Why is the standard workday 8 instead of 6 hours?

**Salem1** · February 09, 2012, 05:44 PM

We've gone from 12 to 8 hours, but why didn't or don't we go to 6? we've shown that it's possible to decrease the amount of hours worked, and that it can be done globally - in an age in which there was no internet at that. Of course I'm talking about countries in which 8 hour workdays are the norm so don't come and say ''but in X...!''.

I believe that it would in short be healthier for society (by which I certainly mean the people that make it up).

But why isn't it being done?
What force ''controls'' the workday? something shifted it from 12+ to 8, what something would shift it now?
Would there be any serious negative side effects of cutting it down to 6, ie. something that would make society unsustainable even if measures were taken?

**Condottiere 40K** · February 09, 2012, 05:52 PM

There's got to be some point where the needs of the many (labourers) match perfectly with the needs of the one (employer), and we seem to have compromised at around forty hours per week, give or take, at least the Western approach has.

You could also have four ten hour shifts and have the other half of the week off.

Overtime

**TheEschaton** · February 09, 2012, 06:05 PM

Because it's a prisoner's dilemma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma.

Countries whose workforces work longer hours produce more and therefore have stronger economies. If we all agreed to simultaneously lower the work week to 6 hours, everyone would benefit greatly, but unfortunately the first country to go back to the 8 hour day, or the first to not ever go to 6 hour days, would produce more than the other countries and its economy would then dominate the other economies.

Since there are hundreds of countries and none of them particularly want to be less powerful in relation to their neighbors than they have to be, it's very likely at least one country would renege on the deal and everyone else would lose out in comparison. Thus nobody is willing to start the deal - they think their neighbors would screw them over on it (and they probably would!).

**~~Alcibiades429~~** · February 09, 2012, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by TheEschaton

Because it's a prisoner's dilemma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma.

Countries whose workforces work longer hours produce more and therefore have stronger economies. If we all agreed to simultaneously lower the work week to 6 hours, everyone would benefit greatly, but unfortunately the first country to go back to the 8 hour day, or the first to not ever go to 6 hour days, would produce more than the other countries and its economy would then dominate the other economies.

Since there are hundreds of countries and none of them particularly want to be less powerful in relation to their neighbors than they have to be, it's very likely at least one country would renege on the deal and everyone else would lose out in comparison. Thus nobody is willing to start the deal - they think their neighbors would screw them over on it (and they probably would!).

Thats a very interesting insight!

**Condottiere 40K** · February 09, 2012, 06:12 PM

As I was instructed, working smarter is better than working harder.

**Ex Tenebris Lux** · February 10, 2012, 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by Condottiere 40K

As I was instructed, working smarter is better than working harder.

ehehehe, roger that

**Claudius Gothicus** · February 09, 2012, 06:24 PM

As it was preached by the trade unions of the early industrial revolution a worker's day should encompass 8 hours of work, 8 hours of rest and 8 hours of sleep.

**dogukan** · February 12, 2012, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Claudius Gothicus

As it was preached by the trade unions of the early industrial revolution a worker's day should encompass 8 hours of work, 8 hours of rest and 8 hours of sleep.

Is that god's word? Is that an unchangeable fact?

**Claudius Gothicus** · February 13, 2012, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by dogukan

Is that god's word? Is that an unchangeable fact?

It's an historical demand that got really ingrained into workers hearts at some point(specially during the late XIX century and early XXth one) and through social pressure helped to structure the famous 40-hour week.

It's in no way ''unchangeable'', in fact for the most part most people either work less than 8 hours(I work 7 for example) or more(friends at private companies usually do 9 and extra time as well).

**Justice and Mercy** · February 09, 2012, 06:28 PM

We as individuals are getting less productive, not more productive.

Less working hours means less productive work is done. In essence, it means a poorer society.

**justicar5** · February 09, 2012, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy

We as individuals are getting less productive, not more productive.

Less working hours means less productive work is done. In essence, it means a poorer society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...er_hour_worked

actually, not looking that way, normalised per hour worked, 'the west' is doing pretty well compared to 'the rest' (also countries with shorter working weeks are doing (on the whole) better than those with longer.

**Dr. Croccer** · February 12, 2012, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy

Less working hours means less productive work is done. In essence, it means a poorer society.

Clearly it doesn't, as by that logic our societies should be poorer than they were 200 years ago, and those would be poorer than the ones that existed 200 years before that. What really defines 'productivity' is the level of speed and scale in which we can do our labour, i.e. the efficiency. A truckdriver can transport in a matter of hours what it would've taken a caravan of carts a week in the past. Does that mean that the truckdriver is less productive than the caravan because he does it faster? Of course not. The same can be said for mechanisation of industry.

**Astaroth** · February 12, 2012, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Croccer

Clearly it doesn't, as by that logic our societies should be poorer than they were 200 years ago, and those would be poorer than the ones that existed 200 years before that. What really defines 'productivity' is the level of speed and scale in which we can do our labour, i.e. the efficiency. A truckdriver can transport in a matter of hours what it would've taken a caravan of carts a week in the past. Does that mean that the truckdriver is less productive than the caravan because he does it faster? Of course not. The same can be said for mechanisation of industry.

Yes, but all other factors more or less equal, time spent working makes a difference.

If one truck driver drives cargo around for 5 hours per day, he will not achieve as much as another one who drives around for 8 hours a day. Of course productivity can decrease after a set amount of time, but I'm pretty sure that two similarily intelligent people with similar capacities (technological etc.) will achieve vastly different results depending on the time they spend working.

**Dr. Croccer** · February 13, 2012, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by Astaroth

Yes, but all other factors more or less equal, time spent working makes a difference..

Of course it does, but then we're talking about potential productivity increase. A truck driver who works 12 hours would be able to be more productive than one who My point was that the notion that 'less time worked relative to what existed before = relative improductivity' is nonsensical. In theory one could decrease working hours while increasing efficiency and still be more productive than first. That does not mean that I support decreasing working hours, but the point is that productivity is dependent on level of efficiency, rather than just the amount of time stuck into it.

**Justice and Mercy** · February 12, 2012, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Croccer

Clearly it doesn't, as by that logic our societies should be poorer than they were 200 years ago,

We're talking about the SAME work, Doc Croc. That should've been obvious.

**bushbush** · February 09, 2012, 06:46 PM

It depends on your ambition though. I don't know of any high-paying and high potential job that is 9-5 everyday. Lawyers work 10-12 hours. Investment bankers probably work 12 hours. And they are very efficient too.

**Salem1** · February 09, 2012, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by TheEschaton

Because it's a prisoner's dilemma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma.

Countries whose workforces work longer hours produce more and therefore have stronger economies. If we all agreed to simultaneously lower the work week to 6 hours, everyone would benefit greatly, but unfortunately the first country to go back to the 8 hour day, or the first to not ever go to 6 hour days, would produce more than the other countries and its economy would then dominate the other economies.

Since there are hundreds of countries and none of them particularly want to be less powerful in relation to their neighbors than they have to be, it's very likely at least one country would renege on the deal and everyone else would lose out in comparison. Thus nobody is willing to start the deal - they think their neighbors would screw them over on it (and they probably would!).

That's a good post

. The whole ordeal does seem self-destructive to me, it's just tragic that it works like how you explained.

Originally Posted by Claudius Gothicus

As it was preached by the trade unions of the early industrial revolution a worker's day should encompass 8 hours of work, 8 hours of rest and 8 hours of sleep.

So we're following a 200 year old decree.

Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy

We as individuals are getting less productive, not more productive.

Less working hours means less productive work is done. In essence, it means a poorer society.

While services won't be available for as long per day as they are now (which isn't necessarily a problem, if you have 2 extra hours to shop the shops don't need to be open 2 more hours), I fail to see how it would mean a poorer society. Society didn't become poorer when it went from 12 to 8 hours.

Besides, longer days could have a corelation to less productivity. I sure know I look forward to being productive for 6 hours way more than for 8 hours.

Originally Posted by bushbush

It depends on your ambition though. I don't know of any high-paying and high potential job that is 9-5 everyday. Lawyers work 10-12 hours. Investment bankers probably work 12 hours. And they are very efficient too.

Well, I don't understand how you can sustain a lifestyle that involves working so much. Working 12 hours with 8 hours of sleep means you've got 4 hours left to do anything at all. Take me for example, I exercise 1,5 hours every day and let's say the travel time to and from work per day is 1 hour. That leaves me with one and a half hour in which to pretty much eat, shower and go to bed in time catching a single match of heroes of newerth along the way. Doing anything except on weekends is impossible and I'd probably (especially as we're talking outside Sweden and quite probably referencing US-based numbers) have vacation. How can people voluntarily choose such a life? whatever...

**bushbush** · February 09, 2012, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by Salem1

Well, I don't understand how you can sustain a lifestyle that involves working so much. Working 12 hours with 8 hours of sleep means you've got 4 hours left to do anything at all. Take me for example, I exercise 1,5 hours every day and let's say the travel time to and from work per day is 1 hour. That leaves me with one and a half hour in which to pretty much eat, shower and go to bed in time catching a single match of heroes of newerth along the way. Doing anything except on weekends is impossible and I'd probably (especially as we're talking outside Sweden and quite probably referencing US-based numbers) have vacation. How can people voluntarily choose such a life? whatever...

I think it depends on what people want. Some want a lot of money (make 160k in your 20s) and others want life-style (9-5 but make maybe 60k at most). Also, you tend to advance faster and get promoted earlier if you work in long-hour jobs. Some people might be really ambitious, wanting to be a CEO or a high level official, etc. To be honest, I HAVE NOT MET a single successful person in his or her career that works 9-5 everyday. At one or another stretch of their careers, they all have to work long hours to get to where they are today.

Also, some people might enjoy working

. Others might be forced to (like students trying to pay back debts, or parent wanting to give his or her children a better life and future).

There are a lot of factors.

let me say one more thing though, increasingly, 9-5 jobs with good pay are becoming scarce. Even in Europe, comfortable jobs like that becoming limited to government jobs. 8 hours a day with 4-5 weeks of vacations a year simply is not productive enough for today's economy to justify a high salary.

**Salem1** · February 09, 2012, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by bushbush

I think it depends on what people want. Some want a lot of money (make 160k in your 20s) and others want life-style (9-5 but make maybe 60k at most). Also, you tend to advance faster and get promoted earlier if you work in long-hour jobs. Some people might be really ambitious, wanting to be a CEO or a high level official, etc. To be honest, I HAVE NOT MET a single successful person in his or her career that works 9-5 everyday. At one or another stretch of their careers, they all have to work long hours to get to where they are today.

Also, some people might enjoy working

. Others might be forced to (like students trying to pay back debts, or parent wanting to give his or her children a better life and future).

There are a lot of factors.

let me say one more thing though, increasingly, 9-5 jobs with good pay are becoming scarce. Even in Europe, comfortable jobs like that becoming limited to government jobs. 8 hours a day with 4-5 weeks of vacations a year simply is not productive enough for today's economy to justify a high salary.

Working more than 8 hours per day is a curious definition of ''successful'' unless you mean people who get so rich in their early thirties they don't have to work anymore (

).

Sure. I enjoyed my last job and I'm sure I'll enjoy my new one, but there's other things in life I enjoy as well which I think deserve the proper amount of space. I also enjoy having time that I don't devote to anything in particular, not every ounce of my day needs to be productive or spent doing something.

Hmm, I was going to comment on ''not productive enough'' but then I saw ''to justify a high salary''. If you work more you're paid more, pretty simple, I don't object to that. What I do wonder though is if high-paying jobs when you work more than 8 hours have a negative effect on society because it drives people to work more than 8 hours in order to be paid well when most don't actually want to? what if a normal job was 6 hours and a long job was 8 or 9 hours. Wouldn't that do a nice job of pushing down the ''inflation'' of job length or is there as I asked in my OP some great problem with society working less than specifically 8 hours?

I'll have to read up more on this...

**bushbush** · February 09, 2012, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Salem1

Working more than 8 hours per day is a curious definition of ''successful'' unless you mean people who get so rich in their early thirties they don't have to work anymore (

).

Depends on the person's ambition. For some it is the money (and yes, it means when they are older, they can retire earlier

). For some it is the desire to be do big things in life, not just being an ordinary person. Again, I haven't really met any successful person work 8 hours a day for their career. If you want to be successful in life in anything, you gotta work longer than 8 hours a day at some point to beat your competition. That's just the reality.

Originally Posted by Salem1

Sure. I enjoyed my last job and I'm sure I'll enjoy my new one, but there's other things in life I enjoy as well which I think deserve the proper amount of space. I also enjoy having time that I don't devote to anything in particular, not every ounce of my day needs to be productive or spent doing something.

You are still a kid though, right? You don't have a family, you have not fully comprehended all the costs of life, am i right? When you have wife and kids, financial demands will go up. You will want to give them a good life and education. That costs money. Also, as you get older, you will become more focused in having a career, rather than just odd jobs paying so-so wages. Moreover, you will be concerned about retirement. Countries around the world are raising retirement age and cutting pensions, you will want to build up more savings. It is harder to get new and high-paying jobs without working longer hours these days. If you want to live comfortably in retirement, you will have to work harder than 8 hours a day.

Originally Posted by Salem1

Hmm, I was going to comment on ''not productive enough'' but then I saw ''to justify a high salary''. If you work more you're paid more, pretty simple, I don't object to that. What I do wonder though is if high-paying jobs when you work more than 8 hours have a negative effect on society because it drives people to work more than 8 hours in order to be paid well when most don't actually want to? what if a normal job was 6 hours and a long job was 8 or 9 hours. Wouldn't that do a nice job of pushing down the ''inflation'' of job length?

That will also push down the whole economy's production level in terms of goods and services. It will also push down people's incomes.

Since people will work less, they will produce less goods and service. They will get paid less. They will be able to buy less. Then companies' revenue will decline and they will cut wages. So everyone gets poorer and can afford less things.

Most people don't want that. To be honest, 8 hour a day is pretty light. If you want to work even less hours than that, I think the person is pretty lazy.