Quote from achilles28:
This is actually right:
The amount worked, determines living standards.
We could all work 20 hour weeks, or 40 hour weeks. There is no arbritrary or contrived equilibrium. Our productivity (hours worked) determines our consumption capacity (living standards).
So the more we work as a society, the more we produce (and therefore, earn), and can thus, consume = higher living standards.
The less we work as a society, the less we produce (and therefore earn). Thus, the less we can consume = lower living standards.
Let's forget about the greater economy and technological advances, and focus on a household. And why not? The word "economics" comes from the ancient greek word "oikos" meaning household.
Households, in the past 100 years experienced a technological revolution. From microwave ovens, to lawnmowers, chainsaws, dishwashers, washing machines, etc... Overall, time spent on household chores diminished significantly.
Does that make people lazy? In the past, usually the woman, had to hand scrub clothes, cook for hours, knead bread, etc... countless hours were spent in the home doing work. It was truly an operational endeavor. Does that mean we should continue to work at the home based on the same amount of hours people worked on chores 100 years ago?
These technological advances have also permeated in the greater economy - robotics, agriculture, construction equipment, etc... yet we have this policy of 95% of the population needing to work 50 weeks a year, 40 hours a week. That's a lot of hours.
So what did governments do to keep that target? They deficit spend, they create a FIRE economy, they increase aggregate demand by using a debt based monetary system, etc... all artificially created demand based on a Ponzi Casino economy to keep 95% of the labor force employed.
Look around you. Is it working? I guess it's easier to dismiss a collapsing casino driven economy on the "laziness" of the population.
Or you can dig a little deeper and see how a large percentage of aggregate demand really is created artificially. Then you will realize that many jobs that exist today, are really subsidized by the government. From housing to defense. From transportation to social work. And on and on.... take those away, and you will see unemployment soar.
What we are witnessing is not laziness. It's the collapse of an artificial, unsustainable economy premised on the childish concept of permagrowth. According to your theory, every generation, if they work hard enough, should realize those gains in the form of bigger homes, bigger cars, more TVs, etc...
Let's take that to its logical conclusion. Reducto ad absurdum. Let's forget about resource depletion and focus on your target of ever increasing living standards. In theory, one day, maybe 100 years from now, everyone should be driving tractor sized SUVs and living in 10,000 square foot homes. Right? Because living standards should go to infinity?
What I'm suggesting doesn't cut off technological advances. What I'm suggesting is greater employment through greater leisure time. Leisure time, IMHO is a standard of living increase, not a 10,000 sf house...
Before the industrial revolution and the use of fossil fuels, people worked practically from sun up to sun down. Leisure time was for the elites. People lived on farms, and between household chores and farming, their days were full. Then came the industrial revolution, yet the hours worked did not change much. Eventually, we arrived at a 40 hour work week with two weeks vacation. For the average person, this was a godsend.
What I am saying is that it might be time for a re-adjustment. I don't know what the numbers should be, but if you want 95% of the people employed without government interference, then maybe a 30 hour workweek may be needed. Or a 20 hour workweek. And this would have to be universal.
Why do you support a 40 hr workweek? Why not 35 hours? Or why not 55 hours, if that would lead to increased consumption = increased happiness?
Look, bottom line, I am questioning the 40 hours. How was that decided? Why should it still hold in the era of productivity advances?
- that's exaggerated example, but actually that's it...