One of Henry Ford biggest push was for a 5 day work week when no one else did it. Why? Because it meant workers had two days of week to spend money which increased consumer spending and look at the US today. Our consumer spending is about 2/3 of our GDP spending. I'm not saying you're wrong. But there's more to "drive your workers to the bone means we get better productivity and economic conditions". The biggest mistake the US is making is not capitalizing harder on onshoring + robotics.

On the flip side I would argue that European countries have largely fell flat or negative because employment law is too generous and it forces companies to be too cautious in hiring. I don’t know what the right balance but I am not sure going for even fewer hours is the right move.

I assume we agree that working less produces less (which reasonable people debate) since otherwise competition from abroad wouldn't be an issue.

If that is the case, then adding trade barriers also doesn't fix anything. Adding the trade barriers would ultimately just produce a lower standard of living. You'd essentially have an isolated system and the system is now producing less, so necessarily there will be less for everyone in the system.

Adding trade barriers also doesn't fix the threat of an adversarial country working 50% more than you for the next 50 years and as a result having the infrastructure to dominate you in numerous ways.

> I assume we agree that working less produces less

That’s a pretty big assumption. From what perspective, since the “working less” is only the perspective of the worker?

Production is not a zero-sum game that assumes companies make zero effort to invest in more manpower rather than profits.

Profit rates, however, are a significant part of the problem as each US company in the chain attempts to maximize profits they obtain from the next and avoid any competition (often using the legal system for protection). That doesn’t occur in the areas you mention because competition is the name of the game in those countries, which is why they have maximized production and flexibility.

> I assume we agree that working less produces less

Per capita, let's say yes, though I think there are people that assert that individual productivity is higher when working less hours.

But as a whole, probably not. In aggregate companies will pay more people less money, to do the same amount of work, so I think it should balance itself out.

There are a finite number of people and unemployment is already low.

In other words it's possible. :P

Doesn't that ignore the possibility of profit motives driving innovation when they're not being undercut by lower standards re externalities?

Do we need to produce more, though?

It seems that most peoples of most countries have an unquenchable thirst for more, yes. No one forced the car, the smart phone, the sugary snacks, cheap plastic toys, ... to exist. They exist because people want them.

Maybe certain people think they are made of better clay than the average consumer and should determine what everyone else can buy; that path is a dangerous one...

> Maybe certain people shouldn't be so quick to call other people fascists […]

Nobody did that here, though.

I didn't claim that anyone did.. If you didn't notice, I just used the same construct as the person above me to throw out accusations with deniability.. But we all know what they meant, and that was a wild take based on my simple question.

I'm a senior South African software developer (let my add my perspective here).

In terms of hours worked per week, I have rarely worked more than 40 hours per week (and I mean by that that I'm contracted for 40 hours and rarely work overtime). I know people who work more than that, and sometimes much more than that, which is a function of their skills and what kind of job they can secure (as well as their appetite for overtime), but I'd say my situation is fairly normal for people with ze skills. I also worked at a company which did 32 hour work weeks (which they did as a perk to retain people, not because they were forced to).

Software dev skills are quite scarce here, and South African devs are already cheap enough that it is difficult to try and offshore that work (although I know a few SA companies which have contracted companies in India for work). I also know many SA devs who have emmigrated to other countries which themselves have scarce software developers, but where the salaries and "standard of living" is perhaps better.

Many countries have <40 hours/week and are still thriving.

There will always be someone willing to undercut. Should that be reason for us all to race each other to the bottom?

I personally don’t think the negative consequences of working a little less (on paper!) are proportional to the positives.

> Many countries have <40 hours/week and are still thriving.

May I have the list of such countries with a level of prosperity comparable to the US (which seriously consider an $85k tax-free minimum wage)?

Your "everything is still thriving" on paper turns out to be "everyone except the elite is drowning in poverty and they can't complain about it because then their totalitarian government will declare them terrorists or something" in practice. All the time.

You may be right about some parts of Europe, but I think you would be surprised just how prosperous at least the northern part is, despite sub-40 hour work weeks and comparatively high taxes, 5-6 weeks paid vacation and “socialist” politics.

California is the only state I’ve visited in the US, but I would say Scandinavians are wealthier on average/higher quality of life.

> 5-6 weeks paid vacation and “socialist” politics

I'm not even surprised.

Socialist politics are extremely good at ensuring a high standard of living for the elite and shutting everyone else up. Look at any North Korean media outlet (of two or however many) - they're the best in the world, and everyone else is envious of them.

You bring up North Korea in response to a comment about Scandivian societies…?

Are you under the impression that North Korea is an actual socialist country? Just because it's in the name it does not make it so. I thought history thought us the lesson about that.

> Socialist politics are extremely good at ensuring a high standard of living for the elite and shutting everyone else

European social democratic politics are usually characterized by the opposite outcome, where high taxes and redistribution means the top 10% is much closer to the average Joe than in ultra capitalist countries. Less inequality in general.

> Look at any North Korean media outlet

If you seriously compare NK to any country in Europe, you have no clue, sorry.

> usually characterized by the opposite outcome

No. Look at the median salary of a full-time worker in Europe and compare it to the US. They are drowning in poverty.

> top 10% is much closer to the average Joe

No. In the US top 10% full-time workers get you what? About 300k? It is way closer to the average US Joe than Europe has it's top 10% to their average poor workers. There is more inequality in Europe than in the US.

> If you seriously compare NK to any country in Europe, you have no clue, sorry.

Why? Because you chose to trust European propaganda and not North Korean propaganda? Ask those who chose to trust North Korean propaganda what they'd tell you.

Notably EU countries don’t produce as many large or global software products. I know they have some companies of renown but not to the degree the US does.

There may or may not be a connection to work habits, but we should find out and then decide if we’re okay with the consequences (like the lowest GDP per capita state (AL) being on par with Germany). Maybe we’re okay with playing second fiddle. But we should know what we’re in for.

I think real reason is less willingness to make massive bets on everything. In ZIRP environment that played out great on paper. But we really have to see how will it do with AI...

Which countries have <40 hours/week and thrive?

Most of Northern Europe and Scandinavia.

Denmark has 37 hours/week. Netherlands is around 32-33 on average AFAIK. Switzerland is ~35 hours/week. Ireland and Austria are also well below 40 to my knowledge.

Most research shows that non-mechanical work (i.e. where you have to think a little), gets a lower work-output above 40 hours/week than below. If sustained, it’s not just diminishing returns, but lower absolute output, even at just 3-5hours weekly overtime.

>Switzerland is ~35 hours/week

What? Switzerland is 40-42 hours for a full time employee.

Sorry, I am not Swiss myself, so I may be completely mistaken.

I read that the average working hours is ~31/week. Digging further into that, it was the number of actual working hours on average (including part time and self-employeds), not what constitutes full-time employment.

Fair enough. Once you get into actual hours worked, you have a lot of people working less than FTE numbers by quite a bit.

For example, once the maternity leave runs out, in finance a lot of couples go to 80% so that with 1-2 days of home office you can always have someone watching the child. It's less money but the nurseries are so crazy expensive in Switzerland that it can actually even be positive in terms of total (edit:net) income.

Thanks for responding and elaborating.

I am not sure if we are in disagreement, but I believe my point stands: that Switzerland is a rich country despite working less than 40 hours/week on avg (actual hours).

In Norway 40 hours is the maximum legally allowable (other than temporary overtime), most people have 37,5 hour work week. If one in addition count vacation days etc the difference between other countries and the US might be even starker, in total hours per year?

> Many countries have <40 hours/week and are still thriving.

But it's a fiction built on U.S. force projection. It's become apparent that none of these countries could defend themselves against an aggressive competitor.

Well you are comparing a single country of over 300 million (the US) with the countries in the EU that are on average 16-17 million. Do you think that makes sense?

Idk historically some European nations like Germany have been very successful at least at starting wars and people had their hands pretty full trying to defeat them. I don’t think their past WW2 docility can be attributed to their inability at doing heavy industry or weapons development

If things were this simple compensation costs alone would have pushed all labour that could be moved (blue collar or not) outside of the US.

I wonder if there could ever be a tariff policy that is automatically proportional some measure of worker/environmental exploitation. I know tariffs are current very unpopular, but maybe they can be used for good?

That will be a great solution. Tariffs based on some measure of worker/environmental exploitation rather than trade imbalance.

Although, it would incentivize countries to cover up evidence of exploitation in some “metric becomes the target” sense. Might be bad.

Countries can stay ahead by enticing better workers with better working conditions. I ain't doing 996.

> I ain't doing 996.

Neither am I. But how do you prevent countries doing 996 from dominating the market like they did in manufacturing without strict regulation and barriers?

> how do you prevent countries doing 996 from dominating the market

Why do you need to? Is this a manifestation of American exceptionalism, or do you think that overall as a nation you get a better life for your citizens when you're at the economic top?

It's not a manifestation on anything. What's cheaper with better quality will be chosen by the consumer. To get cheaper economies of scale are needed.

My competitor has a contracting factory in Pakistan that has the same labor costs as me, but works for 50 hours, instead of 32 hours. He can produce 36% more per week, while paying the same cost of capital, opex and other costs, even if he pays the same per hour as me.

But if he has 1/10 of the cost of labor and labor is a high % of end product cost, I can't compete and my business is bust, my employees are on the street and we all live from 1. the taxes of the productive people in the society who can sell something competitively outside (to have currency to buy imports) 2. governmental loans to be paid in the future by the people from 1.

I said "more people for less money"[1]. Nothing prevents your company to pay more people to work those 50 hours a week and pay them the same you would pay a single person working them.

[1] Sorry, I said that in a different comment in this thread.

Do you think meaningfully more work will get done in those countries with those extra 8 hours?

if you step outside our IT bubble absolutely. Manufacturing & Services can produce an awful lot of meaningful, measured value with an extra 8 hours a week.

Engineering isn't an assembly line job, though. If you're brain's tired, you may be on the clock, but you aren't going to be as productive as you would be if you were fresh.

I specifically meant in the world of IT or really any creative work.

I mean, other countries are working their employees to the bone. Some employee children, some have slavery.

Should we go ahead and bring back slavery for "competition"? I mean, you can't compete with free labor, right?

We have to draw the line somewhere, and that somewhere is arbitrary. We're not changing any decisions here - 32 hours/week is equally as arbitrary as 40.

Look at Germany, their highly profitable companies have moved so much outside of the country, because they can't produce a competitive product inside with the strong unions, well-meaning green taxes and giving too much to the unemployed imigrants coming as social security and benefits.

When you start overtaxing, you are just milking the cow and not feeding her enough. She'd last for some time but then't you won't have a cow and milk.

You're absolutely correct, but most people don't understand how even a simple "village-size" economy works. They think money is just "printed" and "government will enforce our standard of living".