Calls for a shorter working week – ‘new’ Economics or same old fallacy?

 Economists like to talk about fallacies – arguments that fall apart when you look at them closely. One such fallacy is the ‘lump of labour’ delusion. If you assume there’s a fixed amount of work to be done, then if people retire later (or whatever) there must inevitably be less work for the younger workforce to do. It doesn’t add up, because the amount of work to be done isn’t fixed. More jobs in the economy and higher levels of productivity could easily create more employment and income.

 In one light hearted example to illustrate this point, a French engineer and has American colleague are watching an interstate highway being built in the US. The Frenchman is alarmed by all the capital equipment and machinery used in the process. “Doesn’t that make workers unemployed?” asks the Frenchman. “In France we only use hand tools to preserve jobs”. The American is baffled. “If that were true, surely it would be better to equip the workforce with teaspoons”.

In the ‘joke’ above, a Frenchman is used as an example because of a French law restricting the working week. To Anglo-Saxon (generally meaning British and American) economics, restricting working hours to help address unemployment is a joke. But might there be something in it? Is there something different about French economics?! There must be alternative world views that conventional economics fails to address. Of course, there are – and I think most Economics students appreciate that there are a wide range of viewpoints and intellectual approaches in the subject. In fact, there’s even a discussion to be had about what kind of subject it is.

There’s a long tradition of trying to find new ‘paradigms’ (intellectual frameworks) in Economics. I often come across some quite radical stuff from the New Economics Foundation, like the suggestion that hospital cleaners are worth more to the economy than bankers. That certainly challenges the view of ‘conventional’ economics. To be honest, you don’t have to be a wild radical to suggest that conventional Economics has lost its way in some areas, and a few students are campaigning to be taught alternatives.

What about the idea of a shorter working week? Even from a conventional viewpoint, there might be something in the ‘less is more’ idea. Have a look at the article recommending a shorter week and see what you think. It definitely doesn’t fall for the ‘lump of labour’ fallacy, but instead puts forward its idea as a way of addressing inequality, and recognising the value of non-market domestic work.