Hello guys.... I don't post in here much. Too violent for my tastes. But there are quiet a few smart people on here and I wanted to pose a question to everyone. What would be the drawback of allowing people in the US to work up to 50 regular pay hours a week? Meaning no OT until 50 hours. I understand that it would be a drawback for folks that count on their OT hours. Most people on salary jobs are making 30k+ and that is a good bit more to live on then making 8 or 9 bucks an hour for 40 hrs a week. I am sure one idea is that it would eliminate the # of people who have jobs. Anyway, not trying to make any political point. Just an honest what if?
Potential drawbacks: 1. Bad for work-life balance in a country that probably already is on the wrong side of that spectrum 2. Reduces # of people employed 3. At some point, overworking people will be bad for productivity, but if you allow it, it will likely eventually become "the standard" just as 40 hours is now. Not saying there aren't advantages as well, but these are some examples of drawbacks.
10 hrs a day or on weekends? Depends on the job. If it's a white collar one, there's a (presumable) limit one has for reading facebook. If it's more labor intense, I guess a salary would mean health benefits to go along with nagging chronic pain that comes with working 10 full hours/day on the job. A lot of middle class people are also used to the idea of 40 hr lifestyle. Companies that nudge salaried people to work more usually have that factored into their salary. It's the ingrained thought of, "Now that I'm paying you more than others, you should work longer than others" Also, people will gladly work and do more when overtime pay is involved. I think some slave driving managers like to continue dangling that carrot of overtime/promotion with salaried benefits than offering a full salary outright. Giving people with 50hr salaried pay doesn't solve the dead weight problem, and would likely increase it because the incentive for working/performing more is gone.
There would be three significant impacts. 1. It will reduce overall employment. I can now hire 4 people to work 50 hours a week vs. 5 people at 40. And the first case is much cheaper since there is an enormous cost to each person I hire (interviewing, managing, benefits, etc). 2. As mentioned...it will lead to lower productivity (more sick days, injuries, etc) and thus cost employers more in the long run. 3. I will serve act as a pay cut since current overtime works will lost 5 hours of paid work a week (50% overtime bonus x 10 hours). I'd venture to say this policy might actually move the economy back into recessionary mode.
There wouldn't necessarily be any drawbacks. If a company would not have to hire as many people to perform certain tasks, then they would now have more money to allocate elsewhere. Perhaps they could now afford to hire someone to do some work they were neglecting before due to the opportunity cost. Or perhaps they will invest in capital to grow the business, which would eventually lead to hiring more people. There are a number of possibilities. The idea that this would decrease productivity takes certain assumptions into account. Namely, that those running the business have a very narrow-minded, short-term approach, and that there are no other firms competing for the labor. The common, economically-ignorant assumption would be that the owners, fat cats, etc would now just buy more expensive cigars while they choke the life out of their labor force, but this is the same as saying the young hooligan was wise to break the shopkeepers window. Just look at it the other way: If shorter work weeks are better, then why not a 30 hour work week? Why not a 20 or 10 or 5 hour work week? Look to the dead economists. Present-day economics is largely a constant debate on how to best mold The Perfect Economy while making sure the politically favored groups get theirs. Previously, economists observed the conditions which led to greater wealth and prosperity for all. "If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible. He will therefore have to use what knowledge he can achieve, not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate a growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants. There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try, "dizzy with success", to use a characteristic phrase of early communism, to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will. The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men's fatal striving to control society - a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals." - FA Hayek "To see the problem as a whole, and not in fragments: that is the goal of economic science" - Henry Hazlitt
You're making the mistake of assuming this would be an optional thing. Right now, there's no need for the standard week to be 40 hours, but that's the max allowed, and thus everyone considers that to be the "norm". If you allow 50 hours, there's no reason to assume that wouldn't then be the new "norm". You're not going to end up with some companies having 40 hour full time and others having 50, just as you don't have some companies with 30 hours full time now. Lots of countries do have this. And it dramatically improves quality of life. But we know people regularly make bad long-term decisions in favor of short-term ones. We see this with individuals and we see it with businesses. Let's not forget that the US didn't always have limits on # of hours. And employers routinely abused their employees as a result.
If you are an exempt employee you already work more than 40 hours a week with no overtime. Companies can pretty much make anyone an exempt employee if they really want to.
I guess the question behind your question is...what are you trying to achieve? More productivity/better work envt/happier workers/etc...
Perhaps people should be able to decide for themselves whether it's a bad idea or not. By what right do you or anyone presume to tell me what hours/wages I choose to work? "You can't do X", "You must do Y", mind your own damn business
It seems to me that plenty of business owners have made it their business to tell you what hours/wages you can work for, or (more to the point) the hours and wages you CAN'T work for.
As far as I'm concerned, you can do whatever the hell you want to. If you want to waste your life working 50+ hrs a week(unless you're working for yourself), then jump. I work to improve my quality of life and then I make sure I have enough time to enjoy that life. Cheerio, wage slave.
The drawback is you're giving something up without getting anything in return. The overwhelming majority of us are not managers or business owners and only get out of it what executives agree in writing to give us upfront. We are not all in this together.
You're getting extra wages that might not otherwise be profitable for the employer if they are forced to pay more.
You're not getting extra wages, the manager is getting an option to work you for more hours without the deterrent of a higher unit cost. Jesus, Libertarians will never win anything.
How many of you Ayn Rand free-market types actually look for jobs? Given how the labour market works, this argument falls flat on its' face. Or are you one of those voluntary unemployed who is sticking out for 20 hour work weeks, and free coffee? The power in labour situations graviates towards employers. Employers don't make "offers"; they make standardized contracts they know some chump will evantually accept. now, if you were a fan of extended unemployment insurance, and an economy that doesn't blow up to 8% unemployment any time Wall Street bankers get an itch they can't scratch, then maybe I could understand. With the time given to overrule assymetric information, and the true "freedom" to choose without the constraint of time or, you know, those 58730 bills to pay, you could maybe say this with a straight face. Unless you are a hidden fan of small-scale Swedish active labour market policy, I would strongly consider your statement to reflect a critical flaw in the Randian world-view; a simplified consideration of ideals that in no way reflects the true economy. For reference; http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/veronica.guerrieri/research/jobmarket_version.pdf (uh oh social planner!)
A standardized contract is an offer. Some people have been known to get multiple offers. Some people have been known to negotiate offers with their employer. Notice the characterization of free people as 'chumps', typical of paternalistic social planners. I'm a fan of free exchange. Choices and information being limited doesn't change this.
Paternistic? Psh. I'm not the one who by default wants government out of a Judeo-Christian society set up to rule over women and the "other". Note that social planner is actually a positive term, since most recent economic literature describes that there is a need for a social planner in order for there to be optimum effiiciency; the cited paper above certainly can be used to support this view. "Free exchange" with one side having their choices and information limited is not free exchange. It is by definition constrained exchange. There can only be free exchange if BOTH sides have full information and full choices. Anyways, have a look at the anchoring principle and other cognitive biases. http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/a/anchoring.htm We are raised in a society where if you work less than forty hours a week, you are laughed at. Give it a try, next time you're negotiating for a job, Commodore. Try, just try, to get those clauses set right for a 20 hour work week. Try not to get laughed out of every office while you languish at the knifepoint of incessant monetary demands that do not allow you to search or negotiate properly. Tell me how that freedom tastes. For the record, I would be intrested in the "people who have been known" and their success rates.
