Inspired by a conversation, and conveniently linked to this news story about how Americans don't take their annual leave:
Although
it’s clear that the USA does have more of a problem than the UK, we all need a
clear re-think about our working practices. Americans might not be taking their
annual leave, but we’re all expected to work long hours.
Let’s
take a moment to assess how this expectation might gradually develop. Obviously
some unpleasant managers will want to work their underlings hard no matter what
other social norms prevail, but this will only contribute to the process.
To
start with, an ambitious person might think that an extra half an hour until
5.30 will help get something done on time, or help him stand out from the crowd
and get promoted. As more people do it, it becomes the people who merely fulfil
their contracts who stand out, and extra work is a necessity. Job descriptions
gradually change to include more work as expectations change and more
‘productivity’ becomes normal. Why would a company promote someone who was less
productive? Why would it keep someone on who performed less well?
This
vicious circle of competitive people working harder and harder to stand out is
a race to the bottom. Every bit of free time a person puts into work
contributes to making that extra work less impressive overall. This is a
standard economic problem that has been addressed in game theory; it benefits
me most to put in extra time when no-one else does, and each increment of extra
time is of negligible value compared to the promotion I want, or keeping my
job. The same applies to everyone else, so everyone puts in the time, and then
no-one gets the benefit.
In
our standard economic models, someone else working extra time wouldn’t matter.
Jobs are created for the skills people have, and if I am good at my job then I
will find a promotion no matter how much time I put in. Theoretically, I shouldn’t
care if someone else is working harder; that person has made a different set of
choices and is reaping the costs and benefits. But there isn’t really an
infinite supply of jobs at every level; there is a limited supply. And, as our
experience of training vastly more university graduates has shown, we don’t get
more skilled jobs for a more skilled workforce; we get underemployment, with
skilled workers in low-skill jobs. I am competing with others for promotion,
and that means that I won’t get it if some of them work long enough to be more
productive.
Fundamentally,
jobs and employment is a social ranking system. We long ago moved away from
working to survive; a person can survive in this country without working at
all, courtesy of our social welfare system. Not only is there a limited supply
of any promotion, but at the top end of the scale jobs most certainly are
limited. We only have 650 (currently)
MPs and that number will not increase even if many people want the job.
There are only a few corporate CEOs. Even if I could get a promotion in the
middle of the jobs market without working extra hours, these jobs of clearly
limited supply will only take people who get the most work done. And they’re
not just limited to people right at the top; making partner at a firm of
accountants or lawyers, or publishing enough papers as an academic to be a
lecturer now almost requires long hours.
Far
from making my own life decisions, unaffected by everyone else’s, I now need to
work harder just to stay still, and my chances of getting a very top job are
much lower, because other people’s choices have a bad effect on me. This
situation, where others’ choices cause diffuse harm, is exactly what regulation
is for. We regulate pollution because pollution is a bad thing that everyone
suffers, but the benefit is something very specific to the polluter, who
overall would benefit from polluting if he weren’t stopped.
This
system has a number of nasty side effects (negative externalities) beyond the
immediate loss of free time or job opportunity. This is because the ability to
devote time to a job isn’t evenly spread across the population. Some of us are
single people who have to do all our own housework; some people have not only
social lives that are leisure, but social duties that they are also compelled
to fulfil. For example, some people need to care for children or elderly
parents. Other people have supportive partners or parents who do all the work
for them; youngsters in London might live with their parents, able to accept
less pay but also work harder, with food and cleaning done for them.
Because
we allow a race to the bottom getting and keeping a good job is becoming not
just about the decision to value it more highly than others, but about the
ability to spend that time. Some people have demands on their time that others
do not, and don’t yet have the money to pay to avoid it (for example by hiring
a nanny). A system that allows free time to stand in as a proxy for ability
allows the rich or those with social support to secure an unfair proportion of
the better jobs, and thereby stay rich.
The
old social model of working men supported by helpful wives who do all the
housework hasn’t entirely died, but nowadays there is a lot more variation in
social structure. This is supposedly a good thing, but people doing things
differently are silently penalized for their choice if it takes 1.5 people to
make 1 great career.
I
have seen numerous feminist articles promoting the aspiration that women can
‘have it all’; that they can be properly involved with their children and have
a great career. I don’t want to say categorically that you can’t succeed in a
career if you spend a decent amount of evenings with your children, but I will
say that it’s much less likely. It is the change in probability that matters
for society as much as an absolute barrier.
I
think that the feminist articles that feed this aspiration are wrong. Yes,
women in partnerships could have more than they currently do if men would do
their fair share of housework. But to stand the best chance of a stellar career
in today’s society requires an investment of time that directly conflicts with
having the rest of ‘it all’. By focussing simply on negotiating a fair
relationship feminists are missing a wider societal issue that currently
affects more women than men, and are instead focussing only on where
specifically women suffer.
If
women can convince men to be more fair in relationships they still won’t solve
the problem, but since it’ll take a while for all men to be reasonable,
feminists will be able to pursue this red herring for ages. But if we were to
prevent people from overworking we would not only solve the problems affecting
women with many commitments outside work, but also help men who have commitments
outside of work. I disagree with encouraging women to work more hours by
finding partners who will support them; I think that we should be tackling the
problem that great careers need that support.
As
a brief aside, it’s nice to have a society which recognises people’s social
connections, and I’m not suggesting that we ban such connections, even though I
am promoting an ideal of individualism in which one person alone can achieve
things. In fact, if we insist that a person is only allowed to do so much, we
force people to have time for social connections. Social connections are
unevenly distributed, and if we want those with the most merit to succeed, we
need to ensure that social connections don’t interfere. I will admit I don’t
like the nuclear family model of society, but this isn’t an attack on
traditional values, as I am about to suggest.
I’ve
laid out what I think is a convincing argument so far, and included within it
are some hints that money and time are interchangeable. Rich people can hire
nannies to do childcare; almost everyone works in order to get money. Everyone
knows that ‘time is money’. If you’re not convinced yet that we need to
regulate working hours, let me describe things another way. Is it right for me
to pay my manager to give me good reports and a glowing reference? Would you be
upset if I paid a recruiter to give me a job you’d applied for?
Those
things are probably illegal. Yet what is working extra time except giving a
free gift to a company in exchange for advancement? It is corruption, just as
if it were a cash donation.
An
economist might complain that it’s simply negotiation; the effect is someone
offering more for the money. But the point of corruption is that it’s hidden. I
am sure that bribes to get your paperwork done first compete with each other,
and the person offering a lower bribe doesn’t get his done fastest.
You
might say that you give your time to the company, but a bribe to a person. But
your time goes towards your manager’s goals and objectives, and a bribe helps a
person accept a lower salary, saving the company money. The difference isn’t
that clear-cut here either.
The
effect of bribery is to allow the rich to gain an unfair advantage. We have
banned that, but we still allow the time-rich to gain the same advantage.
There’s a correlation between the rich and the time-rich, just as there’s a
correlation between the time-poor and women, but these proxy categories don’t
fully describe what’s happening.
I
understand that people want to help their family, and want to work hard to do
the best for those they love. I’m not against that; I’m against people working
harder and harder for the same wage afraid of losing out. I want to improve
people’s social lives, not cut them out of life. But to improve people’s social
lives, we need to cut their link to people’s work. Work can and should be
individualistic, but life is so much more than work, just as a rich life is
much more than individualism.
I’ve
argued elsewhere that we need to stop competing for social status through
wealth, and I think that our current system of overworking people is genuinely
corrupt. The EU Working Time Directive is an important step in redirecting
people to spend their leisure time, rather than money, and we shouldn’t allow
people to opt out, just as we don’t allow people to opt out of anti-bribery
legislation. The next step is to go for 3 months off a year!
No comments:
Post a Comment