and my memory of thinking, “how wrong they were!” means I must have been reading this after the advent of smartphones). And yet it again predicted that our workdays would be halved.

And it seems to me that this was the key prediction of the future — that automation wouldn’t produce mass joblessness, as we fear now, but would mean that we’d all work a lot less.

Not only has that failed to come to pass, but instead we mock the French who have attempted to implement a 35 hour workweek (which I’m told doesn’t necessarily result in 35 hours of work per week, but instead means a lot of “comp time”).

So let’s consider the question: why hasn’t part-time work become more prevalent?

Of course, to some degree it has — employers have, after all, responded to the Obamacare mandate by moving their retail, fast food, and other unskilled workers from no-benefits full-time to 29 hours per week, leaving them to try to cobble a living out of two part-time jobs, or living in poverty if they can only manage the one. But among professionals, and especially those in the upper middle class whose income level would position them quite well to forgo a part of one’s salary in exchange for more leisure time, the opposite seems to have happened, and demands are for longer working hours, except for the small percentage who, like me, are on a Mommy Track (and even then, many nominal part-timers report working nights and weekends anyway).

Now, part of this is about the money — even people who are prosperous always seem to find ways to want to consume more. Sure, a part-time wage for a professional might buy a typical suburban house, but if your colleagues all live in McMansions in the top addresses (and with the top-ranked schools), are you really going to stick your neck out and say, “no thank you”? And there’s always another vacation to take (even if you take your conference calls from the hotel room while the kids play), another level to move up in terms of the prestige of the car (because you deserve the BMW 7 series this time), and so on.

But from an employer’s point of view, too, there are costs to part-time employers, whether they’re your top managers or your rank-and-file workers, because there are fixed costs associated with workers, and the more work you can get out of any one working unit, the more profitable you’ll be. Consider:

HR costs for recruiting, onboarding, and the administrative costs for each employee (processing payroll, government compliance regulations, etc).
Physical workspace costs
Employee training, whether learning new systems or continuing education related to their field.
Learning about a new client or project, transition/hand-off time, time spent in status meetings with colleagues.
Miscellaneous team meetings that suck up time.
“Overlap/coverage” costs — that is, the need to have more overlap and pay attention to team coverage if colleagues aren’t reliably in the office and able to field requests, or missed work if this coverage isn’t dealt with satisfactorily. (Plus there are, in my line of work, clients who expect their primary contacts to be available 24/7 — and this particularly irritates me, because even overtime-working colleagues are just as often out-of-pocket, due to travelling, other client meetings and calls, and so on.)

If we are speaking of the difference between full-time, and full-time-with-overtime employees, you could add to the list healthcare benefits, which are a fixed cost whether your employee works 40 hours a week or 60 hours. And as I recall, during boom times at GM, the company far preferred to give its workers lots of overtime, rather than hire new workers, because of the costs they’d face in eventually having to lay off workers.

And I don’t know that we can really deal with these fixed costs simply by saying, “fine, we ensure a level playing field by setting a 35 or even 30 hour week as the norm instead of 40 hours.” After all, it is exactly the exempt workforce that is earning enough to be able to comfortably shift to a fewer-hour workweek, and it is exactly this group that, by and large, chooses to increase consumption rather that its leisure hours, and it is for this group that the government (in our current legal framework) has no power to mandate reduced hours. It would take a dramatic shift to move to what I believe is the case in France, where the category of “exempt” workers is much narrower than ours, and encompasses only the highest levels of management.

Yet at the same time, we need to figure out how to get from here to there — by which I mean that an end result in which everyone simply works fewer hours in the week is a far preferable result to one in which automation produces large numbers of people who aren’t in the workforce at all.

Readers, thoughts?

Image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ANew_office.jpg; By Phil Whitehouse (Flickr: New office) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Previous Post

September 21, 2017

Cub Scout update: Bike Rodeo (whew!)

Next Post

September 25, 2017 Remember: Football is Entertainment

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Why was it significant that Jesus spoke to a Samaritan woman at the well?

Select your answer to see how you score.

She was wealthy She was a prophet Jews typically avoided Samaritans It was raining