There is a lot of talk lately about moving to a 15 hour
work week. This misses the point. We’ve had a less than 40 hour working week in
the developed world for decades—people in certain sectors, finance for example,
still work far longer.
There are arguments to be made for better enforcement of
existing workplace regulations, especially where paid overtime is concerned,
and for a more employee-centric approach to workplace flexibility. But the main
reason why people work overtime is insecurity, both financial and existential.
This isn’t fixed by legislating shorter working hours. The solution is
cultural.
Financial insecurity derives from the cost of owning a
residence, educating your children at a good school, clothing and food, and
health care. These things are all expensive.
But wait, actually, they aren’t. Housing outside the
capital cities is pricey by world standards (thanks negative gearing!) but not
unaffordable. Owning property is only a life’s work if you want it on the
harbour foreshore. You can pick up most items of clothing at BigW for less than
$20, and you can buy a week’s worth of delicious food at a farmer’s market for
under $100. And let’s not forget that Health care in Australia is free, as is
education.
These things only become expensive if you want to send
your children to a private school, wear cashmere, eat out, have private health
care and live near the CBD, ostensibly because you want to live close to your
high paying job (see how that’s a self-reinforcing cycle?). But this is
precisely what most people want.
Why? I suspect it’s because they make you a ‘success’;
this is where existential insecurity comes into play.
The defining characteristic of most expensive things is
not so much their quality, but the status associated with them: elite schools,
elite property, ‘high-flying’ jobs, designer clothes and trendy restaurants all
suggest achievement and accomplishment. So do long work hours in some circles
because of their association with wealth accumulation and responsibility.
For society to move from long work hours to long
leisure-hours requires a cultural shift towards a richer notion of success, one
that is not founded on wealth. If we start to hold people with large amounts of
leisure time in as high regard as those who are too busy making money to enjoy
their yacht, then more people will start taking time off work.
If we could be more secure in our ability to make and
keep friends and sexual partners despite our lack of material trappings,
because people are attracted to our hobby gardening antics for example, then we
won’t trade so much time for money.
This is not a normative argument—if people value money,
good for them. But if people want to work less they should not look to economic
theory or the law, but to their material preferences. What do you need? Who do
you want to be friends with? And who do you want to sleep with?
Everyone must remember that work is not a black and white
decision between wealth and poverty. There are numerous degrees in between. For
example, if you don’t work 60 hours a week for Mallesons law firm you won’t be
able to live in Mosman, wear Zegna and drive a BMW. But if you work for the
Attorney General’s office 35 hours a week you can live in Lyneham, drive a
Mazda 3 and wear fitted suits you picked up in Vietnam on that holiday you had
time for.
Comments
Post a Comment