sure wish we could discuss the UAWs incredible strike. (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

This strike will eventually help the current workers, the next generations though, watch out. Jobs will be sent to mexico, china, anywhere but here. It's a bad strategy. But hey, take care of you now, who cares about the next generations.

They said the same thing 100 years ago too.

And what happened to US manufacturing during the second half of the 20th century?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Also, people are conflating salaried email jobs where people "work" 50 hour weeks with blue collar hourly jobs with 40 hour weeks. Those are two totally different things. Auto workers don't have work-life balance issues.

I think this depends on who’s talking and who you believe. From the handful of podcasts and articles I’ve used to try to understand the strike, my impression is this is just about money, couched in terms of work-life balance. Fain often tells stories about UAW members who work 6 ten hour shifts (or more) each week, have missed their kids milestones, etc. I don’t think this is about working 4 days and taking 3 off. It seems to be more of a means to increase overtime pay from my limited understanding.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Also, people are conflating salaried email jobs where people "work" 50 hour weeks with blue collar hourly jobs with 40 hour weeks. Those are two totally different things. Auto workers don't have work-life balance issues.

I think this depends on who’s talking and who you believe. From the handful of podcasts and articles I’ve used to try to understand the strike, my impression is this is just about money, couched in terms of work-life balance. Fain often tells stories about UAW members who work 6 ten hour shifts (or more) each week, have missed their kids milestones, etc. I don’t think this is about working 4 days and taking 3 off. It seems to be more of a means to increase overtime pay from my limited understanding.

Yeah, I agree. This is one of those times where I was really talking about people in this thread, not the UAW.

 

[msudaisy26]

This strike will eventually help the current workers, the next generations though, watch out. Jobs will be sent to mexico, china, anywhere but here. It's a bad strategy. But hey, take care of you now, who cares about the next generations.

They said the same thing 100 years ago too.

And what happened to US manufacturing during the second half of the 20th century?

We also don't know if those jobs would have moved overseas even if the wages were lower. There is no evidence that the wages and conditions overseas wouldn't be even lower and worse than they are now.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This strike will eventually help the current workers, the next generations though, watch out. Jobs will be sent to mexico, china, anywhere but here. It's a bad strategy. But hey, take care of you now, who cares about the next generations.

They said the same thing 100 years ago too.

And what happened to US manufacturing during the second half of the 20th century?

We also don't know if those jobs would have moved overseas even if the wages were lower. There is no evidence that the wages and conditions overseas wouldn't be even lower and worse than they are now.

Well, sure. It depends mainly on domestic production costs vs. producing overseas and shipping back here. Nobody thinks that domestic wages are the only variable that matters, but it's certainly one variable that matters.

I'm just asking for people to keep in mind that the auto industry isn't always highly-profitable (others have already reminded you of the 2008 recession) and that we went through a massive, generations-long retrenchment from manufacturing over our collective lifetimes that is just now showing tiny signs of possibly starting to turn around. These firms are doing well at the moment and I certainly don't begrudge their workers wanting to negotiate for a higher share of the profits. I don't work in that industry and I don't own stock in any of those companies, so what do I care either way. Workers in this industry routinely get laid off during recessions, so it only seems reasonable that they get to benefit during boom period.

 

[Nugget]

Unifor contract expires for Canadian workers at midnight. Ford is the strike target - haven't seen much info on how those negotiations are progressing.

 

[msudaisy26]

This strike will eventually help the current workers, the next generations though, watch out. Jobs will be sent to mexico, china, anywhere but here. It's a bad strategy. But hey, take care of you now, who cares about the next generations.

They said the same thing 100 years ago too.

And what happened to US manufacturing during the second half of the 20th century?

We also don't know if those jobs would have moved overseas even if the wages were lower. There is no evidence that the wages and conditions overseas wouldn't be even lower and worse than they are now.

Well, sure. It depends mainly on domestic production costs vs. producing overseas and shipping back here. Nobody thinks that domestic wages are the only variable that matters, but it's certainly one variable that matters.

I'm just asking for people to keep in mind that the auto industry isn't always highly-profitable (others have already reminded you of the 2008 recession) and that we went through a massive, generations-long retrenchment from manufacturing over our collective lifetimes that is just now showing tiny signs of possibly starting to turn around. These firms are doing well at the moment and I certainly don't begrudge their workers wanting to negotiate for a higher share of the profits. I don't work in that industry and I don't own stock in any of those companies, so what do I care either way. Workers in this industry routinely get laid off during recessions, so it only seems reasonable that they get to benefit during boom period.

I can agree with this and apologize if I came off as combative. This is something that hits close to home for me, (my husband was on strike for a few weeks this year and we have family members in the industry).

 

[Stoneworker]

Plus we heard all the cries in 2008 how we were all in this together and the UAW and their workers had to give back so everyone could survive and the workers did., but for the last decade these auto makers have been thriving and not fairly sharing the prosperity.

I don't think a single person in this thread has discouraged the workers for negotiating for every single penny they can. Good for them. But it has implications.

This is the problem. When the company is more profitable it is great for the economy and good for business, no matter how they do it. (with a few exceptions). When the workers make more money it has implications and screws over the consumer, and hurts the business.

I grew up in the Detroit area and my father was UAW for 25 years. I understand the "us vs. them" dynamic quite well. Let's just leave it at that.

Good luck with the negotiations

 

[Slumpbusters]

Grew up in metro Detroit, 3 miles from GM Tech Center in Warren. Most of my friends had parents who were UAW, and the whole area is either part of the automotive industry, or built to support those who work in it (like schools, retail, etc.).

The main problem we have here is an over/under valuation of skill and contribution.

The UAW got fat and happy in my younger years (late 90s up until early 00s). People were making great money and doing little actual work. I had a buddy that went in for 10 hours (2 OT hours/day) and literally did about 30 minutes of actual work. He slept on the job regularly, got burnt out on podcasts and books, and eventually quit because he couldn't take it anymore. He was making six figures with great benefits.

I personally went to Ford Dearborn Rouge and had to wait 2 hours to use a hand trolly 15 feet from me because I needed the right classification of employee to use it.

These are two tiny stories of millions I've heard in the area. This led to migration of jobs out of the US into Canada and Mexico.

Now after the recession, in my opinion the "concessions" the UAW made were simply rectifying years of abuse. People were getting paid according to their contribution, supply chain weaknesses were exposed along with incentives to re-domesticate and plants are moving back finally.

However, it went a little too far and now we have an undervaluation of the blue-collar worker that got exposed and began to get sorted during covid. We owe people a living wage, but according to the technical skills they have developed. The big three are failing folks by not mapping out a career path for them, advancing them from basic skills that they would get minimum pay for as a manufacturing employee (entry level - in my area about $19/hour) to a highly skilled individual that performs key functions for the company (and compensated as such- the $30-$40/hour range).

Just my 2 cents -

 

[Joe Bryant]

Now that you mention it, my pay more than doubled in that period.

Yes. That's more what I've heard from folks. My best friend is an MD. While nurses' pay has gone up much less dramatically. I don't know if that's relevant to this discussion but I do think the ratios and also the way in which things change are interesting. As in your case, most people are fine with thier own per hour rates doubling. It's those other people that are the problem.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Agricultural subsidies for stuff other than fruits and veggies, inadequate promotion of exercise through infrastructure like bicycle paths/walkways, poor reimbursement for preventative health services, defunded public health departments, avoidance of meaningful drug and firearm legislation, etc. A lot of politics in this discussion, so I’ll stop there.

We'll just disagree there. I think there's a wide gap between not promoting enough of the things you feel are best compared to accusing an organization of "promoting unhealthful living." But I do agree that gets too close to politics so I'll drop that there.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Grew up in metro Detroit, 3 miles from GM Tech Center in Warren. Most of my friends had parents who were UAW, and the whole area is either part of the automotive industry, or built to support those who work in it (like schools, retail, etc.).

The main problem we have here is an over/under valuation of skill and contribution.

The UAW got fat and happy in my younger years (late 90s up until early 00s). People were making great money and doing little actual work. I had a buddy that went in for 10 hours (2 OT hours/day) and literally did about 30 minutes of actual work. He slept on the job regularly, got burnt out on podcasts and books, and eventually quit because he couldn't take it anymore. He was making six figures with great benefits.

I personally went to Ford Dearborn Rouge and had to wait 2 hours to use a hand trolly 15 feet from me because I needed the right classification of employee to use it.

These are two tiny stories of millions I've heard in the area. This led to migration of jobs out of the US into Canada and Mexico.

Now after the recession, in my opinion the "concessions" the UAW made were simply rectifying years of abuse. People were getting paid according to their contribution, supply chain weaknesses were exposed along with incentives to re-domesticate and plants are moving back finally.

However, it went a little too far and now we have an undervaluation of the blue-collar worker that got exposed and began to get sorted during covid. We owe people a living wage, but according to the technical skills they have developed. The big three are failing folks by not mapping out a career path for them, advancing them from basic skills that they would get minimum pay for as a manufacturing employee (entry level - in my area about $19/hour) to a highly skilled individual that performs key functions for the company (and compensated as such- the $30-$40/hour range).

Just my 2 cents -

This had been my anecdotal experience as well. One of the largest trade shows in the marine industry used to be at McCormick Place in Chicago. But the Teamsters union made thing incredibly difficult for exhibitors. Things like you couldn't vacuum the carpet in the booth you paid for because there was a housekeeping union that you had to pay a crazy rate per hour. Couldn't plug a regular extension cord into a normal electrical outlet provided without a union electrician to plug the cord in. That kind of thing.

Eventually it became such an obstacle they moved the show to a city with way less obstacles.

Obviously, unions have a role and do some good things. But it seemed in my experience they'd swung far over to the other side in some areas.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Grew up in metro Detroit, 3 miles from GM Tech Center in Warren. Most of my friends had parents who were UAW, and the whole area is either part of the automotive industry, or built to support those who work in it (like schools, retail, etc.).

The main problem we have here is an over/under valuation of skill and contribution.

The UAW got fat and happy in my younger years (late 90s up until early 00s). People were making great money and doing little actual work. I had a buddy that went in for 10 hours (2 OT hours/day) and literally did about 30 minutes of actual work. He slept on the job regularly, got burnt out on podcasts and books, and eventually quit because he couldn't take it anymore. He was making six figures with great benefits.

I personally went to Ford Dearborn Rouge and had to wait 2 hours to use a hand trolly 15 feet from me because I needed the right classification of employee to use it.

These are two tiny stories of millions I've heard in the area. This led to migration of jobs out of the US into Canada and Mexico.

Now after the recession, in my opinion the "concessions" the UAW made were simply rectifying years of abuse. People were getting paid according to their contribution, supply chain weaknesses were exposed along with incentives to re-domesticate and plants are moving back finally.

However, it went a little too far and now we have an undervaluation of the blue-collar worker that got exposed and began to get sorted during covid. We owe people a living wage, but according to the technical skills they have developed. The big three are failing folks by not mapping out a career path for them, advancing them from basic skills that they would get minimum pay for as a manufacturing employee (entry level - in my area about $19/hour) to a highly skilled individual that performs key functions for the company (and compensated as such- the $30-$40/hour range).

Just my 2 cents -

This had been my anecdotal experience as well. One of the largest trade shows in the marine industry used to be at McCormick Place in Chicago. But the Teamsters union made thing incredibly difficult for exhibitors. Things like you couldn't vacuum the carpet in the booth you paid for because there was a housekeeping union that you had to pay a crazy rate per hour. Couldn't plug a regular extension cord into a normal electrical outlet provided without a union electrician to plug the cord in. That kind of thing.

Eventually it became such an obstacle they moved the show to a city with way less obstacles.

Obviously, unions have a role and do some good things. But it seemed in my experience they'd swung far over to the other side in some areas.

Oh man this brings back some memories. I remember we had to wait forever for an electrician because we needed to run an extension cord underneath or floor set up. Basically 24 inchx24 inch tiles that were raised a bit. We waited and waited. the guy finally shows up and says that he can't do it. He can plug it in, but he can't run the cord because of the custom flooring. I said report me if you want. I am not dealing with the labyrinth of people involved here so I am going to run the cord. We need power and we need it now. He turned around and whistled. I ran it, he plugged it in. Nobody said anything so I am guessing he didn't want to deal with it either.

 

[MTskibum]

This strike will eventually help the current workers, the next generations though, watch out. Jobs will be sent to mexico, china, anywhere but here. It's a bad strategy. But hey, take care of you now, who cares about the next generations.

They said the same thing 100 years ago too.

And what happened to US manufacturing during the second half of the 20th century?

Manufacturing has increased pretty steadily with just a few minor blips along the way, the 2008 recession hit our manufacturing sector pretty hard though.

Production: Manufacturing: Total Manufacturing for United States

Graph and download economic data for Production: Manufacturing: Total Manufacturing for United States (PRMNTO01USQ661N) from Q1 1960 to Q2 2023 about IP, manufacturing, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

 

[Joe Bryant]

Grew up in metro Detroit, 3 miles from GM Tech Center in Warren. Most of my friends had parents who were UAW, and the whole area is either part of the automotive industry, or built to support those who work in it (like schools, retail, etc.).

The main problem we have here is an over/under valuation of skill and contribution.

The UAW got fat and happy in my younger years (late 90s up until early 00s). People were making great money and doing little actual work. I had a buddy that went in for 10 hours (2 OT hours/day) and literally did about 30 minutes of actual work. He slept on the job regularly, got burnt out on podcasts and books, and eventually quit because he couldn't take it anymore. He was making six figures with great benefits.

I personally went to Ford Dearborn Rouge and had to wait 2 hours to use a hand trolly 15 feet from me because I needed the right classification of employee to use it.

These are two tiny stories of millions I've heard in the area. This led to migration of jobs out of the US into Canada and Mexico.

Now after the recession, in my opinion the "concessions" the UAW made were simply rectifying years of abuse. People were getting paid according to their contribution, supply chain weaknesses were exposed along with incentives to re-domesticate and plants are moving back finally.

However, it went a little too far and now we have an undervaluation of the blue-collar worker that got exposed and began to get sorted during covid. We owe people a living wage, but according to the technical skills they have developed. The big three are failing folks by not mapping out a career path for them, advancing them from basic skills that they would get minimum pay for as a manufacturing employee (entry level - in my area about $19/hour) to a highly skilled individual that performs key functions for the company (and compensated as such- the $30-$40/hour range).

Just my 2 cents -

This had been my anecdotal experience as well. One of the largest trade shows in the marine industry used to be at McCormick Place in Chicago. But the Teamsters union made thing incredibly difficult for exhibitors. Things like you couldn't vacuum the carpet in the booth you paid for because there was a housekeeping union that you had to pay a crazy rate per hour. Couldn't plug a regular extension cord into a normal electrical outlet provided without a union electrician to plug the cord in. That kind of thing.

Eventually it became such an obstacle they moved the show to a city with way less obstacles.

Obviously, unions have a role and do some good things. But it seemed in my experience they'd swung far over to the other side in some areas.

Oh man this brings back some memories. I remember we had to wait forever for an electrician because we needed to run an extension cord underneath or floor set up. Basically 24 inchx24 inch tiles that were raised a bit. We waited and waited. the guy finally shows up and says that he can't do it. He can plug it in, but he can't run the cord because of the custom flooring. I said report me if you want. I am not dealing with the labyrinth of people involved here so I am going to run the cord. We need power and we need it now. He turned around and whistled. I ran it, he plugged it in. Nobody said anything so I am guessing he didn't want to deal with it either.

Yes. I mean I get why they'd want a non-competitive system like that where they made huge money for little work. But that assumes there are no other options.

 

[FatMax]

Grew up in metro Detroit, 3 miles from GM Tech Center in Warren. Most of my friends had parents who were UAW, and the whole area is either part of the automotive industry, or built to support those who work in it (like schools, retail, etc.).

The main problem we have here is an over/under valuation of skill and contribution.

The UAW got fat and happy in my younger years (late 90s up until early 00s). People were making great money and doing little actual work. I had a buddy that went in for 10 hours (2 OT hours/day) and literally did about 30 minutes of actual work. He slept on the job regularly, got burnt out on podcasts and books, and eventually quit because he couldn't take it anymore. He was making six figures with great benefits.

I personally went to Ford Dearborn Rouge and had to wait 2 hours to use a hand trolly 15 feet from me because I needed the right classification of employee to use it.

These are two tiny stories of millions I've heard in the area. This led to migration of jobs out of the US into Canada and Mexico.

Now after the recession, in my opinion the "concessions" the UAW made were simply rectifying years of abuse. People were getting paid according to their contribution, supply chain weaknesses were exposed along with incentives to re-domesticate and plants are moving back finally.

However, it went a little too far and now we have an undervaluation of the blue-collar worker that got exposed and began to get sorted during covid. We owe people a living wage, but according to the technical skills they have developed. The big three are failing folks by not mapping out a career path for them, advancing them from basic skills that they would get minimum pay for as a manufacturing employee (entry level - in my area about $19/hour) to a highly skilled individual that performs key functions for the company (and compensated as such- the $30-$40/hour range).

Just my 2 cents -

This had been my anecdotal experience as well. One of the largest trade shows in the marine industry used to be at McCormick Place in Chicago. But the Teamsters union made thing incredibly difficult for exhibitors. Things like you couldn't vacuum the carpet in the booth you paid for because there was a housekeeping union that you had to pay a crazy rate per hour. Couldn't plug a regular extension cord into a normal electrical outlet provided without a union electrician to plug the cord in. That kind of thing.

Eventually it became such an obstacle they moved the show to a city with way less obstacles.

Obviously, unions have a role and do some good things. But it seemed in my experience they'd swung far over to the other side in some areas.

Oh man this brings back some memories. I remember we had to wait forever for an electrician because we needed to run an extension cord underneath or floor set up. Basically 24 inchx24 inch tiles that were raised a bit. We waited and waited. the guy finally shows up and says that he can't do it. He can plug it in, but he can't run the cord because of the custom flooring. I said report me if you want. I am not dealing with the labyrinth of people involved here so I am going to run the cord. We need power and we need it now. He turned around and whistled. I ran it, he plugged it in. Nobody said anything so I am guessing he didn't want to deal with it either.

Here's mine.

Years ago, we designed an manufactured a small prototype machine meant for cutting damaged bags of sugar/flour or whatever other similar food product that is either granular or powdered. A big name sugar company showed some interested so we set up an appointment to demonstrate this machine at their facility. This was a small prototype, and could easily fit into the back of a pickup and be unloaded by hand with two people.

The process should have worked like this. A) unload. B) plug it in to a standard wall outlet, and C) run it. Except each one of these had to be performed by a union member. And not the same union member, mind you, but three different guys. It turned a fifteen minute job into three hours.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Agricultural subsidies for stuff other than fruits and veggies, inadequate promotion of exercise through infrastructure like bicycle paths/walkways, poor reimbursement for preventative health services, defunded public health departments, avoidance of meaningful drug and firearm legislation, etc. A lot of politics in this discussion, so I’ll stop there.

We'll just disagree there. I think there's a wide gap between not promoting enough of the things you feel are best compared to accusing an organization of "promoting unhealthful living." But I do agree that gets too close to politics so I'll drop that there.

Fair enough. There’s a newish Netflix series called Live to 100: Secrets of the Blue Zones. It delves into the relationship between policy and health in its final episode. You may want to check it out, to see better examples of what I’m talking about.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Now that you mention it, my pay more than doubled in that period.

Yes. That's more what I've heard from folks. My best friend is an MD. While nurses' pay has gone up much less dramatically. I don't know if that's relevant to this discussion but I do think the ratios and also the way in which things change are interesting. As in your case, most people are fine with thier own per hour rates doubling. It's those other people that are the problem.

To be clear, I think physicians in this country are overpaid, across the board. Same with nurses.

But if I were listing overvalued professions, healthcare workers would be near the bottom.

 

[The Z Machine]

Now that you mention it, my pay more than doubled in that period.

Yes. That's more what I've heard from folks. My best friend is an MD. While nurses' pay has gone up much less dramatically. I don't know if that's relevant to this discussion but I do think the ratios and also the way in which things change are interesting. As in your case, most people are fine with thier own per hour rates doubling. It's those other people that are the problem.

To be clear, I think physicians in this country are overpaid, across the board. Same with nurses.

But if I were listing overvalued professions, healthcare workers would be near the bottom.

Interesting distinction between overpaid and overvalued.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Fair enough. There’s a newish Netflix series called Live to 100: Secrets of the Blue Zones. It delves into the relationship between policy and health in its final episode. You may want to check it out, to see better examples of what I’m talking about.

Of course we can always do better with policies.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This has been a wide ranging and interesting discussion. Thank y'all.

One element I think is interesting on this is US manufacturing vs sending jobs to other countries.

I'm less interested in the political parts of that than I am the actual practical parts of how people behave. I find myself lonelier and lonelier it seems on the island of strongly preferring goods made by US companies employing people here.

And more specifically, how people "vote" with their wallet in how much more they'll pay for a US made item than one made with cheaper labor elsewhere.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

The CarDealership Guy's podcast last week is fantastic for insight into the current market, developments over the past year, and a good discussion of some of the strike issues about 30 minutes in. It was recorded days before the strike but they are expecting it.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1702659237443219876

He's on spotify and the other outlets.

 

[msudaisy26]

This has been a wide ranging and interesting discussion. Thank y'all.

One element I think is interesting on this is US manufacturing vs sending jobs to other countries.

I'm less interested in the political parts of that than I am the actual practical parts of how people behave. I find myself lonelier and lonelier it seems on the island of strongly preferring goods made by US companies employing people here.

And more specifically, how people "vote" with their wallet in how much more they'll pay for a US made item than one made with cheaper labor elsewhere.

I don't think a lot of people choose to vote with their wallet, at least not when it comes to buying things. It just isn't something most people think about.

Most of the time people buy things out of necessity. When they do they look buy they usually look at convenience, and/or price. It can be very time consuming trying to find things that are US made if you are shopping at a traditional brick and mortar store.

The other issue is price and then you get into the argument that is like arguing what came first the chicken or the egg. If our wages had kept up with inflation over time would people would have more disposable income to buy the higher priced US made foods, or would the US good be priced even higher than they are now because the wages were higher over time? I believe in the former because I think these companies will charge whatever they can when selling their products. I believe that because of how much auto prices have went up over the last decade compared to the wages of those blue collar workers.

 

[The Commish]

Fair enough. There’s a newish Netflix series called Live to 100: Secrets of the Blue Zones. It delves into the relationship between policy and health in its final episode. You may want to check it out, to see better examples of what I’m talking about.

Wife was watching this last week and I only caught part of it. In my experience when discussing the motives of government and business and what their goals are, we are rarely disappointed if we "follow the money". Health/healthcare in this country is a "for-profit" endeavor. To your point, all the things we invest in and all the things we DON'T invest in speak volumes to those motives. The "messaging" around it is pretty meaningless as you're never going to hear an ad campaign saying "hey, we want to hook you on sugar, so buy this processed box of breakfast". Actions/Inactions (like the ones you list a few posts prior) should always speak louder than the advertising/words.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don't think a lot of people choose to vote with their wallet, at least not when it comes to buying things. It just isn't something most people think about.

Most of the time people buy things out of necessity. When they do they look buy they usually look at convenience, and/or price. It can be very time consuming trying to find things that are US made if you are shopping at a traditional brick and mortar store.

Interesting. Thanks. I don't think I agree as I do think a lot of people think about it. They may still decide to buy the thing that's made in ___________ and hope the workers are treated well but I think lots of people think about it.

I know for me, it's very important.

Not for everything of course. But for lots of things.

But I also acknowledge I'm on the edge of the spectrum for that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Wife was watching this last week and I only caught part of it. In my experience when discussing the motives of government and business and what their goals are, we are rarely disappointed if we "follow the money". Health/healthcare in this country is a "for-profit" endeavor. To your point, all the things we invest in and all the things we DON'T invest in speak volumes to those motives. The "messaging" around it is pretty meaningless as you're never going to hear an ad campaign saying "hey, we want to hook you on sugar, so buy this processed box of breakfast". Actions/Inactions (like the ones you list a few posts prior) should always speak louder than the advertising/words.

That can be an interesting discussion too.

Personally, I think it's less about the Food Company strategically planning to hook people on sugar in cereal with the grand master plan they'll eventually get diabetes and have to buy dialysis from their buddy's Medical Company and more about sugar makes cereal taste good and people will buy more cereal if it tastes good.

 

[The Commish]

Wife was watching this last week and I only caught part of it. In my experience when discussing the motives of government and business and what their goals are, we are rarely disappointed if we "follow the money". Health/healthcare in this country is a "for-profit" endeavor. To your point, all the things we invest in and all the things we DON'T invest in speak volumes to those motives. The "messaging" around it is pretty meaningless as you're never going to hear an ad campaign saying "hey, we want to hook you on sugar, so buy this processed box of breakfast". Actions/Inactions (like the ones you list a few posts prior) should always speak louder than the advertising/words.

That can be an interesting discussion too.

Personally, I think it's less about the Food Company strategically planning to hook people on sugar in cereal with the grand master plan they'll eventually get diabetes and have to buy dialysis from their buddy's Medical Company and more about sugar makes cereal taste good and people will buy more cereal if it tastes good.

There's not some massive collusion between industries. That takes too many people being on the same page and keeping their mouths shut. Term listed a bunch of points of reference showing us what the motives are of companies in this country and how successfully they have lobbied the government to help achieve their goals. They are intertwined and have reliance/dependence on each other even if they aren't in a direct conspiracy together.

 

[Dr_Zaius]

I've read the whole thread - a lot of interesting points and I'm not going to go back and tag/quote the specific people. My two cents on some of the topics of discussion:

• On CEO pay, my issue has always been that's it's not pay for performance in any real sense of the word. Does a successful CEO of an industry leader deserve an exorbitant salary? I think so. The problem is that the Nathan Peterman of CEOs also gets an exorbitant salary. The system is rife with bad incentives, IMO.
• Europe undeniably has better work life balance than the USA, but this does come with a cost. They are not on the cutting edge in any field that I am aware of. Maybe that's worth it, maybe it's not. It's a question of what a society values.
• The grow-at-all-cost of a publicly traded company does lead to some bad policies. In my book, a small company that makes a steady profit every year (say, maybe 2% net on $10M in revenue) serving a niche market and providing worthwhile employment for people is a success. In the world of Wall Street, that company is a dog to be shunned.
• I'm not sure how to fix unions in this country. To the extent that they provide a counterweight to the inherent power disparity between big business and the worker, they're great. In theory. The problem is the unions I've actually dealt with in real life seem to spend most of their time protecting the worst employees as well as creating these absolutely ridiculous work rules that some others have referenced. I've got several crazy stories in this vein.

 

[Scoresman]

• Europe undeniably has better work life balance than the USA, but this does come with a cost. They are not on the cutting edge in any field that I am aware of. Maybe that's worth it, maybe it's not. It's a question of what a society values.

Does this actually have a tangible cost to the average citizen or is it just a pride thing? Sure I like to buy American where I can, but honestly don't think about it much. My phone, computer, TV, refrigerator, car, etc. are all mostly made overseas, mostly because of the reliability and quality of those specific brands. This wouldn't change at all for me if I lived in Europe.

 

[Ron Swanson]

This has been a wide ranging and interesting discussion. Thank y'all.

One element I think is interesting on this is US manufacturing vs sending jobs to other countries.

I'm less interested in the political parts of that than I am the actual practical parts of how people behave. I find myself lonelier and lonelier it seems on the island of strongly preferring goods made by US companies employing people here.

And more specifically, how people "vote" with their wallet in how much more they'll pay for a US made item than one made with cheaper labor elsewhere.

The future for the US based on an aging population with fewer skilled laborers dictates that an increasing amount of manufacturing will have to move elsewhere.

Personally, I prefer a quality product above all else. Sometimes that's US made, sometimes not. And in some cases buying a foreign made product from a US company can actually result in more profit to the US company and its owners and employees. Too many factors at play for me to distill it down to simply preferring US made products.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Personally, I prefer a quality product above all else. Sometimes that's US made, sometimes not. And in some cases buying a foreign made product from a US company can actually result in more profit to the US company and its owners and employees. Too many factors at play for me to distill it down to simply preferring US made products.

I think that's how most likely feel.

I do wonder though how that plays out on practical things. Like why not move all the UAW jobs to Mexico instead of just some of them?

I don't really know how much people care about that. I care a lot. But I also have a strong preference for products made in the US.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

• Europe undeniably has better work life balance than the USA, but this does come with a cost. They are not on the cutting edge in any field that I am aware of. Maybe that's worth it, maybe it's not. It's a question of what a society values.

Does this actually have a tangible cost to the average citizen or is it just a pride thing? Sure I like to buy American where I can, but honestly don't think about it much. My phone, computer, TV, refrigerator, car, etc. are all mostly made overseas, mostly because of the reliability and quality of those specific brands. This wouldn't change at all for me if I lived in Europe.

Pick a relatively prosperous European country. Not Italy, not Greece. Let's go with Germany. Everybody knows that Germans are efficient, punctual, and ruggedly handsome, so they're a good comparison case for the US.

Per capita GDP in Germany is $51K.
Per capita GDP in the US is almost $80K.

If anything, that comparison actually understates the true magnitude of the gap between our countries. If Germany were a state, it would have the honor of squeaking in just ahead of Mississippi to avoid the indignity of being the poorest US state. Germany lags behind economic powerhouses like West Virginia and Arkansas. All those German settlers who landed in Minnesota and the Dakotas? We're about 50% better off than modern day Germans, and nobody thinks of us as especially rich. (Eagle-eyed viewers will note that there's a bit of discrepancy here because that German GDP number is for 2021 and the US figure is from 2022, but that isn't going to change anything.)

Yeah, there's a cost to this.

Now, I shut my computer off at the end of the day and leave my work in my office when I leave. I get four weeks of PTO each year -- pretty skimpy compared to what I'm sure my German counterparts get but still fairly generous by US standards -- and I make it my personal mission to use every minute of it. I could have made significantly more income in my current career if I had been willing to relocate, and of course I could have simply picked a higher-paying career if I really cared. But I like academia and I like the upper Midwest, so I made the decision to give up some income for a better lifestyle. Couldn't be happier with the outcome of that decision. I am definitely a person who is persuadable that maybe the Europeans have this right. But yes, there is a tradeoff.

Edit: It's actually pretty instructive to compare assorted countries in the EU to the US. Norway is doing great, for example, but you learn real fast that they're a huge outlier. Countries that we think of as our peers -- Germany, France, the UK, Belgium -- are all pretty poor compared to us. Spain barely even qualifies as a first-world country. IMO, Americans don't really have a good handle on how much richer we are compared to pretty much everybody else. Ironically, I think foreign travel actually kind of exacerbates that tendency because rich Americans tend to travel to popular European tourist destinations that cater to rich tourists, so the difference in living standards is mostly masked when you visit Europe. You have to go in a regular grocery store or something to really see the difference tangibly.

 

[Scoresman]

• Europe undeniably has better work life balance than the USA, but this does come with a cost. They are not on the cutting edge in any field that I am aware of. Maybe that's worth it, maybe it's not. It's a question of what a society values.

Does this actually have a tangible cost to the average citizen or is it just a pride thing? Sure I like to buy American where I can, but honestly don't think about it much. My phone, computer, TV, refrigerator, car, etc. are all mostly made overseas, mostly because of the reliability and quality of those specific brands. This wouldn't change at all for me if I lived in Europe.

Pick a relatively prosperous European country. Not Italy, not Greece. Let's go with Germany. Everybody knows that Germans are efficient, punctual, and ruggedly handsome, so they're a good comparison case for the US.

Per capita GDP in Germany is $51K.
Per capita GDP in the US is almost $80K.

If anything, that comparison actually understates the true magnitude of the gap between our countries. If Germany were a state, it would have the honor of squeaking in just ahead of Mississippi to avoid the indignity of being the poorest US state. Germany lags behind economic powerhouses like West Virginia and Arkansas. All those German settlers who landed in Minnesota and the Dakotas? We're about 50% better off than modern day Germans, and nobody thinks of us as especially rich. (Eagle-eyed viewers will note that there's a bit of discrepancy here because that German GDP number is for 2021 and the US figure is from 2022, but that isn't going to change anything.)

Yeah, there's a cost to this.

Now, I shut my computer off at the end of the day and leave my work in my office when I leave. I get four weeks of PTO each year -- pretty skimpy compared to what I'm sure my German counterparts get but still fairly generous by US standards -- and I make it my personal mission to use every minute of it. I could have made significantly more income in my current career if I had been willing to relocate, and of course I could have simply picked a higher-paying career if I really cared. But I like academia and I like the upper Midwest, so I made the decision to give up some income for a better lifestyle. Couldn't be happier with the outcome of that decision. I am definitely a person who is persuadable that maybe the Europeans have this right. But yes, there is a tradeoff.

A cost to the average citizen? I have a lot of family and friends in Belgium. They all pretty much have similar jobs, wealth levels as I do, have the same "things", and standard of living. I'm sure Belgium ranks even lower than Germany in terms of GDP. So what's the cost to the average citizen? Looking at current "happiness" indices, Germany is right on par with us despite apparently being poorer than West Virginia. It sounds like with the US being tops economically, it's easier for people who do want to put in the time to make a ton more money at the expense of life balance.

Also, your description of your work/life balance and career decisions match mine exactly. Why wouldn't you or I benefit from doing the same thing in Europe and get more things like more vacation time and better health benefits?

 

[Dr_Zaius]

• Europe undeniably has better work life balance than the USA, but this does come with a cost. They are not on the cutting edge in any field that I am aware of. Maybe that's worth it, maybe it's not. It's a question of what a society values.

Does this actually have a tangible cost to the average citizen or is it just a pride thing? Sure I like to buy American where I can, but honestly don't think about it much. My phone, computer, TV, refrigerator, car, etc. are all mostly made overseas, mostly because of the reliability and quality of those specific brands. This wouldn't change at all for me if I lived in Europe.

Ivan covered it pretty well I think. Adam Smith said that there's a "great deal of ruin in a nation." Eschewing a work first mentally as a nation has a cost, but it will only be borne out over a long period of time. Eventually a few generations down you look up and you're France and the world has passed you by. Which, hey, I expect France is a pretty nice place to live. But if enough people opt for balance (and I try to opt for balance myself), eventually another country who chooses a different path will rise up and surpass the US. Will they be a benevolent hegemon? Who knows? In a way it's a prisoner's dilemma in that there will probably always be some group of people willing to work like madmen, and they will outcompete the people who choose otherwise.

 

[the moops]

Europe undeniably has better work life balance than the USA, but this does come with a cost. They are not on the cutting edge in any field that I am aware of. Maybe that's worth it, maybe it's not. It's a question of what a society values.

I don't think this is anywhere near accurate.

One example would be renewable energy.

 

[Joe Bryant]

• Europe undeniably has better work life balance than the USA, but this does come with a cost. They are not on the cutting edge in any field that I am aware of. Maybe that's worth it, maybe it's not. It's a question of what a society values.

Does this actually have a tangible cost to the average citizen or is it just a pride thing? Sure I like to buy American where I can, but honestly don't think about it much. My phone, computer, TV, refrigerator, car, etc. are all mostly made overseas, mostly because of the reliability and quality of those specific brands. This wouldn't change at all for me if I lived in Europe.

Pick a relatively prosperous European country. Not Italy, not Greece. Let's go with Germany. Everybody knows that Germans are efficient, punctual, and ruggedly handsome, so they're a good comparison case for the US.

Per capita GDP in Germany is $51K.
Per capita GDP in the US is almost $80K.

If anything, that comparison actually understates the true magnitude of the gap between our countries. If Germany were a state, it would have the honor of squeaking in just ahead of Mississippi to avoid the indignity of being the poorest US state. Germany lags behind economic powerhouses like West Virginia and Arkansas. All those German settlers who landed in Minnesota and the Dakotas? We're about 50% better off than modern day Germans, and nobody thinks of us as especially rich. (Eagle-eyed viewers will note that there's a bit of discrepancy here because that German GDP number is for 2021 and the US figure is from 2022, but that isn't going to change anything.)

Yeah, there's a cost to this.

Now, I shut my computer off at the end of the day and leave my work in my office when I leave. I get four weeks of PTO each year -- pretty skimpy compared to what I'm sure my German counterparts get but still fairly generous by US standards -- and I make it my personal mission to use every minute of it. I could have made significantly more income in my current career if I had been willing to relocate, and of course I could have simply picked a higher-paying career if I really cared. But I like academia and I like the upper Midwest, so I made the decision to give up some income for a better lifestyle. Couldn't be happier with the outcome of that decision. I am definitely a person who is persuadable that maybe the Europeans have this right. But yes, there is a tradeoff.

Edit: It's actually pretty instructive to compare assorted countries in the EU to the US. Norway is doing great, for example, but you learn real fast that they're a huge outlier. Countries that we think of as our peers -- Germany, France, the UK, Belgium -- are all pretty poor compared to us. Spain barely even qualifies as a first-world country. IMO, Americans don't really have a good handle on how much richer we are compared to pretty much everybody else. Ironically, I think foreign travel actually kind of exacerbates that tendency because rich Americans tend to travel to popular European tourist destinations that cater to rich tourists, so the difference in living standards is mostly masked when you visit Europe. You have to go in a regular grocery store or something to really see the difference tangibly.

Thanks. I didn't know this. I'm a noob on this but from how people talk, I would have assumed Germany would be the equal of the richest state in the US.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

• Europe undeniably has better work life balance than the USA, but this does come with a cost. They are not on the cutting edge in any field that I am aware of. Maybe that's worth it, maybe it's not. It's a question of what a society values.

Does this actually have a tangible cost to the average citizen or is it just a pride thing? Sure I like to buy American where I can, but honestly don't think about it much. My phone, computer, TV, refrigerator, car, etc. are all mostly made overseas, mostly because of the reliability and quality of those specific brands. This wouldn't change at all for me if I lived in Europe.

Pick a relatively prosperous European country. Not Italy, not Greece. Let's go with Germany. Everybody knows that Germans are efficient, punctual, and ruggedly handsome, so they're a good comparison case for the US.

Per capita GDP in Germany is $51K.
Per capita GDP in the US is almost $80K.

If anything, that comparison actually understates the true magnitude of the gap between our countries. If Germany were a state, it would have the honor of squeaking in just ahead of Mississippi to avoid the indignity of being the poorest US state. Germany lags behind economic powerhouses like West Virginia and Arkansas. All those German settlers who landed in Minnesota and the Dakotas? We're about 50% better off than modern day Germans, and nobody thinks of us as especially rich. (Eagle-eyed viewers will note that there's a bit of discrepancy here because that German GDP number is for 2021 and the US figure is from 2022, but that isn't going to change anything.)

Yeah, there's a cost to this.

Now, I shut my computer off at the end of the day and leave my work in my office when I leave. I get four weeks of PTO each year -- pretty skimpy compared to what I'm sure my German counterparts get but still fairly generous by US standards -- and I make it my personal mission to use every minute of it. I could have made significantly more income in my current career if I had been willing to relocate, and of course I could have simply picked a higher-paying career if I really cared. But I like academia and I like the upper Midwest, so I made the decision to give up some income for a better lifestyle. Couldn't be happier with the outcome of that decision. I am definitely a person who is persuadable that maybe the Europeans have this right. But yes, there is a tradeoff.

Edit: It's actually pretty instructive to compare assorted countries in the EU to the US. Norway is doing great, for example, but you learn real fast that they're a huge outlier. Countries that we think of as our peers -- Germany, France, the UK, Belgium -- are all pretty poor compared to us. Spain barely even qualifies as a first-world country. IMO, Americans don't really have a good handle on how much richer we are compared to pretty much everybody else. Ironically, I think foreign travel actually kind of exacerbates that tendency because rich Americans tend to travel to popular European tourist destinations that cater to rich tourists, so the difference in living standards is mostly masked when you visit Europe. You have to go in a regular grocery store or something to really see the difference tangibly.

The other big advantage we get is that our stock market flies because of it, and most of us are invested in that in some form or another. European markets, by comparison generally sit pretty flat.

If you look at the best performing stocks worldwide it's all USA, China, and a little bit of Korea. Very little from Europe.

BUT, as I've mentioned throughout this thread, number of hours worked is not the only factor in this, and is a much smaller factor than most would consider. It's largely a culture thing. Someone creates a successful Italian restaurant in America, they want to become the next Darden billionaire. Someone does the same thing in Europe, they're happy to just live a nice life. There's not the urge to scale scale scale, which doesn't necessarily require more hours.

I've posted a lot of data on how productivity curtails sharply beyond a certain number of working hours per day and per week, and how that was Henry Ford's entire premise for reducing the work week in the first place. I don't really care to rehash it here, but this is the thing that I think the "if we want nice things, we have to work hard" crowd, like JB, are missing. There may very well be a significantly better balance. What if I told you that you could work 50% less and you'd still have 99% the nice things you had before? Wouldn't that interest people? Obviously that's hyperbole, but all the data points to there being a much better balance than the one we currently have, given how little productivity we get beyond a certain point in the work week.

Here's a really fun exercise. This is a chart of US GDP over a 100 year span.

At the start of that chart, the average workweek was around 80 hours. At the end of it, 40 hours.

But here's the really fun part. Looking at that chart, can you identify the periods where the following things went into effect...

• 10-hour workday movement, where public pressure forced most jobs into a maximum of 10-hour workday
• Government jobs, printing press jobs change to 8 hour work day
• Federal overtime laws dictating overtime pay for any work beyond 8 hours per day
• Ford switches to 40 hour work week
• Federal law mandating 44 hour work week
• Federal law mandating 40 hour work week

The reality is that none of those things show up on the chart as even a blip. Of course there was a lot going on with world wars, etc, but not even a blip in GDP output. I made the claim earlier in this thread that we could probably reduce working hours by 10% and the change in productivity would likely be so negligible it was barely even noticeable. Honestly, I think I might have been too conservative on that.

 

[Dr_Zaius]

Europe undeniably has better work life balance than the USA, but this does come with a cost. They are not on the cutting edge in any field that I am aware of. Maybe that's worth it, maybe it's not. It's a question of what a society values.

I don't think this is anywhere near accurate.

One example would be renewable energy.

Are you talking about installing renewable energy or inventing/creating the technology?

My main experience is with electronics, computing, and optics. It's definitely possible there are industries that I am less familiar with where they shine.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I made the claim earlier in this thread that we could probably reduce working hours by 10% and the change in productivity would likely be so negligible it was barely even noticeable. Honestly, I think I might have been too conservative on that.

I think you're probably right on that. I know lots of people who take a half day on Friday and get their work done.

 

[Stoneworker]

I made the claim earlier in this thread that we could probably reduce working hours by 10% and the change in productivity would likely be so negligible it was barely even noticeable. Honestly, I think I might have been too conservative on that.

I'll take the under.

If a work week is reduced to 36 hours, the majority of people will still find a way to make 10% of their time at work completely unproductive.

 

[Bossman]

Reading this thread makes me think of what our dads would say...
T-Shirt NCWH

America has become fat and lazy. It's only going to get worse.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Reading this thread makes me think of what our dads would say...
T-Shirt NCWH

America has become fat and lazy. It's only going to get worse.

Meanwhile, most of those dads likely clocked out at 5 and worked fewer real world hours than the modern American worker, never changed a diaper, didn't grocery shop, never did the dishes, and rarely cooked a meal.

All while being fed the promise that their kids would have to work far less, not more.

 

[massraider]

Does this actually have a tangible cost to the average citizen or is it just a pride thing?

When calculating work/life balance, I do not consider the position of my country in the world race to be #1 in innovation.

For real, that's a downside? Well, the country's economy as a whole may suffer if a bunch of you don't neglect your personal happiness....\

No way, none of us should be doing that.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

• Europe undeniably has better work life balance than the USA, but this does come with a cost. They are not on the cutting edge in any field that I am aware of. Maybe that's worth it, maybe it's not. It's a question of what a society values.

Does this actually have a tangible cost to the average citizen or is it just a pride thing? Sure I like to buy American where I can, but honestly don't think about it much. My phone, computer, TV, refrigerator, car, etc. are all mostly made overseas, mostly because of the reliability and quality of those specific brands. This wouldn't change at all for me if I lived in Europe.

Pick a relatively prosperous European country. Not Italy, not Greece. Let's go with Germany. Everybody knows that Germans are efficient, punctual, and ruggedly handsome, so they're a good comparison case for the US.

Per capita GDP in Germany is $51K.
Per capita GDP in the US is almost $80K.

If anything, that comparison actually understates the true magnitude of the gap between our countries. If Germany were a state, it would have the honor of squeaking in just ahead of Mississippi to avoid the indignity of being the poorest US state. Germany lags behind economic powerhouses like West Virginia and Arkansas. All those German settlers who landed in Minnesota and the Dakotas? We're about 50% better off than modern day Germans, and nobody thinks of us as especially rich. (Eagle-eyed viewers will note that there's a bit of discrepancy here because that German GDP number is for 2021 and the US figure is from 2022, but that isn't going to change anything.)

Yeah, there's a cost to this.

Now, I shut my computer off at the end of the day and leave my work in my office when I leave. I get four weeks of PTO each year -- pretty skimpy compared to what I'm sure my German counterparts get but still fairly generous by US standards -- and I make it my personal mission to use every minute of it. I could have made significantly more income in my current career if I had been willing to relocate, and of course I could have simply picked a higher-paying career if I really cared. But I like academia and I like the upper Midwest, so I made the decision to give up some income for a better lifestyle. Couldn't be happier with the outcome of that decision. I am definitely a person who is persuadable that maybe the Europeans have this right. But yes, there is a tradeoff.

Edit: It's actually pretty instructive to compare assorted countries in the EU to the US. Norway is doing great, for example, but you learn real fast that they're a huge outlier. Countries that we think of as our peers -- Germany, France, the UK, Belgium -- are all pretty poor compared to us. Spain barely even qualifies as a first-world country. IMO, Americans don't really have a good handle on how much richer we are compared to pretty much everybody else. Ironically, I think foreign travel actually kind of exacerbates that tendency because rich Americans tend to travel to popular European tourist destinations that cater to rich tourists, so the difference in living standards is mostly masked when you visit Europe. You have to go in a regular grocery store or something to really see the difference tangibly.

Thanks. I didn't know this. I'm a noob on this but from how people talk, I would have assumed Germany would be the equal of the richest state in the US.

Its far afield from the topic at hand, but Ivan is only referencing per capita GDP, which says very little about the quality of life for the average citizen. To say, "we're about 50% better off than modern day Germans" is clearly false in my opinion, having lived as an adult in Germany for 2 years and in the US for over 50.

 

[Stoneworker]

Reading this thread makes me think of what our dads would say...
T-Shirt NCWH

America has become fat and lazy. It's only going to get worse.

Which would be oh so boomer of them, considering most of our dads likely clocked out at 5 and worked fewer real world hours than the modern American worker, never changed a diaper, didn't grocery shop, never did the dishes, and rarely cooked a meal.

All while being fed the promise that their kids would have to work far less, not more.

Instead of making unsubstantiated claims and sarcastic remarks, maybe you could support your work and show everyone exactly how productivity stays the same if hours are reduced by 10%.

Either those four hours are currently spent doing unproductive stuff that gets eliminated (personal phone calls, e-mails and text msgs, birthday cake in the breakroom, unjamming the printer, idle time waiting for mtgs to start, Monday AM football gossip and other office social time, bathroom breaks, fawning over someone's new baby, inefficiency from showing up w/ a hangover or under the weather, etc, etc).

OR

There's some magical new technology or workflow technique that is currently available, but not being used, that somehow magically shows up and makes everyone more productive

My contention is none of above would change simply by reducing hours by 10%.

 

[humpback]

• Europe undeniably has better work life balance than the USA, but this does come with a cost. They are not on the cutting edge in any field that I am aware of. Maybe that's worth it, maybe it's not. It's a question of what a society values.

Does this actually have a tangible cost to the average citizen or is it just a pride thing? Sure I like to buy American where I can, but honestly don't think about it much. My phone, computer, TV, refrigerator, car, etc. are all mostly made overseas, mostly because of the reliability and quality of those specific brands. This wouldn't change at all for me if I lived in Europe.

Pick a relatively prosperous European country. Not Italy, not Greece. Let's go with Germany. Everybody knows that Germans are efficient, punctual, and ruggedly handsome, so they're a good comparison case for the US.

Per capita GDP in Germany is $51K.
Per capita GDP in the US is almost $80K.

If anything, that comparison actually understates the true magnitude of the gap between our countries. If Germany were a state, it would have the honor of squeaking in just ahead of Mississippi to avoid the indignity of being the poorest US state. Germany lags behind economic powerhouses like West Virginia and Arkansas. All those German settlers who landed in Minnesota and the Dakotas? We're about 50% better off than modern day Germans, and nobody thinks of us as especially rich. (Eagle-eyed viewers will note that there's a bit of discrepancy here because that German GDP number is for 2021 and the US figure is from 2022, but that isn't going to change anything.)

Yeah, there's a cost to this.

Now, I shut my computer off at the end of the day and leave my work in my office when I leave. I get four weeks of PTO each year -- pretty skimpy compared to what I'm sure my German counterparts get but still fairly generous by US standards -- and I make it my personal mission to use every minute of it. I could have made significantly more income in my current career if I had been willing to relocate, and of course I could have simply picked a higher-paying career if I really cared. But I like academia and I like the upper Midwest, so I made the decision to give up some income for a better lifestyle. Couldn't be happier with the outcome of that decision. I am definitely a person who is persuadable that maybe the Europeans have this right. But yes, there is a tradeoff.

Edit: It's actually pretty instructive to compare assorted countries in the EU to the US. Norway is doing great, for example, but you learn real fast that they're a huge outlier. Countries that we think of as our peers -- Germany, France, the UK, Belgium -- are all pretty poor compared to us. Spain barely even qualifies as a first-world country. IMO, Americans don't really have a good handle on how much richer we are compared to pretty much everybody else. Ironically, I think foreign travel actually kind of exacerbates that tendency because rich Americans tend to travel to popular European tourist destinations that cater to rich tourists, so the difference in living standards is mostly masked when you visit Europe. You have to go in a regular grocery store or something to really see the difference tangibly.

The other big advantage we get is that our stock market flies because of it, and most of us are invested in that in some form or another. European markets, by comparison generally sit pretty flat.

If you look at the best performing stocks worldwide it's all USA, China, and a little bit of Korea. Very little from Europe.

BUT, as I've mentioned throughout this thread, number of hours worked is not the only factor in this, and is a much smaller factor than most would consider. It's largely a culture thing. Someone creates a successful Italian restaurant in America, they want to become the next Darden billionaire. Someone does the same thing in Europe, they're happy to just live a nice life. There's not the urge to scale scale scale, which doesn't necessarily require more hours.

I've posted a lot of data on how productivity curtails sharply beyond a certain number of working hours per day and per week, and how that was Henry Ford's entire premise for reducing the work week in the first place. I don't really care to rehash it here, but this is the thing that I think the "if we want nice things, we have to work hard" crowd, like JB, are missing. There may very well be a significantly better balance. What if I told you that you could work 50% less and you'd still have 99% the nice things you had before? Wouldn't that interest people? Obviously that's hyperbole, but all the data points to there being a much better balance than the one we currently have, given how little productivity we get beyond a certain point in the work week.

Here's a really fun exercise. This is a chart of US GDP over a 100 year span.

At the start of that chart, the average workweek was around 80 hours. At the end of it, 40 hours.

But here's the really fun part. Looking at that chart, can you identify the periods where the following things went into effect...

• 10-hour workday movement, where public pressure forced most jobs into a maximum of 10-hour workday
• Government jobs, printing press jobs change to 8 hour work day
• Federal overtime laws dictating overtime pay for any work beyond 8 hours per day
• Ford switches to 40 hour work week
• Federal law mandating 44 hour work week
• Federal law mandating 40 hour work week

The reality is that none of those things show up on the chart as even a blip. Of course there was a lot going on with world wars, etc, but not even a blip in GDP output. I made the claim earlier in this thread that we could probably reduce working hours by 10% and the change in productivity would likely be so negligible it was barely even noticeable. Honestly, I think I might have been too conservative on that.

Has anyone said that GDP would plummet if we worked fewer hours? I think most agree that we'd be "fine", the question is, what should people get paid if we all work less? Again, trade offs.

And you kind of yada-yadad over the best part- yes, our culture is why the Italian restaurant owner wants to be the next Darden billionaire instead of just living a nice life. That isn't Darden's fault, or the stock market's, or the overpaid CEO's.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Its far afield from the topic at hand, but Ivan is only referencing per capita GDP, which says very little about the quality of life for the average citizen. To say, "we're about 50% better off than modern day Germans" is clearly false in my opinion, having lived as an adult in Germany for 2 years and in the US for over 50.

Thanks. In the "How better off are they?" score, let's say 0 is the worst and 100 is the best. Where would you score a person like yourself living in the US? And where would you score a person like you living in Germany?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

• Europe undeniably has better work life balance than the USA, but this does come with a cost. They are not on the cutting edge in any field that I am aware of. Maybe that's worth it, maybe it's not. It's a question of what a society values.

Does this actually have a tangible cost to the average citizen or is it just a pride thing? Sure I like to buy American where I can, but honestly don't think about it much. My phone, computer, TV, refrigerator, car, etc. are all mostly made overseas, mostly because of the reliability and quality of those specific brands. This wouldn't change at all for me if I lived in Europe.

Pick a relatively prosperous European country. Not Italy, not Greece. Let's go with Germany. Everybody knows that Germans are efficient, punctual, and ruggedly handsome, so they're a good comparison case for the US.

Per capita GDP in Germany is $51K.
Per capita GDP in the US is almost $80K.

If anything, that comparison actually understates the true magnitude of the gap between our countries. If Germany were a state, it would have the honor of squeaking in just ahead of Mississippi to avoid the indignity of being the poorest US state. Germany lags behind economic powerhouses like West Virginia and Arkansas. All those German settlers who landed in Minnesota and the Dakotas? We're about 50% better off than modern day Germans, and nobody thinks of us as especially rich. (Eagle-eyed viewers will note that there's a bit of discrepancy here because that German GDP number is for 2021 and the US figure is from 2022, but that isn't going to change anything.)

Yeah, there's a cost to this.

Now, I shut my computer off at the end of the day and leave my work in my office when I leave. I get four weeks of PTO each year -- pretty skimpy compared to what I'm sure my German counterparts get but still fairly generous by US standards -- and I make it my personal mission to use every minute of it. I could have made significantly more income in my current career if I had been willing to relocate, and of course I could have simply picked a higher-paying career if I really cared. But I like academia and I like the upper Midwest, so I made the decision to give up some income for a better lifestyle. Couldn't be happier with the outcome of that decision. I am definitely a person who is persuadable that maybe the Europeans have this right. But yes, there is a tradeoff.

Edit: It's actually pretty instructive to compare assorted countries in the EU to the US. Norway is doing great, for example, but you learn real fast that they're a huge outlier. Countries that we think of as our peers -- Germany, France, the UK, Belgium -- are all pretty poor compared to us. Spain barely even qualifies as a first-world country. IMO, Americans don't really have a good handle on how much richer we are compared to pretty much everybody else. Ironically, I think foreign travel actually kind of exacerbates that tendency because rich Americans tend to travel to popular European tourist destinations that cater to rich tourists, so the difference in living standards is mostly masked when you visit Europe. You have to go in a regular grocery store or something to really see the difference tangibly.

Thanks. I didn't know this. I'm a noob on this but from how people talk, I would have assumed Germany would be the equal of the richest state in the US.

Its far afield from the topic at hand, but Ivan is only referencing per capita GDP, which says very little about the quality of life for the average citizen. To say, "we're about 50% better off than modern day Germans" is clearly false in my opinion, having lived as an adult in Germany for 2 years and in the US for over 50.

Yeah, to be clear, I'm just talking about raw material material living standards. Europe has all sorts of things to recommend it in terms of lifestyle. So does West Virginia for that matter.

 

[Scoresman]

Reading this thread makes me think of what our dads would say...
T-Shirt NCWH

America has become fat and lazy. It's only going to get worse.

Meanwhile, most of those dads likely clocked out at 5 and worked fewer real world hours than the modern American worker, never changed a diaper, didn't grocery shop, never did the dishes, and rarely cooked a meal.

All while being fed the promise that their kids would have to work far less, not more.

They also don't understand how kids today will never be able to afford to buy a home. It's such an out of touch mindset.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Reading this thread makes me think of what our dads would say...
T-Shirt NCWH

America has become fat and lazy. It's only going to get worse.

Which would be oh so boomer of them, considering most of our dads likely clocked out at 5 and worked fewer real world hours than the modern American worker, never changed a diaper, didn't grocery shop, never did the dishes, and rarely cooked a meal.

All while being fed the promise that their kids would have to work far less, not more.

Instead of making unsubstantiated claims and sarcastic remarks, maybe you could support your work and show everyone exactly how productivity stays the same if hours are reduced by 10%.

Either those four hours are currently spent doing unproductive stuff that gets eliminated (personal phone calls, e-mails and text msgs, birthday cake in the breakroom, unjamming the printer, idle time waiting for mtgs to start, Monday AM football gossip and other office social time, bathroom breaks, fawning over someone's new baby, inefficiency from showing up w/ a hangover or under the weather, etc, etc).

OR

There's some magical new technology or workflow technique that is currently available, but not being used, that somehow magically shows up and makes everyone more productive

My contention is none of above would change simply by reducing hours by 10%.

There are a nearly unlimited number of studies that show worker productivity peaks at around 3-6hrs per day, and around 3-4 days per week. I've referenced and linked several of them throughout this thread, including the Texas A&M study that attempted to quantify it by measuring typing speed, typing output, and typing errors as time at work increased throughout the week and throughout the day.

As mentioned above, you can look at the charts of GDP, output, etc over that 100 year span where work time was reduced multiple times (and by a lot more than 10%) and output, revenue, GDP, etc all continued to increase without any effect. Do you recall the great productivity crisis of 1940 when federal mandate reduced the work week 10% from 44 hours to 40? Of course not, because there wasn't one.

I can dig up some of the links again later (though they're pretty easy to find), though ironically need to finish up some work first before coaching the kiddo's football game.

And before I go I'd just like to leave some quotes from Henry Ford himself, on why he was reducing the work week, and how his company's studies found that decreases in work time could actually increase productivity, and increase total economic output.

My favorites in bold.




"Now we know from our experience in changing from six to five days and back again that we can get at least as great production in five days as we can in six, and we shall probably get a greater, for the pressure will bring better methods. A full week's wage for a short week's work will pay."

"The harder we crowd business for time, the more efficient it becomes. The more well-paid leisure workmen get, the greater become their wants. These wants soon become needs. Well-managed business pays high wages and sells at low prices. Its workmen have the leisure to enjoy life and the wherewithal with which to finance that enjoyment."

"Just as the eight hour day opened our way to prosperity, so the five day week will open our way to a still greater prosperity."

"The industry of this country could not long exist if factories generally went back to the ten hour day, because the people would not have the time to consume the goods produced. For instance, a workman would have little use for an automobile if he had to be in the shops from dawn until dusk. And that would react in countless directions, for the automobile, by enabling people to get about quickly and easily, gives them a chance to find out what is going on in the world-which leads them to a larger life that requires more food, more and better goods, more books, more music -- more of everything. The benefits of travel are not confined to those who can take an expensive foreign trip. There is more to learn in this country than there is abroad."

"It is not necessary to bring in sentiment at all in this whole question of leisure for workers. Sentiment has no place in industry. In the olden days those who thought that leisure was harmful usually had an interest in the products of industry. The mill-owner seldom saw the benefit of leisure time for his employees, unless he could work up his emotions. Now we can look at leisure as a cold business fact."

"But it is the influence of leisure on consumption which makes the short day and, the short week so necessary. The people who consume the bulk of goods are the people who make them. That is a fact we must never forget -- that is the secret of our prosperity.

"The economic value of leisure has not found its way into the thought of industrial leaders to any great extent. While the old idea of 'lost time' has departed, and it is no longer believed that the reduction of the labor day from twelve hours to eight hours has decreased production, still the positive industrial value -- the dollars and cents value -- of leisure, is not understood.

"The hours of the labor day were increased in Germany under the delusion that thus the production might be increased. It is quite possibly being decreased. With the decrease of the length of the working day in the United States an increase of production has come, because better methods of disposing of men's time have been accompanied by better methods of disposing of their energy. And thus one good thing has brought on another.

"Business is the exchange of goods. Goods are bought only as they meet needs. Needs are filled only as they are felt. They make themselves felt largely in leisure hours. The man who worked fifteen and sixteen hours a day desired only a comer to be in and a hunk of food. He had no time to cultivate new needs. No industry could ever be built up by filling his needs, because he had none but the most primitive.

When, in American industry, women were released from the necessity of factory work and became the buyers for the family, business began to expand. The American wife, as household purchasing agent, has both leisure and money, and the first has been just as important as the second in the development of American business.

"The people with a five day week will consume more goods than the people with a six day week. People who have more leisure must have more clothes. They must have a greater variety of food. They must have more transportation facilities. They naturally must have more service of various kinds.

This increased consumption will require greater production than we now have. Instead of business being slowed up because the people are 'off work,' it will be speeded up, because the people consume more in their leisure than in their working time. This will lead to more work. And this to more profits. And this to more wages. The result of more leisure will be the exact opposite of what most people might suppose it to be."





The work week has been reduced many times throughout history, and every time it has had virtually no negative impacts, and huge positive impacts.

And I'll be back later, but for now will leave everyone with one last Henry Ford quote...

"The five day week is not the ultimate, and neither is the eight hour day. It is enough to manage what we are equipped to manage and to let the future take care of itself. It will anyway. That is its habit. But probably the next move will be in the direction of shortening the day rather than the week."