A New View of Work

[phantom power]

Many of us have been raised according to the “Protestant work ethic.” That is to say, we were encouraged to work hard and thus become a successful and productive member of society. But what if this advice is wrong? As the economy reaches and breaches the limits to growth, working long hours causes market failures, giving weight to the idea that governments should intervene to reduce average working hours.

In the “empty world” of the past, hard work was a public good with few negative externalities on society. In today’s “full world,” work has become a common-pool resource, vulnerable to over-exploitation. In the absence of social or cultural norms to take care of this common-pool resource, governmental intervention is the best option for preventing market failure and encouraging an optimal amount of work. Unfortunately, our work ethic is worsening the situation.

Technological development over the past few centuries has allowed for a combination of reduced hours of work and increased consumption. Indeed, these are the only options for dealing with higher labor productivity (and labor productivity has consistently risen) while still maintaining high employment rates. But as the economy hits the limits to growth, the option to maintain employment through further increases in consumption becomes unavailable, meaning that work sharing becomes necessary. But OECD statistics reveal that over the past three decades there has been very little reduction in the amount of time people spend at work. Instead, consumption has risen drastically while unemployment has remained unacceptably high. If governments in high-consuming nations shift their focus from economic growth to wider sustainability objectives, they will quickly see that there are many benefits of a shorter work week.<1>

Here are some of those benefits:

* Energy consumption would decrease, especially energy spent on getting to and from work;
* Resource consumption would decrease as people trade some of their wages for more time;
* With extra time, people could make more sustainable lifestyle choices (e.g., bike, walk, exercise, eat well, garden etc);
* People would have more time for family and friends, less stress and better health;
* Fewer people would be unemployed, and they could make an easier transition to retirement;
* There would be more time for democratic participation, education, and exploration of other avenues to personal and community enrichment;
* A better-rested workforce is likely to be more productive;
* Both employers and employees could take advantage of more flexible employment circumstances.

http://steadystate.org/new-view-of-work/

[orpupilofnature57]

1. We've been begging for 4 /10 hr days , Being a municipality we think it's

managements way of inventing reasons for their existence ,once something is up and running how much expertise do competent people need do their jobs.

[NYC_SKP]

2. "* There would be more time for democratic participation, education.." is why the PTB won't let it..

...ever happen.

IMHO

But I'm pretty sure it's true.

Even our kids these days are overpressured to do more more more.

K and R for a thoughtful article.

[phasma ex machina]

3. 150 million workers ought not be forced to compete for 30 million productive jobs just for the sake

of trust babies getting interest income from banksters. Let's get rid of banksters, teach trust babies the meaning of the word "no", eliminate "make work", and divvy up the truly productive jobs among all able bodied people.

[Yavin4]

4. Technology Is Eliminating Jobs At A Record Pace

Less employees are needed to make the same goods and provide the same amount of services.

What will be left is the social and political challenge of how to handle a world without work.