Unemployment solved: 20-hour work week

While watching yet another presidential candidate promise how he would stimulate the economy to create more jobs, I found myself wondering why nobody is talking about an obvious solution: restricting the supply of labor by cutting the working hours.
 
Given the current productivity levels and 5 billion people of working age on the planet, it does not seem possible to give everyone a 40-hours/week job doing something useful.  There is a precedent for reducing working hours.  We went from 70 or more to 40 a while ago.  We also eliminated child labor.  Was it a coincidence that real wages went up and the middle class got created since then? 

Why is 20-hour work week a bad idea, or a good one?

>Why is 20-hour work week a bad idea, or a good one?

Why work at all? We can just live off welfare and print more money.

You are right, a large chunk of the world's population are unemployed or underemployed, the thing is most of the world's working population are laborers with 12+ hour working days.

What the world really needs is more education and globalization combined with 19th century style unfettered laissez faire free markets to increase the fungibility of labor.

in b4 "Gods of the Copybook Headings"

>>4
New to 4chan:  is the thread still around?  If so how do I find it?  Don't see any way to search.

>>5
Google is your friend.

http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm

>>6
Interesting. Sounds like a conservative hymn.  No wonder Glenn Beck likes the poem (according to Wikipedia).  Do you think “robbing collective Paul to pay for selected Peter” (which is what happened in the U.S. over the past 30 years) is any better than “robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul”?

Why is 20-hour work week a bad idea, or a good one?
How exactly would you implement it? New laws? Maybe a slow cultural shift? The specifics are important in deciding if it's a good idea.

I’d phase it in quite slowly. Maybe cut back 2 hours every year over ten years.  In many countries there are already laws mandating 40-hour work week.  They would just be updated to reflect the new hours.  Countries that don’t have them would be “persuaded” by WTO, IMF, World Bank, trade unions, etc. to adopt and follow them.  

The phase-in would minimize the disruption to the economy by providing time for re-training etc.

There might need to be some kind of debt adjustment/forgiveness. For example, if a family has an existing mortgage that assumes certain level of income, the debt could be reduced as well.

>>9
Everything comes at a price.

I can imagine how this could help in some ways: parents spending more time with their kids, reduced consumption of energy and other non-renewable resources, less pollution, lower health care costs (extra time to exercise, drink beer, smoke pot, have sex, play musical instruments :).

Could also be a “market-based” solution to many social ills caused by poverty?  By reducing the supply of labor, the price of it (the wages) would go up.  No more need for silly minimum-wage laws.

>>8
A cultural shift would be good.  This could be accomplished by adding a new commandment to all mainstream religions: Thou shall not labor for wages for more than 20 hours a week!

To help any non-believers get on board, the new working hours would also be recognized by the United Nations as a basic human right, and any countries violating it would be subject to severe sanctions starting with an economic embargo all the way to regime change.

You wouldn't be solving the unemployment problem, you'd just be creating a larger underemployment problem.

>>13
Cool story, bro.

>>14
Why is 20 hours underemployment and 40 is not? What's so magic about 40?

You'd be halving productivity and wage levels. There seems to be a common misconception that we need full employment, or that employment is inherently good. You need PRODUCTIVE employment. It's very easy to create employment, we did it in WW2, yet there was still widespread poverty and rationing.
This is why planned economies fail.

>>16
Pretty sure that's a text book no true scotsman fallacy. There is quite an extreme difference between 20 and 40, not sure why you're bothering to debate this.

You could be arguing from a more fluid perspective, looking at the influences and trends of labor laws like ending child labor and reducing work hours, but you're just demanding one arbitrary static inflexible change.

>>18
I did not mean to sound inflexible.  I picked 20 because it was a nice round number significantly less than 40.  I agree that is not very scientific.  On the other hand, how was 40 chosen when people decided that 60 was too much?  A bunch of trade unionists picked it while sitting in a pub on a Sunday, their only day off?

>>19
It was slowly wound down, they didn't go from 60 to 40 overnight.

And if a worker's week is cut in half to 20 hours a week, won't his pay also be cut in half?  And for people living from paycheck to paycheck now, barely making ends meet, choosing whether to pay the gas bill or the electric bill this month, that would be economic disaster.

So it's hardly a viable solution to the working lower class and would probably be a hardship to the middle class.  Because if people are still payed at 40 hour rates, but only work 20 hours, that will be a severe hardship on most businesses.

No, but a real solution would be to reduce the work week to four 8 hour days.

>>22
Why not three, d00d?  Why not two?  Why not one?  WHY DO I HAVE TO WORK AT ALL?  CAN'T THE GOVERNMENT JUST GIVE ME FREE SHIT?

>>20
That's exactly what I suggested earlier: phase it in over 10 years.

Cutting the work week to 32 hours doesn't change the fact that it would also reduce people's pay by 20%.  Once again, there are scores of people in this country who either can't make ends meet now or are just barely getting by.  Cutting what they make per week by cutting their hours WILL NOT HELP THEM.  It's not a viable solution and will only make things worse.

>>24
It doesn't work like that, the economy has to develop to the point where we can afford that luxury.

>>23
Why not six, d00d? Why not seven? Why not 24/7 so that the 1% folks, who skim 10% of the value you create every hour you work for them, can buy another yacht or another summer house or another congressman?

I'll do a 20-hour work week as long as I'm paid for 30.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.
If people work less, they're paid less.
Gas and bread prices won't go down. Only people's wages.
Why is it that all the liberaltards in this thread ignore this whenever it's pointed out?

>>25
>>28
… it would also reduce people's pay by 20%

It’s highly unlikely that if you significantly reduce working hours across the board, the hourly rates would remain the same. Remember, this is still a market economy.  The price of anything (including labor) is determined by supply and demand.  If the pool of available labor is reduced by 50%, what do you think will happen with the price of labor (your hourly wage)?  It will go up!

And even if the increase in the hourly wages does not completely make up the difference, what do you think will happen with prices?  Let’s say your apartment lease is up for renewal.  Your landlord sees that your (and, importantly, all other potential tenants’) income is down by 30%.  Do you think the landlord will keep the rent the same and risk having an empty apartment or will s/he reduce the rent? Sellers of other goods and services will face the same choice.  Competition is a wonderful thing.

>>29
Correct. just look at what the OWS fags are demanding. They want free money, welfare and healthcare without even contributing anything back.

Libfags want what they want and they don't give a fuck if it's realistic or not.

>>30
So producers are going to reduce their prices even though they have to pay their workers more?
The pool of labor would not be reduced, people would simply work 2 jobs.

>>32
No. Everything is free so there is no money. The workers don't need to work because everything is free.

>>32

The selling price of a widget (or service) includes many other components besides the wages of the workers.  The cost of some of these (i.e. buildings, equipment, etc.) might be fixed.  Though read my previous post about debt adjustment that would go with the reduction in working hours.
 
Other components of the selling price are, shall we say, rather elastic.  These include a markup due to monopolistic market share, dividends distributed to shareholders, the exorbitant salaries of certain employees (i.e. CEOs and top management).

Any work past 20 hours would be considered overtime.

>>34
What goes into building and equipment (capital goods)? That's right, labor! You'd be forcing the prices of EVERYTHING up, while forcing income down.
It's a shitty idea, just abandon it.

how about them green jobs? Seems just a school advertisement to me.

>>35
Everything more expensive sounds truly awful.  Does that mean I could not afford food and shelter, or does that mean I would only replace my cell phone once every three years instead of every 18 months?

If this is a shitty idea, what do you propose instead?  Status quo is clearly unacceptable to a growing number of people all over the world.  Status quo has gotten us to the point where we need to keep killing a dozen of “terrorists” every day to remain “safe”, and “trouble-makers” are rioting in our streets instead of looking for porn on 4chan.
 
Who will you want to keep your ass “safe” when the “trouble-makers” of the world come knocking on your door, armed with some nasty weapons?  Will you vote for someone like Hitler or maybe somebody like Stalin or Mao?  And will you still be worried about the price of your next flat screen TV?  I am sure the status quo looked pretty good to the Russian Czar back in 1917.  He would have called himself a Conservative, until the “trouble-makers” knocked on his door.

Why do you think someone like Warren Buffett wants to pay more taxes?  He gets this.  Do you?!

It took you this long to realize cutting work hours means lower wages?

>>37
So you want to give people more free time, but they can't enjoy it due to having no excess income?
So we can either have a 20 hour week and eliminate war or have a 40 hour week and stay at war? I propose reasonable solutions that have been tried before and haven't been repeatedly debunked like yours.
These liberal, economically illiterate shit stains are the same ones that believe in taking away people's guns. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all leftists, so no I would not vote for them.
Warren Buffett does not want to pay more taxes, he makes all of his money via capital gains, he wants other people to pay more taxes. He's also old and has more money than he can possibly spend before he dies. There are plenty of rich people that I'm sure would disagree with him, yet you only reference him? He can be wrong you know.

>>39
If you think Hitler was a leftist, then you are historically illiterate.