1200 Hours (working draft)
A work-in-progress continues
I thank everyone who offered feedback on the first draft of this piece here and on other platforms (mainly Reddit so far). The next step is this working draft, which includes a few revisions I’ve made after receiving said feedback and will be revised further in the future as needed.
Here, then, is the latest version (which may change from day to day):
In my previous two posts, I credited Elizabeth Warren and Robert Reich for their analysis of policies that have favored the financial industry and the economic elite at the expense of middle- and working-class families, but faulted them for not considering a reduction of hours worked as a way to redress that imbalance.
Bernie Sanders recently wrote an op-ed for The Guardian in which he called for a 32-hour work week with no reduction in pay. That would be a good start, but we should not stop there. Instead of focusing on the work week, I propose that we move to a 1200-hour work year.
[Update, 18 Aug. 2023: The UAW wants a 32-hour week in its next contract.]
[Update, 21 Aug. 2023: The CBO has released a new report, Trends in the Distribution of Family Wealth, 1989-2019. Here is the first graph from this report: ]
The plan
The current standard of 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year adds up to 2000 hours per year. (50 weeks assumes the employee takes at least 10 days off a year, paid or unpaid, in addition to 2 days off per week; 50 weeks also makes the math easier). The structure of a 1200-hour work year could vary according to the needs of employers and employees. Where h = hours per day, d = days per week, w = weeks per year, 1200 hours per year might be allocated in any of several possible configurations, e.g.:
8h x 5d x 30w
8h x 3d x 50w
6h x 5d x 40w
6h x 4d x 50w
5h x 5d x 48w
Overtime would still be paid for hours in excess of 40 in a single week as well as all hours in excess of 1200 in a year. Mandatory overtime would not be allowed.
1200 hours means the limit of employer-supervised hours that an employer can require as a condition of employment. “Employer-supervised hours” means that either the time or the place of work are determined by the employer; if the employee can determine both when and where they work (as in working from home), then those hours would not count against the 1200 hour annual limit, though they would still count towards weekly overtime where applicable.
1200 hours also refers to the limit a single employer can require. Workers would still have the option of working for more than one employer in a year.
The 1200-hour plan would be limited to jobs that pay less than what used to be called the “family wage”. Jobs that already pay above the median family income for a family of of four (i.e., with a single earner making that much) might not be limited to 1200 hours a year. Upper-income families can afford to hire full-time nannies, tutors, and domestics if both parents wish to pursue demanding careers, so there is less need to limit their hours (but see Slaughter 2012 for an argument that even at higher salary levels, the workplace should accommodate parents).
Questions and answers
Question 1: Why do we need shorter work time?
Answer: We need to reduce the workload on families because distributive justice requires it and to enable the family to fulfill its societal functions.
As a matter of distributive justice, in a highly productive, technologically advanced society, 40-60 hours a week on average (2000 - 3000 hours a year) of adult labor should suffice to meet the needs of a family. It was enough in 1970, and it ought to be enough today. Either (a) one parent working 40-60 hours should earn enough to support themselves, a stay-at-home partner, and their children (the old idea of the “family wage”), or, (b) if both parents must work, then they should be able to divide 40-60 working hours along with parenting and domestic responsibilities between them, or (c) if each parent must work 40-60 hours, then the parenting/domestic workload must be reduced; specifically, high-quality childcare should be available and affordable.
Some on the right don’t like (c), and some on the left don’t like (a). Option (b) avoids placing either parent in a position of dependency upon the other and allows parental supervision of children at home while giving both parents possibilities for career development. This would address the problem of “couple inequity” described by Claudia Goldin.
Robert Reich, Elizabeth Warren, and many others have documented how the income gap in the US has grown since the mid-70s, and how families have had to contribute more hours to the labor market in order to maintain roughly the same standard of living. Mandating shorter work requirements would give workers more bargaining power.
Concerning the functions of the family, we must prioritize our roles as parents and spouses over our roles as producers and consumers if we want our children to be properly socialized and we want our marriages to last. Domestic responsibilities and familial relationships take time.
Question 2: Why a 1200-hour work year, specifically? Why not just reduce the work week?
Answer: 1200 hours balances the needs of families, individuals, employees, and employers. In 1970, a single wage-earner working a standard 40-hours week (2000 hours a year) could afford to support a family, own a house and a car, and possibly send his children to college as well. A 1200-hour work year would be 2400 hours a year per family if both parents work, so that is still providing more hours to employers than the typical breadwinner of 1970 did.
If full-time employment were 1200 hours a year, an employee could combine a regular job with other projects and responsibilities along with familial duties, such as earning a degree, running a small business, developing a career in the arts or entertainment, serving in the reserve armed forces, volunteering in their communities, getting involved in politics, or taking on additional employment, which might be a part-time job, temporary gigs, or even a second full-time job.
A 1200-hour work year would accommodate the different needs of workers at different stages of their lives. For example, young newlyweds or single graduates without dependents could work two jobs for a while to save up for a down payment on a house, and then drop down to one job each when they become parents, and then maybe take on gigs or start a business when the kids are older and need less supervision. By the time the kids are in high school, one or both parents may be earning a family wage due to career advancement, and thus be above the income threshold for the 1200-hour limit, or a small business started earlier for supplemental income may have grown enough to support the family.
Framing the limit in terms of a work year rather than a work week accommodates the needs of employers in different industries. Some industries are seasonal and need much more labor at certain times of the year than others.
Question 3: Wouldn’t a 1200-hour limit reduce the labor supply too much?
Answer: A 1200-hour limit might reduce the labor supply to some degree. This is not necessarily a bad thing; reducing the labor supply in this way would give workers more bargaining power, spur employers to use employee hours more efficiently, and force the owners of capital to share the fruits of productivity gains with workers.
But how much would it reduce the labor supply? 1200 is 3/5 of 2000. That does not mean that the labor supply would be reduced by 2/5. Some workers would choose to work two jobs, if employers made it worth their while.
The flexibility of a 1200-hour work year would also improve labor force participation, so even if each worker worked fewer hours, there would be more workers in the workforce. Studies have shown that shorter work requirements that allow better work-life balance improve worker productivity [NPR, BBC], so that would also reduce the labor required to meet existing needs.
Currently, the lack of affordable childcare is restricting labor force participation and thereby contributing to the labor shortage. A 1200-hour work year would make the childcare shortage a solvable problem. In some families, the parents’ work schedules could line up in ways that allow at least one parent to be home with the kids at all times; this would be easier when the kids start school. In others, parents might need to rely on grandparents or other family members for a day or two a week or for a few hours each afternoon. Parents, including single parents, could also coordinate with other families to share childcare responsibilities. Such arrangements could be informal or might be formal childcare cooperatives. Forming such arrangements would be easier if parents worked fewer hours.
[Update 9 July 2024: the Biden administration and several state governors have endorsed universal pre-K programs, though none have been implemented yet.]
So a 1200-hour work year might reduce the labor supply a little, or it might actually increase the labor supply by increasing labor force participation, especially if it is coupled with more affordable childcare. Even if it did end up reducing the labor supply, though, it need not decrease output, because productivity gains associated with shorter work schedules could make up for the decrease in the labor supply.
Question 4: Wouldn’t a 1200-hour limit be too restrictive for employers?
Answer: No, because employers would have at least five options to adapt to a 1200-hour work year:
(1) Pay employees more. Workers who earn a family wage would not necessarily be limited to 1200 hours (see above).
(2) Allow workers more flexibility. The 1200-hour limit does not include hours worked outside of employers’ supervision (see above). The pandemic proved that many workers could do their jobs from home.
(3) Hire more workers. Employee benefits, however, could be a serious obstacle to the 1200-hour plan, especially health insurance, due to the increased number of workers who would have to be provided with benefits. It would probably be necessary to move away from employer-based health insurance in favor of publicly provided benefits or individually purchased insurance.
(4) Reduce hours of operation or run leaner operations. For example, big-box retailers that operated 24 hours a day before the pandemic have reduced their hours of operation; instead of stretching their employees over a longer schedule, they now squeeze their customers into a shorter schedule. This is inconvenient for some customers, especially those who work 3rd shift, but this inconvenience would be mitigated if those customers had the more flexible schedules that the 1200-hour plan offers. Other industries might be able to produce the same output with fewer man-hours due to the improved productivity that comes with reduced work schedules.
(5) Automation and outsourcing. This has already been going on for some time and has made the position of workers more precarious. Some activists have advocated universal basic income (UBI) as a response, but the 1200-hour plan is a better response. Rather than leaving some workers overworked while others get money for doing nothing, it is clearly more just to spread the remaining work around. UBI could leave many workers idle during their prime years, allowing their skills and professional networks to decay (or never form in the first place for young people who reach adulthood with UBI in place); sharing the work would avoid this.
Question #5: How would the 1200-hour plan be implemented? How do we get there from here?
Answer: Implementation could be phased in, beginning with jobs that pay less than some specified fraction of the median family income, perhaps 75%, or some multiple of the poverty level, maybe 200%, and gradually scaling up to higher paying jobs. Currently (2023), the poverty level for a family of 4 for the lower 48 states is defined as $30,000 for purposes of eligibility for federal programs. The median income for a family of 4 in US states ranges from $82,110 in New Mexico to $162,422 in Massachusetts.
Another possibility might be to begin with a 4-day work week, since that has already been introduced into the discussion, and reduce hours further over time. 4d x 8h x 50w = 1600 hours. Along with this, we could incrementally increase the minimum wage, lower the overtime threshold, and adjust flex-time regulations.
[Update 23 Aug. 2023: A bill mandating a 32-hour workweek has been proposed in Pennsylvania.]
It may be necessary to temporarily subsidize the wages of hourly workers in some industries in order to change to lower working hours without a commensurate loss of pay. Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and exemptions for dependents could be vehicles for this.
Question #6: Wouldn’t lower-wage employees just be stuck working two jobs under this plan? How would that be an improvement?
Probably not. Workers with no dependents or parents of teens might want to work two jobs, but the subsidies and wage requirements would allow a family of 4 to live on 2400 hours a year, and parents of preteens would have little incentive to work more if all the earnings would go to childcare costs. Many lower wage workers are already working two jobs; reducing their hours and giving them a subsidy or higher wages to make up for it would presumably be a relief.
Those who do choose to work two jobs would benefit from higher basic wages and the greater resilience that comes from not having all one’s eggs in one basket.
Question #7: How would we pay for those subsidies?
More people would be receiving subsidies, but, since labor force participation would increase, more people would be working. We would likely be increasing the number of people who receive some assistance while reducing the number of people who are totally dependent on assistance. It could be a wash, more or less, as far as government budgets are concerned.
The more serious concern is whether this reform would affect economic output. It might seem, prima facie, that reducing the standard workweek from 2000 hours to 1200 would reduce output. But it need not. There are reasons to believe that increased labor force participation and increased productivity would make up for the reduced hours per worker. (See Question #3, above.)
The social benefits of shorter working hours, in addition to being valuable for their own sake, would also have economic effects. Stronger families means that couples are less likely to divorce and children are less likely to get into trouble.
~ ~ ~
As with the first draft, all readers may comment on this working draft.