Читать книгу The Case for a Four Day Week - Anna Coote - Страница 12

However, on both fronts – economic and cultural – there are some encouraging signs. Across advanced economies today, higher productivity is in fact associated with lower annual hours worked. Poorer countries such as Greece and Mexico are at one end of the spectrum, with higher annual hours and comparatively low productivity, while North European and Scandinavian countries sit at the other end, with higher productivity and lower annual hours. Countries such as the UK sit among high-productivity economies, but even here there are significant differences between countries. Consider the gap that exists between Germany and the UK, for example: in 2018 average annual hours worked per capita in Germany (1,363) were much lower than in the UK (1,538) while GDP per hour worked was much higher (109 compared with 103).²¹ No wonder people quip that German workers could lay down tools sometime around Thursday lunchtime and still get as much done as UK workers would by the end of Friday.

Comparing productivity across nations is problematic because it assumes a constant and comparable measure of price and value. But there is evidently no single set of rules for configuring an economy. There is no law for the number of working hours required to generate ‘success’. What matters is not just productivity, but who gains and how. The relationship between time spent working and other economic fundamentals may have significant path dependency, underpinned by culture and institutions. But history shows us that countries can – and do – change course. That’s because decisions and actions by politicians, trade unions and wider civil society really make a difference.

And we are not destined to be locked in forever by cultural bias. Unless we believe, with Judge Gary, that there’s a God-given standard for hours of work (and we don’t), we can agree that it is socially constructed – and therefore we can change it.

There is nothing ‘normal’ or ‘inevitable’ about doing paid work for five days or 40 hours a week. Nor should the process of selling our time control and shape all other aspects of our experience. We reject the assumption that we live to work, work to earn, and strive to earn more in order to buy more things because that’s supposed to be good for the economy. After all, the whole point of economic activity is to serve the interests of people and the planet – not the other way around.

Too much work can ruin our health. Beyond a certain level, having more money doesn’t make us any happier. Buying increasingly resource-intensive stuff risks breaching the limits of our finite planet and tipping the whole world towards catastrophe. Time is an asset to be nurtured and cherished. Unpaid time is far too valuable to be squeezed and shunted into small corners of our lives.

So these are strong reasons for moving towards a shorter working week, and they have been thrown into sharp relief by the social and economic effects of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.

In the next chapter we explore these reasons in more detail, in particular how reduced hours of paid work can bring benefits to society and the environment. In Chapter 3, we consider and respond to a range of challenges to our proposal, including questions about choice, leisure and pay, and whether reduced hours will be bad for the economy. In Chapter 4, we describe how it’s done in practice – from government interventions and trade union negotiations to initiatives by individual employers and cross-sectoral campaigning. In Chapter 5, we set out a route map for the transition to a shorter working week.