Four day workweek, six weeks of vacation

According to this Bureau of Labor Statistics pdf, real per capita GDP, in 2002 dollars, was $19,144 in 1970 and $38,392 in 2004. That means that, per capita, we were nearly exactly twice as rich two years ago than we were 36 years ago. This is great news!

Except I don't feel twice as rich as people in 1970. Do you?

If we are really twice as rich, why do we still have to work five days per week and only get two weeks of vacation?

Assuming ten holidays and ten vacation days per year, then the workyear is 241 days. My reckoning is that we could increase vacation to six weeks, and reduce workdays to four days per week, and still have a workyear consisting of 176 days. If per capita GDP really increased by 100%, surely we could reduce the workyear by 27%?

Assuming a linear relationship between time worked and GDP, going to a four day workweek with six weeks of vacation would still leave us with a per capita GDP that's 46% greater than in 1970, and that's pretty good. It's not like 1970 was a time of great poverty.

Furthermore, current per capita GDP would actually be more than 46% greater than 1970, because GDP is a combination of both labor and capital. If we reduce labor input by 27% but capital remains the same, then the decline in output should be somewhat less than 27%. GDP might decrease by only 14%. In which case we'd be 72% wealthier than in 1970 but have a massive amount of additional free time.

Comments

[Luke Lea]

Couple of points: when a man marries his housekeeper, GDP goes down. In other words, GDP measures the money economy, and does not include the home economy. Back in the 1970's most women stayed home cooking, cleaning, raising their kids, etc. Now they work, the family eats fastfood, hire daycare, etc.. In effect, millions of husbands have divorced their housekeepers.

Also, the distriubtion of income is much more unequal now. Most of the gain has gone to the top few percent. Unskilled labor, in particular, is not remunerated the way it used to be. The bottom half of the population has not only not shared, but has lost share, in the growing American economy. Not good.

[superdestroyer]

How do you plan to run an economy with four day work weeks. Do you expect lawyers offices, outpatient clinics, universities to be open only four days a week or do you expect them to hire more people to stagger work across five days.

If the cost of employing people does up but sales/income stay the same, all you will manage to do if lower pay for most people.

How much increase in unemployment are you willing to endure to have more vacation? How many more business failures are you willing to accept?

[Don Marsh]

As a person who is self-employed, I really don't care how everyone else solves this. But what you have done is caught me at a time when my wife and I are re-examining our income, spending and saving habits. And I have to tell you that the idea of working 4 days and vacationing 6 weeks is a worthy thing to shoot for. Except, that someone like me will do that one year, get bored, and start a side business with the extra time.

When I started my business, I was unskilled labor with no prospects. People like that need to get in touch with the opportunities there are for people who are willing to do other people's dirty work.

[Peter]

Six weeks of vacation actually might end up being more than most people could handle. I've been at my job for 12 years and get what works out to a total of four weeks vacation per year. Vacation days cannot be carried over past year-end. In both 2004 and 2005 I ended up having to take some random days off in December just so I wouldn't lose any vacation days and I'll probably end up doing the same this year.

[michael vassar]

You should read "the two income trap". It discusses how much wealthier median families *really* are.

[Noumenon]

Or alternatively, we all ought to be able to retire at 50, taking the vacation all at once.