Hacker News Reader

Comment by perfunctory | Hacker News Reader

> I'm always sceptical of these proposals.

Don't be. Working time has been declining for a century (especially in Europe) while GDP grew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time

That does not imply there is an inverse causal relationship between working time and GDP, perhaps if the working hours had kept the same the GDP would have increased even further.

Perhaps, but I'd certainly take increased leisure time over increased GDP, and I'm sure I'm far from the only one.

>Working time has been declining for a century (especially in Europe) while GDP grew.

Depends if you're talking per individual or per household.

Source?

Much has been written about the productivity gains of industrialization being erased at the household level when women started working in large numbers. The gist of it is we went from ~40hr a week of work outside the home at the household level to ~80 (obviously those numbers aren't exact because not all households are a married couple and the are people who are self employed, etc, etc). But obviously the home stuff is still getting done so the net amount of work being done is increased (less productivity gains from technology). Just google "women in the workforce macroeconomic impact" or something like that.

Whether this is a net positive or net negative is basically boils down to whether you think people are better served working outside the home or better served doing household things.

Also, all your comments are dead by default. You might want to make a new account.

One of the consequences in the UK at least of having two parents working meant more money could be spent on housing costs, thus house prices increased, and then you had to have 2 people working decent jobs to provide the same lifestyle a generation before did with 1 person. This would have been offset by the extra money to be spent on childcare, but that was given large tax benefits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com