My hypothesis is that Americans cashed in on their increased productivity by socializing at work or browsing the internet at work. In Germany, it's extremely frowned upon to talk about non-work stuff at work, so they could cash in on this increased productivity by shortening working hours.
Many people, yes. But the beneficiaries of an increase of minimum and hourly wages, which would affect like 60+ million US workers - they show up and they just work all day, they're not socializing, they didn't cash in anything.
What you're saying may be factual to some degree, but it almost universally talked about in bad faith.
It would really upset societal order if suddenly two once comparable jobs suddenly required drastically different time commitments. People will find all sorts of reasons to fight against a shorter workweek, but I think this is the main reason why. We like the stability of believing that everyone (or at least working people) are 'equally yoked' at least in terms of time commitment.
With manufacturing, I disagree due to the impact of automation - especially when analyzed over a long time frame, productivity has exploded whereas the number of employees has shrunk drastically and their inflation-adjusted wages barely growing.
In retail, restaurants, even in some parts of healthcare (think lab work) the situation is similar. Automation, mass manufacturing and containers (the physical things, not Docker...) have slashed costs on the input side, menial tasks like stacking shelves or cleaning got cost-cut (by outsourcing and by exploitation of undocumented workers), some places like IKEA and Amazon even eliminate the cashiers by having the customer do that themselves.
The owner class has reaped all the productivity gains and given back little to the workers who made it possible, and now they are asking "why is the American/Western market for cars shrinking and the only growth in China"... well easy, too many people don't have the cash on hand to splurge on a dozens of thousands worth new car!
However, I still think there is a disconnect. Even with productivity gains, output still basically scales linearly. When your job is producing a specific physical artifact consistently, you are always going to make more of them, the more time you spend doing it. The same is not true for many 'knowledge workers' whose output is not measured in 'lines of code' or 'meetings held' but looser, larger objectives that are fundamentally more limited in how many you actually want. I think you more rapidly get diminishing returns for a lot of this type of work. Even if a project manager could manage twice as many projects in twice as many hours, would that benefit the business?
I wish my German co-workers felt this way. It would cut hour long meetings by half, usually. Not to mention the long list of my other non-American colleagues who are quite chatty. In my experience, I don't really see how one can generalize this behavior by nation...
On top of that, sick days are much less frequent now I daresay.
But to be honest, that's fine/expected? There's a quite large range where I might not feel up to the commute/office (or not want to cough and sneeze at people - aside, I bet that's going to be more stigmatised in the near future) but up to doing what I can from the comfort of home where it doesn't matter that I'm curled up unshowered or whatever.
I did that a couple of times even when I went in to the office five days a week - gives me something to do other than lying in bed feeling sorry for myself or doing something and feeling guilty that it's not work, and gives my employer a bit of output even if it is less than 100% (which isn't the alternative, 0 is).
Sort of like how flu cases went down during the pandemic — with less interaction from abroad less germs are transmitted.
So talk to them about those expectations. Let them know that you won't respond outside of X hours, etc.
There are times when your most important work is being available. Maybe less than some managers seem to think, but it does happen. I can go make myself a complicated snack or step outside to do some yard maintenance for half an hour here and there and still be back to my desk in 5 minutes if someone actually needs me for something. At lunch time you can usually stretch that to 15 minutes, which opens up a lot of options for errands.
Our personal theory is that the next equivalent to remote work will be the four day work week. We work way too hard as a society; the 40hr work week is based off the point of diminishing returns for factory workers. There’s not a lot of reason to believe that continuing this pattern for knowledge work is desirable for the company or the employees.
I actually just launched 4dayweek.io - Software jobs with a better work / life balance
So I think the decrease in daily overhead from the remote-revolution will actually serve an increase in productivity, and not be budgeted toward work-life balance.
I'm saying this and I've been remote for years, and promoting WLB aplenty. But my coldhearted crystal ball hints me that larger forces at play will not primarily favor WLB.
When there's more competition, the guy willing to work longer will always win, especially if the work is such that he can work longer without a decrease in quality.
We're automating more things, there's more of us around, and we're connecting job markets better every day. There's more competition.
So, nowhere in reality.
This is not inevitable, it is policy we choose, as opposed to some European countries where workweeks have actually shrunk and retail hours are much more restricted. We have decided much of the gains from automation and better average human health and lifespan should go elsewhere.
For me it came from handing in my 2 weeks notice to take some time off from a company I worked for for over 5 years at the time, and then being offered a schedule of my choosing instead. I didn’t even know it was an option, else I would have just asked instead of quitting.
So if you’ve been there a while, and can afford it, I’d suggest you ask your current employer.
- Part of management will be against WFH, as they want to have their workers under direct control, politics is much easier this way.
- Finances will like the idea of having to rent less office space.
I am getting popcorn for this fight.
and for the same pay!
https://cepr.net/this-is-what-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-ke...
Key to this is understanding the difference between capitalism and materialism.
The former drives innovation and improvememt.
The latter breeds envy, poorly sorted priorities, and, ultimately, misery.
But is not exclusive to materialism. It can be a part of capitalism.
I am miserable. I have to work for food, shelter, medical care, etc. I do get some othe material items, but usually they are very cheap things for hobbies. I just never have enough time to do the things I want to do because working for my necessities takes up too much of my time.
Capitalism is abstract and plural; the avarice of materialism is concrete and singular.
The minimal regulation that stanilizes the sustem offers competitive feedback to mininize the tyranny of oligarchy that sets in when sellers get materialistic and buy the marketplace.
Capitalism and materialism aren't necessarily one or the other (plural/singular concrete/abstract). They can be applied both ways since they are adjectives. You could be describing an individual act or society as a whole.
The predisposition of capital ownership and control (a materialistic view) can take place in socialist or communist marketplaces too. Sure, technically the ownership is either owned by the state or the people, but really the oligarchy ruling the state are the ones with power anyways.
Capitalism is about minimally throttling creativity and private property.
Communism/Socialism (thinking of the EU here) seem to view lack of regulation as chaos.
No. Do not want.