Disposable time needs to be more equally distributed between rich and poor

22nd November, 2012 8:00 pm

By Anna Coote

There’s a gathering consensus in favour of developing the ‘human element’ in government and public services.  There’s equal enthusiasm for more ‘shared responsibility’ between the people who are paid to provide services and those who are supposed to benefit from them.  More in the way of relationships; less in the way of top-down interventions.

It’s an enlightened notion: people matter.  But it’s in danger of being ground down by three major problems. One: the public purse is squeezed so tight that efforts to improve things are impossibly constricted.  Two: there’s a widening gap between rich and poor, producing a cruel inflation of distress, discontent and disorder.  And three: there’s growing demand for benefits and services, driven by the effects of inequality and an ageing population afflicted by chronic disease and frailty.

This is where time comes in. Paid and unpaid time: who has how much of each.  The way time is distributed is both cause and effect of unequal distributions of money and power.

Of course we all have the same number of hours in the day, but some have much more control over time than others.  Some have too much ‘free’ time because they can’t get jobs.  Some work long hours to earn a living and then go home to more hours of childcare and housework: they are often poor in time as well as money.

There’s a case for shortening the paid working week – both to create more jobs for the unemployed and to give people who already have jobs more time to spend outside the workplace.  Time to be parents, carers, friends and neighbours, time to organise and agitate to change things, time to prepare healthy meals, to learn, invent, create, take exercise, have fun…

However, this must be for everyone, not just the better off.  A move towards shorter working hours will have to be matched with a move towards higher hourly pay: a living wage that can be earned not in forty hours a week but in, say, thirty.

That would make it easier for citizens to share responsibility for helping themselves and each other. It could help to increase the volume of high-quality care without spiralling costs. If disposable time were more equally distributed between rich and poor, it would be easier to grow the ‘human element’ in government and services without widening inequalities.  It could also enrich the quality of democracy, which depends on everyone – not just the ‘political classes’ – having enough time to engage and participate.

Shorter hours could reduce the numbers of unemployed claiming benefits and help keep people in work when orders are low, retaining and building skills.  It could enable more women to stay in work when they have children, more men to spend time with their families. It could help to cut absenteeism and sick leave, and to create a more rounded, stable workforce. There’s no correlation between working long hours and economic success.  Across Europe, the countries with shorter average working hours, such as Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, tend to have the stronger economies.  The claim, often heard on the political right, that moving to a shorter working week would damage the UK’s global ‘competitiveness’ is simply not true.

What’s more, there’s a growing body of evidence that shorter paid working hours are kinder to the environment. People have more time to walk and cycle instead of driving , to go by train instead of flying, to cook instead of buying energy-intensive ready-meals, to buy fewer ‘labour saving’ devices and to repair things instead of chucking them out and buying new ones.

This is something that needs to be developed over a decade, gradually changing expectations and patterns of behaviour.  We could start by taking a leaf out of the Netherlands’ experience: in the 1980s, new entrants to the labour market were taken on for a four-day week, beginning to build a habit of more balanced living.  The Netherlands still has the lowest average working hours in Europe.

There would need to be better incentives for employers, so that they are rewarded rather than penalised for hiring more workers. But above all, the case for a shorter working week highlights the urgency of tackling low pay.

Anna Coote is Head of Social Policy at the new economics foundation

This piece was commissioned as part of Jon Cruddas’s Guest Edit of LabourList

  • Hugh

    France has pretty extensively tried a 35-hour working week hasn’t it? To my knowledge it’s not had great success in keeping unemployment down.

  • Quiet_Sceptic

    It’s a very rosy article that doesn’t really address the economic impacts.

    If you cut working hours then in many occupations you inevitably cut output, particularly service occupations. If you then propose the keep worker incomes constant given a fall in output then the cost of that output will rise which itself has an impact as some goods and services become more expensive.

    In respect of Germany/Denmark/Netherlands I wonder whether shorter working hours are an effect or benefit of a strong, productive economy rather than the cause.


  • Comment No serious economist supports Osborne’s fiscal charter. Opposing it doesn’t make us deficit deniers

    No serious economist supports Osborne’s fiscal charter. Opposing it doesn’t make us deficit deniers

    I have been worried about the impact of George Osborne’s fiscal charter since it was floated last summer, which is why as a member of the Treasury Select Committee I asked questions of the economists who came to give evidence last July. We found no one, not even the Governor of the Bank of England, who would endorse George Osborne’s latest proposal. This was not just criticism from left wing economists. The Thatcherite professor who now runs the Institute for […]

    Read more →
  • Comment A green London isn’t a luxury, it’s a lifesaver

    A green London isn’t a luxury, it’s a lifesaver

    We’ve reached a tipping point. Most Londoners now say action is urgently needed on climate change. The ICM survey published today for Here Now climate campaigners, shows that this isn’t a preserve of ‘red’ Islington or ‘hipster’ Hackney but a view held across the capital, inner to outer London. As an executive member of SERA, Labour’s environment campaign, we’ve recognised the salience of this argument and that action is not a nice to have but a necessity. ‘It’s the environment, stupid’ […]

    Read more →
  • News Corbyn claims victory after Cameron u-turns on Saudi prison deal

    Corbyn claims victory after Cameron u-turns on Saudi prison deal

    Jeremy Corbyn is this afternoon celebrating the news that the Government has cancelled a £5.9m prisons contract with Saudi Arabia. The deal would have seen training programmes for Saudi prisons, and came under criticism because of the severity of the country’s judicial system. It emerged today, for instance, that a British pensioner is facing 360 lashes after being caught with homemade wine. Corbyn used his Labour Party Conference speech to attack the deal, claiming that overlooking Saudi Arabia’s human rights abuses […]

    Read more →
  • News Full text: McDonnell’s letter to Labour MPs on opposing fiscal charter

    Full text: McDonnell’s letter to Labour MPs on opposing fiscal charter

    Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell yesterday sent a letter to Labour MPs informing them that the party would now be voting against the Charter for Budget Responsibility on Wednesday, having previously stated they would support it. The letter has been passed on to LabourList and can be read in full here: Dear Colleague, Charter for Budget Responsibility and the Fiscal Mandate On Wednesday the vote will take place on an order to adopt the Government’s charter for Budget Responsibility including the fiscal […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Momentum: nice organising, shame about the politics

    Momentum: nice organising, shame about the politics

    Factionalism has historically been a minority hobby among Labour Party members. Most members have had a healthy independence of spirit which means they like to pick and choose candidates for internal office from different slates or no slate at all, rather than following a “line”. Ditto on policies. People don’t like being put into boxes and told that because they are Hard Left or Soft Left or Old Right or New Labour they have to sign-up to a whole list […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends