Work Less, Do More

may basketAnybody else remember May Day baskets? You made a little basket, put dandelions  or candy in it, left it at the door of the girl next door’s house, rang the doorbell and ran away. If she heard, she was obligated to chase you and give you a kiss if she caught you. (That never happened.)

Hey c’mon… winters were long in Minnesota….

On May Day 1926, Henry Ford gave his factory floor workers the ultimate May Day basket: the 40-hour work week, all the way down from 60 hours. Ford’s office workers got their reduced work week three months later.

Ford was progressive, and then some. Twelve years earlier, he’d given them another surprise:  a raise from $2.34 per day all the way up to $5.00.[1] You had to love the man, and they did. Little wonder that productivity skyrocketed. Ford’s employees were working lees, doing more, and now they could also afford to buy his cars — although only with prior approval from Ford’s Sociological Dept, which looked after workers’ personal, home, family, and financial health.

model a

We’ve been living with Ford’s 40-hour work week for 93 years now. Some people think maybe it’s time for an upgrade — they suggest a four-day work week.

“This position is backed up by Academic research. Multiple studies support the view that a shorter working week would make people happier and more productive, while OECD figures show that countries with a culture of long working hours often score poorly for productivity and GDP per hour worked.

“Meanwhile, one company in New Zealand that trialed a four-day working week last year confirmed it would adopt the measure on a permanent basis.[2]

“Academics who studied the trial reported lower stress levels, higher levels of job satisfaction and an improved sense of work-life balance. Critically, they also say workers were 20% more productive.

“Three-day weekend, anyone?”

From this article about a presentation on the four-day work week at the recent World Economic Forum conclave in Davos, Switzerland.

Another WEF article indicates that research reveals an inverse relationship between hours worked (units of input) and productivity (units of output). The extra day off per week raises employee morale, improves health and wellbeing, and yes, raises productivity. And although some jobs really need to be staffed more days per week. that’s readily addressed through job-sharing.

It seems intuitive, doesn’t it, that happier, better rested workers will do more, and probably do it better, in less time? Not everyone is so easily convinced — here’s a sample of articles that do their journalistic best to present both upsides and downsides, while barely concealing an overall thumbs up: Wired, Huffington Post, Stuff.

From what I can tell from a review of those articles and several others like them, the dividing line between pro and con seems to be how comfortable corporate managers and politicos are with the word “progressive.” The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company is the one that took the four-day plunge, and these days New Zealand is floating on a progressive tide — see these articles: Business Insider, Business Insider, The Independent.:

Next time, we’ll start looking at some other common advice about how to improve the workplace, such as finding your true calling/vocation, getting a sense of meaning and purpose in your work, following your dreams, doing what you love, etc. Good advice? Bad advice? We’ll look into it.

[1] That was for the male workers; the females got the same raise two years later.

[2] These are the researchers who conducted the New Zealand pilot.

Economic Inequality Statistics

My research on economic inequality consistently turns up three key points:

  1. since the 80’s, there has been an ever-widening gap in incomes and capital ownership between the rich and poor,
  2. the gap has been growing at an accelerating rate, especially since the year 2000, and
  3. this phenomenon is worldwide.

So what?

As I’ve mentioned before, many U.S. economists and policy-makers greet those findings either with indifference or as a clarion call to defend endangered capitalism, while their international counterparts find them alarming. We’re talking about them here because it turns out that economic inequality has a lot to do with happiness and meaning at work. (Stay with me — we’ll get there, we’re just taking the scenic route.)

We all know that it’s easy to mold statistics to fit opinions — here’s a neurologist’s take on Why People Can’t Agree on Basic Facts. Any stats we look at here will have been pre-sorted, pre-analyzed, and pre-interpreted. My goal today is to provide a sampling of statistics from a variety of global sources — starting with a quote about how the new global super-rich are a bunch of economic data curve busters, which makes finding honest data even harder.

plutocrats“The skew toward the very top is so pronounced that you can’t understand overall economic growth figures without taking it into account. As in a school whose improved test scores are due largely to the stellar performance of a few students, the surging fortunes at the very top can mask stagnation lower down the income distribution.

“Consider America’s economic recovery in 2009-2010. Overall incomes in that period grew by 2.3 percent — tepid growth, to be sure, but a lot stronger than you might have guessed from the general gloom of the period. Look more closely at the data, though… and it turns out that average Americans were right to doubt the economic comeback. That’s because for 99 percent of Americans, incomes increased by 0.2 percent. Meanwhile, the incomes of the top I percent jumped by 11.6 percent.”

Plutocrats:  The Rise of the New Global Super Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else (2012), by Canadian journalist and politician Chrystia Freeland.

kwak“Across the developed world, vast fortunes are again ascendant. In the United States, the top 1 percent take home a larger share of total income than at any time except the late 1920’s. The total wealth of the world’s billionaires has quadrupled in the past two decades (even when the definition of “billionaire” is adjusted for inflation).

“In the 1950’s, a typical CEO of a large company took home as much money as twenty average employees; today he makes as much as two hundred workers.”

Economism (2017), by UConn law professor James Kwak.

the wealth of humans“In 2014, the inflation-adjusted income of the typical American household was just 7 per cent higher than it was in 1979. By contrast, the income of a household in the 95th percentile of the income distribution grew 45 per cent over that period.”

The Wealth of Humans:  Work, Power, and Status in the Twenty-First Century (2016), by Ryan Avent,  a thoroughly Anglicized American who works as a senior editor and economic columnist for The Economist.

the fourth industrial“[C]ompare Detroit in 1990… with Silicon Valley in 2014. In 1990, the three biggest companies in Detroit had a combined market capitalization of $36 billion, revenues of $250 billion, and 1.2 million employees. In 2014, the three biggest companies in Silicon Valley had a considerably higher market capitalization ($1.09 trillion), generated roughly the same revenues ($247 billion), but with about 10 times fewer employees (137,000).”

The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016), by German engineer and economist Klaus Schwab, Founder and Chairman of the World Economic Forum.

Prior to the 2017 World Economic Forum annual meeting of world leaders, U.K.-based Oxfam International issued a report that offers a fascinating slant on Schwab’s comments. According to the report:

“Eight men now control as much wealth as the world’s poorest 3.6 billion people… The men — Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Carlos Slim, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Amancio Ortega, Larry Ellison and Michael Bloomberg — are collectively worth $426 billion.”

As reported by CNN.

“By contrast, half the planet’s population, some 3.6 billion people, have a combined wealth of $409 billion.”

As reported by The Mirror Online (the U.K.’s “intelligent tabloid”).

Not only are the Elite Eight collectively worth more than the lower half of the world’s entire population, each individual member of the group is worth more than the combined market capitalization of Detroit’s three largest companies 27 years ago. The Mirror also noted this about the study:

“The report found that between 1988 and 2011 the incomes of the poorest 10% increased by just $65, while the incomes of the richest 1% grew by $11,800 – 182 times as much.”

A couple years ago, Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report 2015 reported that half of the world’s assets were controlled by the top 1% of the global population, while the lower half owned less than 1%.

There’s plenty more where all of that came from. In fact, there’s such an abundance of global data and opinion on the topic that, if nothing else, it’s probably safe to conclude that economic inequality either really is a problem or, even if it’s not, a whole lot of people around the world sure seem to think it is.

We’ll continue our economic inquiries next time.