A Simple Solution

Here's an intriguing thought: what if I could solve all of our problems with one simple solution?

Well here it is, the solution to all of our troubles: Decrease weekly working hours while keeping yearly salaries the same.

How does this solve our problems, you ask?  While it may sound great to those who don't want to work as much, I'm sure others will quickly think of lots of problems with this plan.  The following is my reasoning of how it would help.

(PS: I did no research/number-crunching for this.  It is merely an interesting thought meant as a discussion point.)


Economy:
All of the current "fixes" for the economy will not truly fix it.  They might help it in the short-term, but something drastic needs to happen for the long-term.  The current economy is built on the premise of infinite production and infinite growth.  Last I checked, we live on a finite planet with finite resources.  Even if recycling and reuse efforts were increased, not everything fits into these categories.  At any given point in time (i.e. ignoring inflation), there is a finite amount of money as well.  During the presidential campaigns, people were saying they don't believe in "redistribution" with regards to money (generally in context of taxes).  Well, guess what?  They do.  Redistribution is basically just moving money around from one entity to another.  What is the biggest provider of this?  The economy.  And currently, the money seems to be flowing from the bottom to the top overall.  The percentage of the finite money held at the top increases with each given year.  Unfortunately, the people at the top seem to be falling victim to the "finite money" problem as well.  If they hold all (or most) of the money, how can people continue to buy products and services?  At some point, money has to move down in order for it to be able to move back up.  What's the easiest way to redistribute that money downward?  Well, you could use taxes and welfare/unemployment support.  But, no one likes the government to interfere.  Well, the only other way is to pay workers.  If they are paid with a livable salary, then they won't need government assistance.

The current system promotes quantity over quality.  The more you sell, the more you make.  Quality products last longer, decreasing the need for replaces and, therefore, sales.  It also happens with services.  The more clients one employee can take care of, the fewer workers are needed, and the higher profits will be.  This leads to poorer service.  The big challenge of moving to a quality over quantity system is needed.

Much is made about jobs being lost overseas, but what about jobs lost due to technology?  Assembly lines are now full of machinery that can provide more consistent results faster.  Eventually, technology will take over foreign factory jobs as it becomes increasingly cheaper to buy.

Another problem that compounds this is the growing population and overall increase in education.  It's basically supply and demand.  The supply of (hopefully) qualified workers continues to grow.  This means the demand weakens and companies can get away with giving lower salaries.  "You want more money?  I'll hire this other guy instead."  The supply and demand concept is fine for products, but when you're dealing with people and their livelihoods, it's probably not the best thing.  Ask the overseas assembly line workers.  Even with older workers retiring, the younger generation is larger and could fill those positions and then some.  Retirement is also being delayed as general health and lifespans increase.

In short, an economy based on "infinites" located on a finite world is not sustainable.  With an ever expanding population, jobs will continue to be at a shortage since workers are retiring later and manual labor is being replaced by technology.  A growing and more education population should be expected to lead to lower wages as supply exceeds demand.  Lower wages means that more money is being kept at the top and not moving back down to keep the cycle going.

By reducing working hours, you are forcing companies to hire more people and create more jobs (assuming they didn't just increase workloads further).  By keeping (or making) wages high enough to cover living expenses, you don't have as many people dependent on government assistance.  If this were coupled with an increased effort for quality over quantity, you could also open more jobs to reduce workloads.  There's a side effect that could come with this as well.  If people are able to focus more on each task, they can do a better job.  If they don't have to spend as much time at work, maybe they'll focus better and be more productive.  By reducing hours, you could hopefully reduce some of the "idle" time that people spend at work.


Health:
Decreasing the pressure on workers would go a long way towards better general health.  I'm a strong believer that mental and physical health are closely tied together.  It seems like the most common complaint people have these days is a lack of time.  By reducing working hours, you give people more time to spend with family and on other activities.  Want parents to be more involved with their kids' education?  Give them a few extra hours at home.  Want people to eat more healthily?  Give them time to cook meals or grow gardens.  Those who wanted a better job would also have a better chance at obtaining the education/training required.  More people could have a chance to get up and be active rather than spending countless hours at a desk and then being to tired to move when they get home.  People would likely be happier overall (except workaholics, but they could keep working anyway) since they'd have more time to spend on hobbies and on things that they enjoy.  Happier people are generally going to have better physical health as well.


Environment:
This one is the most likely to see more negative effects than positive.  Of course, you could get more people into gardening and growing their own food.  On the downside, you'd likely end up with more traffic unless public transport increases.  However, this shouldn't be too expensive for a government that spends less on welfare and health, right?  You could also end up with more people traveling around in general.  If you get rid of the quantity over quality mindset, there could be less production and better resource management.  Ideally, the economy would move to a more service based system at some point anyway.  By giving more people the ability to go out and explore the world, you could help make them more conscience of the world around them.  This could help conservation efforts.


War/conflict:
Well, people are probably less likely to fight if they're happier.  It seems to me that most people just want to provide for themselves and their families and spend the rest of their time doing what they enjoy.  With decreased natural resource demands, you would have less conflict over those areas.  Better land management could help, but that's not exactly a direct result of lowering working hours.  Mostly, the major thing that would help this is tolerance and decreased populations.  As much as I'd like it to, I don't think this one's going away any time soon unfortunately. :(



Of course, there are ways that this could all backfire and make the entire situation worse.  Regardless, it's an interesting thought to consider.