The divide between 'hourly' workers (even if paid a salary) and white-collar knowledge workers is likely the largest obstacle to changing the 40-hour workweek in the US. Many jobs, and often the highest-paid, could be nearly as productive working 4x6 instead of 5x8. However, there are lots of jobs where output really does scale linearly with input time. The obvious ones are hourly service workers in retail or restaurants, but even some 'high status' jobs really require the hours (healthcare, airlines, union manufacturing, etc...)
It would really upset societal order if suddenly two once comparable jobs suddenly required drastically different time commitments. People will find all sorts of reasons to fight against a shorter workweek, but I think this is the main reason why. We like the stability of believing that everyone (or at least working people) are 'equally yoked' at least in terms of time commitment.
> However, there are lots of jobs where output really does scale linearly with input time. The obvious ones are hourly service workers in retail or restaurants, but even some 'high status' jobs really require the hours (healthcare, airlines, union manufacturing, etc...)
With manufacturing, I disagree due to the impact of automation - especially when analyzed over a long time frame, productivity has exploded whereas the number of employees has shrunk drastically and their inflation-adjusted wages barely growing.
In retail, restaurants, even in some parts of healthcare (think lab work) the situation is similar. Automation, mass manufacturing and containers (the physical things, not Docker...) have slashed costs on the input side, menial tasks like stacking shelves or cleaning got cost-cut (by outsourcing and by exploitation of undocumented workers), some places like IKEA and Amazon even eliminate the cashiers by having the customer do that themselves.
The owner class has reaped all the productivity gains and given back little to the workers who made it possible, and now they are asking "why is the American/Western market for cars shrinking and the only growth in China"... well easy, too many people don't have the cash on hand to splurge on a dozens of thousands worth new car!
This is a great point, and I wish productivity gains in all sectors had been more equitably split. In fact, I think that automation-based productivity gains could extend to the other sectors I mentioned as well (more surgeries/hour, etc...)
However, I still think there is a disconnect. Even with productivity gains, output still basically scales linearly. When your job is producing a specific physical artifact consistently, you are always going to make more of them, the more time you spend doing it. The same is not true for many 'knowledge workers' whose output is not measured in 'lines of code' or 'meetings held' but looser, larger objectives that are fundamentally more limited in how many you actually want. I think you more rapidly get diminishing returns for a lot of this type of work. Even if a project manager could manage twice as many projects in twice as many hours, would that benefit the business?
It would really upset societal order if suddenly two once comparable jobs suddenly required drastically different time commitments. People will find all sorts of reasons to fight against a shorter workweek, but I think this is the main reason why. We like the stability of believing that everyone (or at least working people) are 'equally yoked' at least in terms of time commitment.