Tapsearch Com EditorWhy we're not lazy like the French
July 26th 2007 22:12
Ezra Klein has a great piece at The American Prospect, proposing a kind of "Prisoner's Dilemma" framework for looking at vacation time.
Here's his idea: People work hard not so much for more stuff, but for more stuff relative to what everyone else has. So for any individual, there's a reason to work hard. If your neighbors are at the office 24/7, you need to keep up, and if they're lazy, you should use the opportunity to get ahead of them.
The best solution, as he sees it, is to declare a ceasefire as the French have. Surveys indicate people would rather work less for less money. We should pass a law capping the number of hours one can work in a week and mandate employers provide tons of vacation time.
The argument is an honest one, but I think there are some negative ramifications. One, the French can do this because Americans invent the products that make their work so efficient. They're free riders. If Americans did this too, worldwide progress would significantly decrease. Essentially, Americans working like Europeans is akin to Atlas shrugging.
Two, it is morally wrong, when an employer and an employee both want the employee to work more hours for more money, for the government to step in.
Three, the French get a month's vacation time, 30-hour weeks and unlimited vacation days. It's been said truthfully that idle hands are the devil's workshop. People loitering instead of working isn't good for social stability anywhere, and as the welfare state showed, Americans (as opposed to, say, Swedes) are particularly likely to throw themselves into social turmoil when the opportunity presents itself.
And four, you can say that average Americans would be better if they worked less and went without so much money, but you can't say that about poor Americans or poor American trading partners. Less money spent means fewer American jobs, right on down to restaurant workers. Similarly, if we buy fewer goods from (and outsource fewer services to) poor countries, that works against the worldwide poverty agenda.
Here's his idea: People work hard not so much for more stuff, but for more stuff relative to what everyone else has. So for any individual, there's a reason to work hard. If your neighbors are at the office 24/7, you need to keep up, and if they're lazy, you should use the opportunity to get ahead of them.
The best solution, as he sees it, is to declare a ceasefire as the French have. Surveys indicate people would rather work less for less money. We should pass a law capping the number of hours one can work in a week and mandate employers provide tons of vacation time.
The argument is an honest one, but I think there are some negative ramifications. One, the French can do this because Americans invent the products that make their work so efficient. They're free riders. If Americans did this too, worldwide progress would significantly decrease. Essentially, Americans working like Europeans is akin to Atlas shrugging.
Two, it is morally wrong, when an employer and an employee both want the employee to work more hours for more money, for the government to step in.
Three, the French get a month's vacation time, 30-hour weeks and unlimited vacation days. It's been said truthfully that idle hands are the devil's workshop. People loitering instead of working isn't good for social stability anywhere, and as the welfare state showed, Americans (as opposed to, say, Swedes) are particularly likely to throw themselves into social turmoil when the opportunity presents itself.
And four, you can say that average Americans would be better if they worked less and went without so much money, but you can't say that about poor Americans or poor American trading partners. Less money spent means fewer American jobs, right on down to restaurant workers. Similarly, if we buy fewer goods from (and outsource fewer services to) poor countries, that works against the worldwide poverty agenda.
| 30 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
