I have a question about reducing the work week

[ksen]

But then if full-time is redefined as being 1,560 hours a year down from the current 2,080 hours a year and a full-time position was previously paid, let's say, $46,000/yr why wouldn't the full time position still be paid $46,000/yr?

If you're producing 25% less for the company, why would they give you effectively a 33% raise? Your hourly rate would go from $22/hour (40 hour week) to $29.5 (30 hour week). Giving you more money for less work is not how companies rise to dominate the market.

Who says I'd be producing 25% less? In France many firms experienced increased productivity when the work week was lowered to 35 hours from 39 hours.

Measured how? Four hours less time spent in harness makes increased productivity...how?

Probably the same way more work gets done in less time now: changes in processes and technology.

 

[J842P]

I think if the contract is worded "bucket of Kale" instead of "2kg bucket of Kale" then yeah.

I don't know enough about contract law to really comment on that, but regardless, I didn't state anything about a contract. Imagine I have a stand at the farmers market that says "A bucket of kale for $10." Do you think that a mere redefinition would change the economic realities of my kale stand so that now I can afford to charge 33% less for the kale?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Four hours less time spent in harness makes increased productivity...how?

Probably the same way more work gets done in less time now: changes in processes and technology.

That doesn't make any sense. You said that merely changing the hours worked increased productivity. NOW you say it was the tech? Why not just change the tech without dropping the hours?

I'm just leery about a claim that productivity went up without seeing exactly how it was measured. And much more importantly, did business profits go up at the same rate productivity went up? Or anywhere near proportionally?

 

[SimpleDon]

Let's say Congress passed, and the President signed a law mandating a 30-hour work week. Anything worked over 30 hours a week would be subject to overtime pay requirements like we do now with the 40 hour work week.

How would this actually work?

Would hourly wages remain the same so now you have to make due on 10 hours less a week in earning? Or would wages get adjusted so if you were making $500/week working 40 hours you'd still earn $500/week working 30 hours?

While I was living and working in Germany the workweek was reduced from 40 to 36 hours a week with no loss in pay. Most people worked one 40 hour, 5 day week followed by a 32 hour, 4 day workweek. This was coupled with the same 28 days of vacation and 16 holidays that they already had.

The workers traded the shortened work week for two, maybe three years of wage increases, which at that time were averaging about 3% per year. So they gave up about 6% increase in wages for a ten percent decrease in the work week. The employers had to swallow 4%.

We kept pretty good records on productivity. Before the work week change we were improving productivity about 5% per year. That dropped a little, a percent point or two but it returned back to the same afterwards.

Comparing productivity between the German and the US offices the US had a higher productivity per year than the German office, the US office worked more days a year, having an average of 12 fewer vacation days, 5 fewer holidays and what, 22 more work days because of the difference in hours per week. But the German office had higher productivity per hour. The Germans were paid a little less on average than the Americans. When we put it altogether the cost ended up being about the same, amazingly. Everyone thought that the others were over paid or less productive.

This was in the late 1990's. I don't know if the numbers have changed. These were Engineering offices. It is easier to engineer industrial plants in Germany. They rely on vendors to do more of the engineering, vendors tend to supply subsystems more than individual pieces of equipment like they do in the US. And I know that some industries in Germany went back to 40 hours a week,

I just read a study about the French. They went to a 36 hour workweek too about the same time. The study looked at whether the change had resulted in more employment in the country and it had. Many jobs are just being somewhere for 40 hours a week, for example store clerks. When you change to 36 hours a week you need more people, about 10% more. And the study found that more 25 to 50 some year olds were employed at a higher rate than in the US. I am trying to remember where it was, it was only a few days ago.

I was on the executive committee to compare the productivity of the various offices to try to set compensation levels. This is why that I am interested in this subject.

 

[ksen]

Four hours less time spent in harness makes increased productivity...how?

Probably the same way more work gets done in less time now: changes in processes and technology.

That doesn't make any sense. You said that merely changing the hours worked increased productivity.

No I didn't.

NOW you say it was the tech? Why not just change the tech without dropping the hours?

Why not drop hours? There's nothing inherently noble about spending 40+ hours a week at work.

I'm just leery about a claim that productivity went up without seeing exactly how it was measured. And much more importantly, did business profits go up at the same rate productivity went up? Or anywhere near proportionally?

Try google.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's say Congress passed, and the President signed a law mandating a 30-hour work week. Anything worked over 30 hours a week would be subject to overtime pay requirements like we do now with the 40 hour work week.

How would this actually work?

Would hourly wages remain the same so now you have to make due on 10 hours less a week in earning? Or would wages get adjusted so if you were making $500/week working 40 hours you'd still earn $500/week working 30 hours?

Of course you would only get 75% of what you were getting before--and prices would go up besides. (Cutting the workweek cuts labor costs, it doesn't cut capital costs. Unless the company goes with multiple shifts the overhead will be spread over fewer products and thus cost more per product. Furthermore, worker training costs don't go down when they work fewer hours.)

 

[bilby]

If my hours went from the current 37.5/wk to 30/wk, my productivity would stay pretty much exactly the same as it is now. I, (and I suspect, most white collar workers) do not have my nose to the grindstone every minute of the working day; cut my hours, and you would see a disproportionate fraction of the cut taken from goofing off time. Here I am right now, surfing TFT. If I had some unfinished job in my inbox, I would be doing that; but I don't, so I am here, being available if needed.

"Being available if needed" is a larger part of my job than it is for many; but my experience is that a sizable fraction of most white collar jobs falls into that category - If everyone is truly busy, doing urgent and important tasks, then nobody is available to handle the unexpected; few workplaces can handle that level of utilisation.

More importantly for the question at hand, few people can work at 100% intensity for 8 hours straight (with a break for lunch). I can handle about 5 hours of full-on hard work in a row, in my current role, before I am completely exhausted. Fortunately, it is rare to have such a sustained demand; most commonly, I spend between one and three hours on a given new task; and the new jobs come in sufficiently slowly that I have some long breaks between them, which are filled with a variety of less productive tasks - perhaps repeating (for the fifth year in a row) the mandatory training on how it is wrong to steal things from work, and how it is a bad idea to let some scruffy oik through security without asking him for ID; perhaps surfing the net; perhaps chatting to colleagues about the football; or staring out the window; or ringing my optometrist to make an appointment for an eye test.

Everyone works at less than their maximum possible potential (although most people are very keen not to admit this); those who try to work at 100% utilisation, 100% of the time, burn out, go postal, and get to spend five years to life working on something less stressful, like sewing mailbags or stamping out licence plates.

Cutting the work week to 30 hours, for white collar salaried workers, would likely have almost no impact on the amount of work done - the amount of productive work done is already decoupled from the time spent doing it, in both directions - unpaid overtime when it is busy; goofing off when it is quiet.

Only people who are on hourly wages with paid overtime, are going to notice the change. For them, it would be a bigger deal; the most likely effect would be to go from working 50 hours (of which 10 are overtime) to working 35 hours of which 5 are overtime, while the boss hires a new worker to make up the gap - as overtime gets more expensive, hiring more staff to avoid it becomes a more sensible option.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If it's profitable, then companies will do it voluntarily, so no law is necessary.

#12

ksen

Oh, here's an answer from that NY Times article about how France handled hourly wages and the change in work hours:

Still, though companies were given incentives to hire, in the form of rebates and reductions to the country's high social charges, many big manufacturers eschewed them. Instead, they took advantage of flexibility measures included in the work week reduction law to operate more efficiently with the same number of workers. As a result, productivity soared as workers were paid the same amount to work 35 hours instead of 39.

Meanwhile, total payroll costs fell even as hourly wages rose, according to Duval-Kieffer. "For corporations, there have clearly been some positive effects," he said, "notably the ability to lower social charges and to increase flexibility."​

​

Wow!

So then there's no need for any law to reduce the workweek, because employers will do it on their own, voluntarily, since it increases their productivity and profit.

Just show them the proof that it will actually improve their production and cost-per-unit to reduce the hours while paying the same as before (higher hourly wage), and they will do it voluntarily, with no law being necessary.

 

[bilby]

#12

ksen

Oh, here's an answer from that NY Times article about how France handled hourly wages and the change in work hours:

Still, though companies were given incentives to hire, in the form of rebates and reductions to the country's high social charges, many big manufacturers eschewed them. Instead, they took advantage of flexibility measures included in the work week reduction law to operate more efficiently with the same number of workers. As a result, productivity soared as workers were paid the same amount to work 35 hours instead of 39.

Meanwhile, total payroll costs fell even as hourly wages rose, according to Duval-Kieffer. "For corporations, there have clearly been some positive effects," he said, "notably the ability to lower social charges and to increase flexibility."​

​

Wow!

So then there's no need for any law to reduce the workweek, because employers will do it on their own, voluntarily, since it increases their productivity and profit.

Just show them the proof that it will actually improve their production and cost-per-unit to reduce the hours while paying the same as before (higher hourly wage), and they will do it voluntarily, with no law being necessary.

In super-simplistic imaginary utopia world, perhaps.

In the real world, it is quite common for something that would be generally beneficial if done by everyone, to be detrimental to those who do it unilaterally.

You might want to read up on the tragedy of the commons. When Laissez Faire destroys value, regulation is the only way to prevent the destruction - by requiring all parties to act, so that the non-actors cannot take advantage of the actors.

 

[Deepak]

#12

ksen

Oh, here's an answer from that NY Times article about how France handled hourly wages and the change in work hours:

Still, though companies were given incentives to hire, in the form of rebates and reductions to the country's high social charges, many big manufacturers eschewed them. Instead, they took advantage of flexibility measures included in the work week reduction law to operate more efficiently with the same number of workers. As a result, productivity soared as workers were paid the same amount to work 35 hours instead of 39.

Meanwhile, total payroll costs fell even as hourly wages rose, according to Duval-Kieffer. "For corporations, there have clearly been some positive effects," he said, "notably the ability to lower social charges and to increase flexibility."​

​

Wow!

So then there's no need for any law to reduce the workweek, because employers will do it on their own, voluntarily, since it increases their productivity and profit.

Just show them the proof that it will actually improve their production and cost-per-unit to reduce the hours while paying the same as before (higher hourly wage), and they will do it voluntarily, with no law being necessary.

In super-simplistic imaginary utopia world, perhaps.

In the real world, it is quite common for something that would be generally beneficial if done by everyone, to be detrimental to those who do it unilaterally.

You might want to read up on the tragedy of the commons. When Laissez Faire destroys value, regulation is the only way to prevent the destruction - by requiring all parties to act, so that the non-actors cannot take advantage of the actors.

Wait, what? Paid labor by definition can't be an unregulated common because it's (a) paid for and (b) privately owned.

Labor can be exploited if companies collude to reduce wages, effectively reducing their production costs, but in the proposed scenario there is no tangible benefit to keeping people at work. They would either realize higher ROI if they maintain productivity with a commensurate reduction in wages or attract better talent by keeping current wage levels. Not to mention reduced costs for things like keeping the lights on.

 

[bigfield]

Let's say Congress passed, and the President signed a law mandating a 30-hour work week. Anything worked over 30 hours a week would be subject to overtime pay requirements like we do now with the 40 hour work week.

How would this actually work?

Would hourly wages remain the same so now you have to make due on 10 hours less a week in earning? Or would wages get adjusted so if you were making $500/week working 40 hours you'd still earn $500/week working 30 hours?

It depends greatly on the sector. Wages certainly would not get adjusted like you describe as it would put a lot of small businesses under, because they cannot absorb the reduction in staff hours.

In order to bring in such a measure you would need to do it gradually, with small decrements in the working week and small increments in the hourly wage. The overtime penalty would also need to be reduced, or at least made multi-tier, to allow businesses to remain staffed Monday to Friday, 9 to 5.

 

[ksen]

It depends greatly on the sector. Wages certainly would not get adjusted like you describe as it would put a lot of small businesses under, because they cannot absorb the reduction in staff hours.

Congress could work in some sort of measures to help small businesses offset any increased costs. I think they did that in France when they shortened their work week.

In order to bring in such a measure you would need to do it gradually, with small decrements in the working week and small increments in the hourly wage. The overtime penalty would also need to be reduced, or at least made multi-tier, to allow businesses to remain staffed Monday to Friday, 9 to 5.

Why do businesses have to remain staffed M-F, 9 to 5?

 

[bilby]

Congress could work in some sort of measures to help small businesses offset any increased costs. I think they did that in France when they shortened their work week.

In order to bring in such a measure you would need to do it gradually, with small decrements in the working week and small increments in the hourly wage. The overtime penalty would also need to be reduced, or at least made multi-tier, to allow businesses to remain staffed Monday to Friday, 9 to 5.

Why do businesses have to remain staffed M-F, 9 to 5?

Because those hours are special and magical.

 

[bilby]

#12

ksen

Oh, here's an answer from that NY Times article about how France handled hourly wages and the change in work hours:

Still, though companies were given incentives to hire, in the form of rebates and reductions to the country's high social charges, many big manufacturers eschewed them. Instead, they took advantage of flexibility measures included in the work week reduction law to operate more efficiently with the same number of workers. As a result, productivity soared as workers were paid the same amount to work 35 hours instead of 39.

Meanwhile, total payroll costs fell even as hourly wages rose, according to Duval-Kieffer. "For corporations, there have clearly been some positive effects," he said, "notably the ability to lower social charges and to increase flexibility."​

​

Wow!

So then there's no need for any law to reduce the workweek, because employers will do it on their own, voluntarily, since it increases their productivity and profit.

Just show them the proof that it will actually improve their production and cost-per-unit to reduce the hours while paying the same as before (higher hourly wage), and they will do it voluntarily, with no law being necessary.

In super-simplistic imaginary utopia world, perhaps.

In the real world, it is quite common for something that would be generally beneficial if done by everyone, to be detrimental to those who do it unilaterally.

You might want to read up on the tragedy of the commons. When Laissez Faire destroys value, regulation is the only way to prevent the destruction - by requiring all parties to act, so that the non-actors cannot take advantage of the actors.

Wait, what? Paid labor by definition can't be an unregulated common because it's (a) paid for and (b) privately owned.

Labor can be exploited if companies collude to reduce wages, effectively reducing their production costs, but in the proposed scenario there is no tangible benefit to keeping people at work. They would either realize higher ROI if they maintain productivity with a commensurate reduction in wages or attract better talent by keeping current wage levels. Not to mention reduced costs for things like keeping the lights on.

The real world gives no damn for definitions. Every definition in economics needs the caveat "...although in reality, things are more complex than that."

People - both workers and managers - are not logical, and are not driven only by reasoned consideration of the costs and benefits of various options.

Actually, I am not suggesting that paid labour IS an unregulated common for the purposes of tragedy; although I remain open to the possibility that it might effectively behave as such, regardless of any 'argument by definition' to the contrary.

I am drawing a longer bow - perhaps that would have been clearer had I written "In the real world, it is quite common for something that would be generally beneficial if done by everyone, to be detrimental to those who do it unilaterally.

For one example of this effect you might want to read up on the tragedy of the commons. When Laissez Faire destroys value, regulation is the only way to prevent the destruction - by requiring all parties to act, so that the non-actors cannot take advantage of the actors."

My first paragraph does not depend upon the second; rather the second presents a commonly known example of the more general class of actions described in the first. It is, in sum, a rebuttal of the general class of argument presented: "Just show them the proof ... and they will do it voluntarily, with no law being necessary."

That argument is fundamentally flawed, and as such carries no weight whatsoever.

 

[J842P]

Congress could work in some sort of measures to help small businesses offset any increased costs. I think they did that in France when they shortened their work week.

Well, according to the article posted previously, France allowed small businesses (less than 20 employees I believe) to ease into the new requirements over a longer time scale. Regardless, there's not much in the form of measures that could offset increased costs except for subsidies. Most business would probably just avoid the increased costs by cutting peoples hours, if we are talking about waged employees.

Wouldn't it be much more efficient to simply have a universal basic income?

 

[bigfield]

Congress could work in some sort of measures to help small businesses offset any increased costs. I think they did that in France when they shortened their work week.

In order to bring in such a measure you would need to do it gradually, with small decrements in the working week and small increments in the hourly wage. The overtime penalty would also need to be reduced, or at least made multi-tier, to allow businesses to remain staffed Monday to Friday, 9 to 5.

Why do businesses have to remain staffed M-F, 9 to 5?

Because that's when customers come in and deliveries arrive, for one thing. It's not a constraint that applies to all businesses.

- - - Updated - - -

Congress could work in some sort of measures to help small businesses offset any increased costs. I think they did that in France when they shortened their work week.

Unless it involves paying the overtime loading for those businesses, then I'm not sure what kind of measure you are talking about.

 

[Deepak]

#12

ksen

Oh, here's an answer from that NY Times article about how France handled hourly wages and the change in work hours:

Still, though companies were given incentives to hire, in the form of rebates and reductions to the country's high social charges, many big manufacturers eschewed them. Instead, they took advantage of flexibility measures included in the work week reduction law to operate more efficiently with the same number of workers. As a result, productivity soared as workers were paid the same amount to work 35 hours instead of 39.

Meanwhile, total payroll costs fell even as hourly wages rose, according to Duval-Kieffer. "For corporations, there have clearly been some positive effects," he said, "notably the ability to lower social charges and to increase flexibility."​

​

Wow!

So then there's no need for any law to reduce the workweek, because employers will do it on their own, voluntarily, since it increases their productivity and profit.

Just show them the proof that it will actually improve their production and cost-per-unit to reduce the hours while paying the same as before (higher hourly wage), and they will do it voluntarily, with no law being necessary.

In super-simplistic imaginary utopia world, perhaps.

In the real world, it is quite common for something that would be generally beneficial if done by everyone, to be detrimental to those who do it unilaterally.

You might want to read up on the tragedy of the commons. When Laissez Faire destroys value, regulation is the only way to prevent the destruction - by requiring all parties to act, so that the non-actors cannot take advantage of the actors.

Wait, what? Paid labor by definition can't be an unregulated common because it's (a) paid for and (b) privately owned.

Labor can be exploited if companies collude to reduce wages, effectively reducing their production costs, but in the proposed scenario there is no tangible benefit to keeping people at work. They would either realize higher ROI if they maintain productivity with a commensurate reduction in wages or attract better talent by keeping current wage levels. Not to mention reduced costs for things like keeping the lights on.

The real world gives no damn for definitions. Every definition in economics needs the caveat "...although in reality, things are more complex than that."

People - both workers and managers - are not logical, and are not driven only by reasoned consideration of the costs and benefits of various options.

Actually, I am not suggesting that paid labour IS an unregulated common for the purposes of tragedy; although I remain open to the possibility that it might effectively behave as such, regardless of any 'argument by definition' to the contrary.

I am drawing a longer bow - perhaps that would have been clearer had I written "In the real world, it is quite common for something that would be generally beneficial if done by everyone, to be detrimental to those who do it unilaterally.

For one example of this effect you might want to read up on the tragedy of the commons. When Laissez Faire destroys value, regulation is the only way to prevent the destruction - by requiring all parties to act, so that the non-actors cannot take advantage of the actors."

My first paragraph does not depend upon the second; rather the second presents a commonly known example of the more general class of actions described in the first. It is, in sum, a rebuttal of the general class of argument presented: "Just show them the proof ... and they will do it voluntarily, with no law being necessary."

That argument is fundamentally flawed, and as such carries no weight whatsoever.

Yeah, no.

You haven't shown what possible detrimental effect could possibly befall the unilateral implementer and this scenario in no way mirrors the tragedy of the commons, apart from your unsubstantiated claim that it is irrational.

My second paragraph does not depend on the first.

Assuming I don't understand when I disagree is a bit short-bowed when you're committing the error you're accusing me of.

 

[bilby]

#12

ksen

Oh, here's an answer from that NY Times article about how France handled hourly wages and the change in work hours:

Still, though companies were given incentives to hire, in the form of rebates and reductions to the country's high social charges, many big manufacturers eschewed them. Instead, they took advantage of flexibility measures included in the work week reduction law to operate more efficiently with the same number of workers. As a result, productivity soared as workers were paid the same amount to work 35 hours instead of 39.

Meanwhile, total payroll costs fell even as hourly wages rose, according to Duval-Kieffer. "For corporations, there have clearly been some positive effects," he said, "notably the ability to lower social charges and to increase flexibility."​

​

Wow!

So then there's no need for any law to reduce the workweek, because employers will do it on their own, voluntarily, since it increases their productivity and profit.

Just show them the proof that it will actually improve their production and cost-per-unit to reduce the hours while paying the same as before (higher hourly wage), and they will do it voluntarily, with no law being necessary.

In super-simplistic imaginary utopia world, perhaps.

In the real world, it is quite common for something that would be generally beneficial if done by everyone, to be detrimental to those who do it unilaterally.

You might want to read up on the tragedy of the commons. When Laissez Faire destroys value, regulation is the only way to prevent the destruction - by requiring all parties to act, so that the non-actors cannot take advantage of the actors.

Wait, what? Paid labor by definition can't be an unregulated common because it's (a) paid for and (b) privately owned.

Labor can be exploited if companies collude to reduce wages, effectively reducing their production costs, but in the proposed scenario there is no tangible benefit to keeping people at work. They would either realize higher ROI if they maintain productivity with a commensurate reduction in wages or attract better talent by keeping current wage levels. Not to mention reduced costs for things like keeping the lights on.

The real world gives no damn for definitions. Every definition in economics needs the caveat "...although in reality, things are more complex than that."

People - both workers and managers - are not logical, and are not driven only by reasoned consideration of the costs and benefits of various options.

Actually, I am not suggesting that paid labour IS an unregulated common for the purposes of tragedy; although I remain open to the possibility that it might effectively behave as such, regardless of any 'argument by definition' to the contrary.

I am drawing a longer bow - perhaps that would have been clearer had I written "In the real world, it is quite common for something that would be generally beneficial if done by everyone, to be detrimental to those who do it unilaterally.

For one example of this effect you might want to read up on the tragedy of the commons. When Laissez Faire destroys value, regulation is the only way to prevent the destruction - by requiring all parties to act, so that the non-actors cannot take advantage of the actors."

My first paragraph does not depend upon the second; rather the second presents a commonly known example of the more general class of actions described in the first. It is, in sum, a rebuttal of the general class of argument presented: "Just show them the proof ... and they will do it voluntarily, with no law being necessary."

That argument is fundamentally flawed, and as such carries no weight whatsoever.

Yeah, no.

You haven't shown what possible detrimental effect could possibly befall the unilateral implementer and this scenario in no way mirrors the tragedy of the commons, apart from your unsubstantiated claim that it is irrational.

My second paragraph does not depend on the first.

Assuming I don't understand when I disagree is a bit short-bowed when you're committing the error you're accusing me of.

So do you consider arguments of the form "Just show them the proof ... and they will do it voluntarily, with no law being necessary" to be universally applicable?

If so, you are a fool; if not, you have failed to understand what I am trying to say, and you are wasting my time and yours on a typically stupid Internet fight over trivial side issues.

If you agree with my main point, but think my examples are poorly chosen, then that's fine, but it is a derail, and I am not interested in discussing it further.

 

[barbos]

I don't know if it was mentioned but shorter work week will in principle reduce unemployment and since working people effectively pay unemployed, the overall wage could stay more less the same.
Also shorter hours could shift job distribution toward more productive and less wasteful.
I mean with productivity going higher and higher there is less demand for actually meaningful jobs and people are forced to invent new meaningless desk jobs like accounting, tax specialists, personal trainers (for people who are too fat from sitting and doing taxes all day), used cars dealers, dog walkers, banksters, politicians, Fox News personalities, etc.

 

[Canard DuJour]

#12

ksen

Oh, here's an answer from that NY Times article about how France handled hourly wages and the change in work hours:

Still, though companies were given incentives to hire, in the form of rebates and reductions to the country's high social charges, many big manufacturers eschewed them. Instead, they took advantage of flexibility measures included in the work week reduction law to operate more efficiently with the same number of workers. As a result, productivity soared as workers were paid the same amount to work 35 hours instead of 39.

Meanwhile, total payroll costs fell even as hourly wages rose, according to Duval-Kieffer. "For corporations, there have clearly been some positive effects," he said, "notably the ability to lower social charges and to increase flexibility."​

​

Wow!

So then there's no need for any law to reduce the workweek, because employers will do it on their own, voluntarily, since it increases their productivity and profit.

Just show them the proof that it will actually improve their production and cost-per-unit to reduce the hours while paying the same as before (higher hourly wage), and they will do it voluntarily, with no law being necessary.

In super-simplistic imaginary utopia world, perhaps.

In the real world, it is quite common for something that would be generally beneficial if done by everyone, to be detrimental to those who do it unilaterally.

You might want to read up on the tragedy of the commons. When Laissez Faire destroys value, regulation is the only way to prevent the destruction - by requiring all parties to act, so that the non-actors cannot take advantage of the actors.

Wait, what? Paid labor by definition can't be an unregulated common because it's (a) paid for and (b) privately owned.

Labor can be exploited if companies collude to reduce wages, effectively reducing their production costs, but in the proposed scenario there is no tangible benefit to keeping people at work. They would either realize higher ROI if they maintain productivity with a commensurate reduction in wages or attract better talent by keeping current wage levels. Not to mention reduced costs for things like keeping the lights on.

The real world gives no damn for definitions. Every definition in economics needs the caveat "...although in reality, things are more complex than that."

People - both workers and managers - are not logical, and are not driven only by reasoned consideration of the costs and benefits of various options.

Actually, I am not suggesting that paid labour IS an unregulated common for the purposes of tragedy; although I remain open to the possibility that it might effectively behave as such, regardless of any 'argument by definition' to the contrary.

I am drawing a longer bow - perhaps that would have been clearer had I written "In the real world, it is quite common for something that would be generally beneficial if done by everyone, to be detrimental to those who do it unilaterally.

For one example of this effect you might want to read up on the tragedy of the commons. When Laissez Faire destroys value, regulation is the only way to prevent the destruction - by requiring all parties to act, so that the non-actors cannot take advantage of the actors."

My first paragraph does not depend upon the second; rather the second presents a commonly known example of the more general class of actions described in the first. It is, in sum, a rebuttal of the general class of argument presented: "Just show them the proof ... and they will do it voluntarily, with no law being necessary."

That argument is fundamentally flawed, and as such carries no weight whatsoever.

Yeah, no.

You haven't shown what possible detrimental effect could possibly befall the unilateral implementer and this scenario in no way mirrors the tragedy of the commons, apart from your unsubstantiated claim that it is irrational.

My second paragraph does not depend on the first.

Assuming I don't understand when I disagree is a bit short-bowed when you're committing the error you're accusing me of.

Productivity as in output per man hour typically rises as people have to work fewer hours over a given period (unless you're on a real cushy number like bilby ). If the same total man hours per society were worked by more people working fewer hours, there'd be less unemployment, flatter income distribution and more goods and services to distribute. But any individual firm unilaterally reducing hours and increasing hourly wages accordingly would put itself at a competitive disadvantage.

It's commonplace in multi-agent scenarios for the questions What if I did x? and What if everyone did x? to have very different - even opposite - answers. Hence "tragedy of the commons" (or prisoner's dilemma or whatever ya prefer to call it). The solution is usually rules or social conventions of some kind.

Unfortunately with workhours in today's global labour market, the rules would have to be global to create the necessary even playing field. Which ain't gonna happen any time soon.