I don't think it's a question of pace. 20% over 90 years instead of 70% over 40 years isn't "pace." Also, Keynes predicted that people would choose fewer hours. I assume that what you are describing about Norway is an advancement of worker rights. That's not really the Keynes prediction.
It is a question, to some extent, of definitions. Does average workweek increase because more women joined the workforce? Decrease because children left the workforce? Does college count as "work? Does unemployment factor in? Should we consider Norway's average workweek shorter than Spain's because of unemployment rates? etc. There are lots of definitional issues. I'm interested in this, honestly.
The definition I'm interested is a the common sense one. What does "full time," generally, mean? Is there a normative choice, at scale, for a 15 hr workweek that is normative. The answer to this is no.
>> increased efficiency has been an enabler that allowed these reductions in working hours to happen
This why looking at old predictions is interesting. It's easy to narrate things that have already happened in ways that don't challenge our views.
Maybe there is a direct relationship between efficiency and working hours. It's just 50X weaker than Keynes (and current microeconomic theory still) predicts. That's it's an uninteresting theory. The difference between true and false is unimportant.
>> There is not a single country in Europe that hasn't seem a similar pattern of reductions
IDK... European countries are pretty different from eachother. Here in ireland, I think average workweek has increased just based on labour force participation. Historically, unemployment has been high here. In our generation it is very low. Female participation also went from very low to very high here. We also went from mostly self employed to mostly employed in that period.
Ireland was never very industrial, so the "standard" or union normative working conditions are not as specifically defined as it is in Germany, for example.
I don't think it's a question of pace. 20% over 90 years instead of 70% over 40 years isn't "pace." Also, Keynes predicted that people would choose fewer hours. I assume that what you are describing about Norway is an advancement of worker rights. That's not really the Keynes prediction.
It is a question, to some extent, of definitions. Does average workweek increase because more women joined the workforce? Decrease because children left the workforce? Does college count as "work? Does unemployment factor in? Should we consider Norway's average workweek shorter than Spain's because of unemployment rates? etc. There are lots of definitional issues. I'm interested in this, honestly.
The definition I'm interested is a the common sense one. What does "full time," generally, mean? Is there a normative choice, at scale, for a 15 hr workweek that is normative. The answer to this is no.
>> increased efficiency has been an enabler that allowed these reductions in working hours to happen
This why looking at old predictions is interesting. It's easy to narrate things that have already happened in ways that don't challenge our views.
Maybe there is a direct relationship between efficiency and working hours. It's just 50X weaker than Keynes (and current microeconomic theory still) predicts. That's it's an uninteresting theory. The difference between true and false is unimportant.
>> There is not a single country in Europe that hasn't seem a similar pattern of reductions
IDK... European countries are pretty different from eachother. Here in ireland, I think average workweek has increased just based on labour force participation. Historically, unemployment has been high here. In our generation it is very low. Female participation also went from very low to very high here. We also went from mostly self employed to mostly employed in that period.
Ireland was never very industrial, so the "standard" or union normative working conditions are not as specifically defined as it is in Germany, for example.