What Happened to Increasingly Shorter Workweeks?

So, how many hours long was the average workweek for American workers throughout industrial history?

In 1830, that was 70.

In 1880, that was 60.

In 1930, that was 50.

In 1950, that was 40.

In 1970, that was 30.
Uh, sorry. Actually, still 40.

In 1990, that was 20.
Errr, nope. Still 40. My bad.

And now, it's almost as low as 15 just like Keynes predicted!
[flipping through notes, sweating profusely]
Wait a second… No it isn't. It's still 40.

So, what happened? Why did the length of the workweek suddenly stop decreasing in the post-war era? There was a significant increase in the rhythm at which hours decreased during the interwar period, then it just stopped working. Why?

Sources:

eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/
thebalance.com/what-is-the-average-hours-per-week-worked-in-the-us-2060631
econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf

Other urls found in this thread:

libcom.org/library/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-graeber
thenextrecession.wordpress.com/
thecharnelhouse.org/2016/07/05/against-political-determinism/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It's the limit. You can't work less than 40 hours. There is no alternative.
Delete this.

David Graeber wrote about this
libcom.org/library/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-graeber
tl/dr proles having more leisure time is bad for porky

Not only this, but we are laboring in our leisure time as well. Posting on the internet or even merely browsing it contributes to the symbolic economy.

I can definitely see how that would benefit Porky, but what I fail to understand is why the phenomenon all but stopped. I mean, proles with more leisure time didn't please Porky more in 1930 than it did today, still workers were able to force them to give in to their demands in a way that simply doesn't seem to work anymore today.

What about overtime, though?

This post made me laugh — then I realized Porky could make that claim unironically and still get away with it, cried and finally puked.

Since the 30s the unions were killed, its pretty much that simple.

There's an explanation for this if you read Marx. Assuming the LTV holds true (only labor in the abstract creates value and therefore it is the only source of profit in the economy on aggregate), an increase in the productive forces (the non-labor part of capital) will lead to an overall decrease in the rate of profit. This is called the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (TRPF). This is just a tendency, as there are counteracting forces to increase the rate again. One of the ways the profit rate can increase is to make the working day longer. Increases in the working day are fought over by organized labor (see the French riots over 30->40 hour workweeks). Crises are another way of capital restoring profit rates. I don't think we'll be seeing a decrease any time soon. Working weeks are actually slowly increasing in some sectors instead.

Ideology

That's basically a minimum these days for a regular salaried employee
I'd say most probably work 60 or so

That's interesting. But it doesn't explain why organized labor suddenly couldn't achieve what it was successful at for the past century.

Labor hours were only ever reduced because militant workers forced the bosses to compromise. After World War Two there was no real political opposition to capitalism in the west because muh great prosperity and Keynesianism was so effective in raising the living standards.

Also nobody is afraid of revolution nowadays and so they don't even concede socdem measures.

This isn't just a bad timeline, this is a cursed timeline.

Porky is really trying to keep that rate of profit up.

You're just lazy.

But shouldn't raising living standards involve or even imply a shorter workweek? Weren't American workers suspicious of this trend?

Protestant work ethic is one hell of a drug

Here, you dropped your shitposting flag.

Shortening working weeks would eat into the profits made by capitalists. It would likely cause a decrease in investments made (which is actually happening right now anyway). Decreases in investments made are likely causes for recessions.

Here's an Marxist economist who does some nice research on these developments:
thenextrecession.wordpress.com/

Here's an article exploring the likely possibility that we will not have a new 'boom' again:
thecharnelhouse.org/2016/07/05/against-political-determinism/

It's interesting how some billionaire investors are saying a new world war would be necessary to restore profits.

that would imply they're not shrinking.


it's not just that btw, even though it's a big factor. people literally feel muh privileged for having a job. they don't want to jeopardize it, they feel like they have it better than most people.

They call it stagnation but obviously real wages fall due to inflation.

We indeed need a new world war, and the enemy is the eternal booj.

Thanks for the links, sounds interesting.

Still, you say…


But wasn't it the case in 1930 as well? Still, workers were able to secure further decreases. Why did they fail to score similar victories this in the post-war era? That's what I don't get. What is the specificity of our age that has rendered past labor struggles incapable of achieving what they used to be so good at?

...

...

What, they did? Do you happen to have any source?

It was always the case. But I think the implication user is making is that we're at, or close to the point where further concessions to the working class would gravely endanger the capitalist system at this point in its development.

Were trends in early 20th century labour struggles to continue, coupled with the increasing concentration of wealth in just a few porkies, there would no longer be any incentive in even trying to become a porky yourself anymore and there would not be much to be gained from investing in anything. Were that to happen the bourgeoisie as a class would eat itself starting with the weakest among them.

What about the porkies that in the entertainment business?

There is only so much free time you can colonize with commodified leisure.

Wrong, it's like 50 or 60 now.

The 8/8/8 hour work routine was a long term goal of the labour movement
and as labour and unions are genery class-collaborators, when it was achieved they cried victory and stopped pushing for further reduction

pic related always makes me sad

This. I work 60 hours a week most of the time.

Is commuting rest or recreation? What about housework? I doubt anyone today can actually live the 8/8/8.

Unions aren't inherently class collaborators, but they significantly shifted toward that after WW2

Commuting is work. Housework is also work. Both should be factored into the 8 hours of necessary labor as opposed to 8 of rest and recreation.

You say this as if those work weeks were just handed to us. We only got the 40 because of a massive union uprising across the nation and now unions are just as corrupt and bought out as the people they were originally standing against so the chance of them doing something that radical again are slim to none.

Your only hope for a shorter workweek is to welcome automation and basic income with open arms and hope some kind of super-virus eliminates half the population of the earth so that such a "crazy" idea would ever stand a chance in a modern society.

Oh, I'm perfectly aware that those demands involved violent struggle and even bloodshed. What I don't understand is why this stopped being a thing. Workers fought tooth and nail for the 60-hour workweek, for the 50-hour workweek, for the 40-hour workweek… so why didn't they also fight tooth and nail for the 30-hour workweek?

Because now the unions are paid off and nobody important is bitching about their work week any more. The unions collect their dues, the companies get to pander to the red states for being pro-union even though workers' rights have stagnated or gotten worse in many areas, and Joe Working Man thinks there's somebody protecting him just because he's a little less likely to get fired than everyone else.

Why do you think it happened precisely at that point in time, tho? That's what I can't seem to wrap my head around.

Factor in the fact that we have invented the computer in this time frame and self correcting manufacture, there is more people than ever before and more women work than ever before, and yet hours of work still have not gone down.

Yes that is BETTER TOOLS, HEALTHIER, STRONGER WORKERS, MORE OF THEM, WITH BETTER EDUCATIONS, and yet for some reason they still have to do as much work as they did before all of this?