iotae.net

I just finished reading a week-old editorial in the New York Times by Juliet Schor entitled “Why America Should Rest”. The gist of the article is that Americans would be better off if they were more like Eurpoeans and worked less. This is a commonly stated position, which Schor does a good job of representing. She is a sociologist, and has a lot of interesting information about the effects of technology on American work habits in both currently and historically. However, her economics are not as good as her history. The following passages are a great summary of what I consider to be a common economic fallacy:

We’ve heard a lot in the last year from national leaders about the need for sacrifice and community. Surely allocating work more equitably should be part of any change. A creative policy might turn these worthy sentiments into reality. Employees on reduced schedules could be authorized to collect partial unemployment insurance; Congress could give tax breaks to firms that enact work redistribution.

The interesting thing about this is that it considers work to be an asset, like wealth, that we need to redistribute. (This is why France believed it could reduce their unemployment rate by passing a law that everyone must work a shorter week.) Wealth redistribution is a complex political and public policy issue about which there is a variety of interesting opinions. Whatever your opinions about policies of wealth redistribution, they are certainly easy to enact (although they often prove difficult to enforce). Work redistribution is not that simple.

The reason that I have had a job which paid me a wage is that I was producing something, just like the reason that Schor has a job writing for the New York Times is she is able to produce essays people want to read. However, if I were working less and someone else were working more in my place, there is no reason to believe that they would be able to get done as much as I was getting done. This is not because I was a particularly good worker, it is simply because I spent half of my day collecting information, and half of my day making decisions based on it. If I were only working half days I would either not have much time to make decisions, or I would not be able to make them based on all the information I need. And if I were to take twice as many vacations, many critical decisions simply wouldn’t get made. For better or for worse, people become more productive as they work at a job more. Schor acknowledges that firms are more productive as people work more (she substitutes the word profitable for productive, but if you look at the context you can tell that is what she means), but she cites a bunch of less fundemental reasons for it:

Why has overwork been so persistent? One reason is that it is generally more profitable for firms to employ a small work force for long hours. The benefits costs are lower, employers can be more selective about whom they hire, and hours are a simple (if inaccurate) proxy for commitment…

In fact the Wall Street Journal had a good front-page article last month (which I cannot seem to find in the archive) about how Europe’s proclivity towards vacation is sapping their productivity while they are trying to catch up to the US.

It is true that as a nation we have chosed consumption over liesure time. I wish Americans had more flexibility in their individual choices about this, and I can understand the positions of those who want to change it. However, it is a mistake to suggest that we could simply give companies tax breaks to extend vacations by simply reducing conspicuous consumption. If as a nation we worked less, even slightly less, we would all be quite a bit poorer. Which is why the biggest problem with Schor’s article is her suggestion that encourage people to work less is a good public policy reaction to a recession. Recessions are times to find ways to make dislocated workers productive, not to encourage those who are producing to stop.

I am not sure how I got onto this big writing about economics kick. I’ll have to make the next entry about the new Bright Eyes album.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 11th, 2002 at 12:13 pm and is filed under . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.