Do Longer Hours Equate to Greater Productivity?

[Mark]

One of President Sarkozy's election pledges was to enact legislation to allow French businesses to extend the working hours of their staff, in the hope of boosting the French economy.

Setting aside the question of whether M. Sarkozy will be able to get this through the French legislature, does extended working hours to, say 40 hours a week, really increase productivity that much? Are there any precedents for changes in work hours which have shown interesting results or have in fact made no difference to the health of an economy?

[Tom Sawyer]

You'd start gettng diminishing returns at some point, but I'm not really sure what that point would be.

Some people are able to work for 60 hours a week and be productive for most of it. Others would work a 35 hour week and spend 33 of those hours slacking off. I'm not really sure where the median would be.

I really don't see how changing it from 35 to 40 hours would make much of a difference. Those who are motivated to do their jobs will still work hard and those who are not will just slack off a few more hours a week.

The change that really needs to be made is to allow companies to fire employees more easily, so they can get rid of the deadwood that clutters up the payroll and hire people who want to be there.

[CanoeMan]

Or reward individual hard work? Like say, a monthly bonus system or something? So that your paycheck actyally represented what you did, and not just what you were supposed to do.

[Rudolph]

The problem is that employers discourage overtime in France because it costs them too much! AFAIK, employers pay the same amount of money to the government in taxes as they do their employees (in itself quite insane)... And since overtime pays more money, as a result, the tax burden on employers also increases.
Furthermore, the 35 hours a week thing was/is designed for civil servants... loads of people in France work longer hours than that! So this may well be one of Sarkozy's few policies I would back.

[B Cereus]

I do recall that on NPR's "Marketplace" a few years ago, they stated that the US does have higher productivity because Americans work longer and more hours than other countries. Sorry I don't have the reference for it, though.

[Nice Squirrel]

Since this thread is primarily about economic theory and productivity it is being moved up to PE&ST

[Laurentius]

Setting aside the question of whether M. Sarkozy will be able to get this through the French legislature, does extended working hours to, say 40 hours a week, really increase productivity that much?

Good question. I remember reading somewhere that in average French employees are less productive than German ones. If I were Sarkozy ;) I would not seek profitability through longer working hours.

[toth8]

But why does Sarkozy need to improve productivity?

Productivity, if defined as GDP per worker, is already amongst the highest of the G8 nations. The problems are unemployment and economic growth, if anything. As such this is why Sarkozy is saying that Britain should be an example to France. Under Thatcher Britain liberalised its economy and has done well since. This is probably the solution for France, Germany, Italy as G8 economies with have experienced slow growth over the past decade.

[Laurentius]

But why does Sarkozy need to improve productivity?
Productivity, if defined as GDP per worker, is already amongst the highest of the G8 nations. The problems are unemployment and economic growth, if anything.

Well, exactly. If unemployment and economic growth are addressed properly, the recent social problems will abate.

[Amedeo]

One of President Sarkozy's election pledges was to enact legislation to allow French businesses to extend the working hours of their staff, in the hope of boosting the French economy.

Setting aside the question of whether M. Sarkozy will be able to get this through the French legislature, does extended working hours to, say 40 hours a week, really increase productivity that much? Are there any precedents for changes in work hours which have shown interesting results or have in fact made no difference to the health of an economy?

I wish you gave more detailed information, for the word 'productivity" covers a multitude of sins, so to speak.

To say that a country needs an increase in productivity means only one thing: The country, as a whole, wishes to buy products which are not available on the market. Productivity is the production of goods and services that sell. An economy is not improved by producing more, but by producing selleable goods -- which requires either the establishing of new businesses, or a greater employment in existing business, or longer working hours in a business.

The expedient of increasing the working hours can mean different things in different businesses. For example, in New York City, Sanitation men are required to work extra hours when there is need for for work (such as plowing snow with the City trucks). They get paid overtime and, at night or on holidays, double time. On the other hand, The chancellors of the City try to get teachers to work an extra hour or more (so that the babies can learn more, or can be baby-sat for a longer period of time) at no additional pay at all. So, probably what they want to do in France is to have workers produce for an extra hour at no additional cost. So, businesses save money (by not paying for the extra work) and gain more by selling more goods than usual [on the supposition that the additional products will sell at all]. // In all this, the amount of money in the country remains constant, but more is channeled into the business owners, away from the people who do the work. So, the economy is improved for the minority of the population, and the unemployed people remain unemployed (and a burden on the tax-payers). A fantastic solution for the benefit of some people!

[Mark]

Well in this particular case, I'm thinking specifically of M. Sarkozy's motives for trying to increase French working hours.

[Metaphor]

Overall 'production' may increase but productivity per person working-hour would decrease.

[unrealist42]

Productivity can be improved by just making people work more hours thus getting more out of fixed costs with a marginal increase in variable costs.

But there is a limit to this.
Making people work longer hours will generate short term gains in productivity that will cause many businesses to forego other investments that will generate long term productivity growth. Once these short tem gains have been rung out these businesses will find themselves behind their peers who have invested for the long term.

In other words, it is a quick fix but a bad idea.

[Nitrousoxide]

The productivity curve starts out low. 5 hours or less a week means you spend most of your time at the job just getting setup to work rather than working.

It goes up from there and continues to rise until your average overall productivity is above your instantaneous productivity. It then starts to drop. The point at which this happens varies from person to person and from culture to culture.

Personally, I peak in my productivity after a couple of hours of work. I'm pretty damn lazy and find most every chance I can get to slack off after that point.

Socialism would be kinda nice. I'd never need to work another day in my life. I could let all everyone else support my lifestyle.

[toth8]

Well in this particular case, I'm thinking specifically of M. Sarkozy's motives for trying to increase French working hours.

Because France has been one of the weakest growing G8 members of the past decade.

[Canard DuJour]

Gupta works 84 hrs / week to produce 10 chairs.

Guy works 36 hrs / week to produce 8 chairs.

Who is the most productive?

Gupta is paid less than half what Guy is paid to produce said chairs for the same market.

Who is the most productive?


If productivity has anything to do with efficiency and human utility, the proper measure is output per man-hour. Not some rarefied and misleading mean of objects and cost per head. The French are already among the most productive workers in the world. What M. Sarkozy and his ilk mean by "productivity" is how little people can be induced to work more hours for.

[French Prometheus]

Productivity: GDP (PPP) per capita per hour worked (2006) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita_per_hour) (in international dollars)

1 Norway 39.66
2 Luxembourg 36.56
3 France 35.72
4 United States 35.29
5 Ireland 35.04
6 Belgium 34.17
7 The Netherlands 32.54
8 Austria 31.80
9 Sweden 30.86
10 Denmark 30.66
11 United Kingdom 30.13
12 Germany 29.44
13 Finland 29.17
14 Italy 28.97
15 Australia 27.91
16 Canada 27.90
17 Switzerland 27.44
18 Japan 25.61
19 Iceland 24.60
20 Hong Kong 24.58

[Canard DuJour]

Productivity: GDP (PPP) per capita per hour worked (2006) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita_per_hour) (in international dollars)

1 Norway 39.66
2 Luxembourg 36.56
3 France 35.72
4 United States 35.29
5 Ireland 35.04
6 Belgium 34.17
7 The Netherlands 32.54
8 Austria 31.80
9 Sweden 30.86
10 Denmark 30.66
11 United Kingdom 30.13
12 Germany 29.44
13 Finland 29.17
14 Italy 28.97
15 Australia 27.91
16 Canada 27.90
17 Switzerland 27.44
18 Japan 25.61
19 Iceland 24.60
20 Hong Kong 24.58

Le voila. Only 2 countries ahead of France. If productivity were the problem, M. Sarkhozy would be trying to make his country more like them, not less.

Perhaps he should be honest enough to say 'Sorry folks, but thanks to people like me, you're in a race to the bottom with near-slaves in the far east and productivity aint gonna save you.'

[French Prometheus]

Yeah, but then people elected him to rid France of illegal immigrants who wanna "take our jobs, torch our cars and spread radical Islam"...

What a bunch of suckers :rolleyes:

[Trout]

Can someone tell me how an obsession with increased productivity measured as it generally is, makes life better for everyone exactly?

Oh, and I'd appreciate a direct line of reasoning instead of broad economic theory such as: Increased productivity achieves X which then leads to Y and further on to Z which evertually makes it's way around to XYZ and poof we're all happier.

[coloradoatheist]

They don't necessarily result in greater productivity however up to a point increasing hours worked brings in greater rewards than costs for the employee. When French moved to a 35 hour work week people initially moved to companies not affected by that and eventually people had to work two jobs. The shorter week also had an effect on employment and with 10% unemployment and close to 25% unemployment among unskilled workers there's unrest in France.

Mike

[French Prometheus]

When French moved to a 35 hour work week people initially moved to companies not affected by that and eventually people had to work two jobs.
Got a source for that?

[coloradoatheist]

Got a source for that?

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/wp06251.pdf

Mike

[ashaktur]

Le voila. Only 2 countries ahead of France. If productivity were the problem, M. Sarkhozy would be trying to make his country more like them, not less.


And of those two countries - neither result is a true reflection given Norway's oil reserves which inflate its GDP and Luxembourg which is not a real country. So France is #1 in productivity.

But of course, GDP is based on productivity per hour X number of hours worked, which explains why the French aren't the world's best economy. If you worked more like Australians (we work the longest hours in the world - ahead of the US at number 2) then you would kick some arse.

[ashaktur]

Can someone tell me how an obsession with increased productivity measured as it generally is, makes life better for everyone exactly?


increased productivity = increased economic growth = increased satisfaction of material wants.

I can't make it any easier for you than that.

[Canard DuJour]

If you worked more like Australians (we work the longest hours in the world - ahead of the US at number 2) then you would kick some arse.

You'd also spend most of your one and only life at work. More like having your arse kicked.

[Bonniedundee]

increased productivity = increased economic growth = increased satisfaction of material wants.

I can't make it any easier for you than that.

This is incorrect.

The freeedom to choose and to take what action you want as long as it doesn't coerce anyone is what satisies material wants, there is no point in some centralised authority using coercion to increase "productivity" in order to satisfy consumer wants as this very coercion decreases this ability, only the freedom to choose in the absence of legitimised coercion can really satisfy the most wants.

[French Prometheus]

If you worked more like Australians (we work the longest hours in the world - ahead of the US at number 2) then you would kick some arse.

You'd also spend most of your one and only life at work. More like having your arse kicked.

I'm also not sure that our productivity would remain so high if we worked a lot more.

In 2003, I went on a one-month scientific cooperation mission in South Korea. When I wasn't attending conferences, I was working at a university lab. People there would "work" close to 14 hours a day, 6 days a week. But they spent more than half of that time surfing the net and playing video games. My research (for my PhD) didn't make much progress during that month but my Starcraft skills sure improved a lot.

[Canard DuJour]

I'm also not sure that our productivity would remain so high if we worked a lot more.

In 2003, I went on a one-month scientific cooperation mission in South Korea. When I wasn't attending conferences, I was working at a university lab. People there would "work" close to 14 hours a day, 6 days a week. But they spent more than half of that time surfing the net and playing video games. My research (for my PhD) didn't make much progress during that month but my Starcraft skills sure improved a lot.

Totally agree. Productivity falls off after so many hours and people become more prone to mistakes and accidents.

Astonishing, eh? :rolleyes:.

Nevertheless, it's still often more profitable to have fewer cheap workers doing more hours. Ideally, in this view of productivity, workers would be expendable.

[ashaktur]

I'm also not sure that our productivity would remain so high if we worked a lot more.


I agree, productivity would likely fall, but the net end effect would depend on whether the increase in hours outstripped the fall in productivity.

But having high unemployment like France does must be a significant drain on the productive part of your economy. It would also likely result in higher levels of crime.

[ashaktur]

This is incorrect.

Well, if you are going to argue that, you actually have to address the post.


The freeedom to choose and to take what action you want as long as it doesn't coerce anyone is what satisies material wants,

Satisfying material wants has nothing to do with coercion or freedom to choose anything. I am not sure what you are trying to argue here. You seem to have a very strange view of what productivity actually is.


there is no point in some centralised authority using coercion to increase "productivity" in order to satisfy consumer wants as this very coercion decreases this ability, only the freedom to choose in the absence of legitimised coercion can really satisfy the most wants.

Why is coercion necessary to increase productivity? Was anyone coerced into using PCs? Have PCs increased office productivity?

[premjan]

Working hours should be increased only upto the point that productivity is not affected.

[ashaktur]

You'd also spend most of your one and only life at work. More like having your arse kicked.

But you would only waste your leisure time anyway so what's the difference?

[Canard DuJour]

But you would only waste your leisure time anyway so what's the difference?

This (http://www.jrf.org.uk/pressroom/releases/041196.asp). Your employer might get the extra work hours cheap, but you and your family pay the price.