Growing up in Greece, one of my most joyous childhood memories was the announcement that the school (and work) week would shrink from six days to five. Since I also recall my compatriots being equally excited about the change, I was surprised to hear that under a new law, employers in several sectors may once again implement six-day schedules.
This change is surprising for many reasons. First and foremost, it seems to buck a general trend toward fostering work-life balance and allowing for more flexible work arrangements. Several governments in advanced economies (Belgium, Singapore, and the United Kingdom) have announced shorter work weeks, and others (Germany, Japan, Ireland, South Africa, and Spain) are contemplating similar changes.
Second, Greeks are known for appreciating work-life balance, and they already work more hours than other Europeans. The average Greek worker spends 39.8 hours per week on the job, compared to an average of only 36.1 hours across the European Union.
Third, although the current Greek government is pro-business and pro-growth, it has shown an appreciation for the rights and advancement of women, a group that is likely to be adversely affected by a longer, less flexible work schedule. This same government has also demonstrated a commitment to evidence-based policymaking, and the evidence to date suggests that shorter work weeks and a more balanced lifestyle contribute to higher employee satisfaction, better health, and ultimately greater productivity.
So, what explains this unexpected policy change? The government itself describes the move as an “exceptional measure,” which we all know to be a euphemism for “policy of last resort.” Like many high-income countries, Greece is facing an acute labour shortage. While its situation is particularly dire, owing to a substantial labour drain following the 2010 financial crisis (approximately 500,000 Greeks – 5% of the current population – are estimated to have left), it is not alone.
The root of the problem lies in low fertility and an aging population – demographic conditions that the Greek government rightly characterises as a “ticking time bomb.” Coupled with well-founded demands for a higher quality of life and better work-life balance as people become wealthier, fewer working-age people constrains labour supply.
How should advanced economies address this problem? Four possibilities come to mind. The first is to embrace automation, on the assumption that machines, robots, and artificial intelligence could eventually take the place of missing workers. But not every job can be performed by a machine or a large language model. We still need humans to fill many of the least desirable low-skilled positions in construction or the food and hospitality industries.
The second option is to increase worker compensation. Basic economics teaches us that when demand exceeds supply, prices (in this case, wages) go up. But higher wages ultimately lead to higher prices for consumers, which tend to be unpopular, especially at a time when inflation is a primary concern. And in a small open economy like Greece, higher wages and prices would have detrimental effects on international competitiveness.
The third option is to ask workers in advanced economies to work more, as Greece has now done. While this move appears to be bucking the general trend toward fewer work hours per week, it actually is not so different from increasing the retirement age, as several other countries (Denmark, France, Germany) have found it necessary to do. In both cases, the policy changes have been highly unpopular among workers; and in both cases, people sent a clear message that they would rather forego the higher income (in Greece’s case, the sixth workday comes with a 40% wage premium) than work more than they are used to.
This leaves us with the fourth option, which is to increase the labour supply by harnessing controlled, legalised immigration. In regions plagued by refugee crises and illegal immigration (such as most of Europe and the United States), properly designed immigration policies have the potential to kill two birds with one stone. Yet such policies currently seem out of the question. In the face of geopolitical fragmentation and national-security concerns, countries are increasingly closing their borders and turning inward.
One is reminded yet again that in a globally interconnected world, the distinction between foreign and domestic is tenuous. Problems originating in other parts of the world have important implications for domestic issues, and in this case for labour markets.
There is of course a fifth option, which is for people in richer countries to scale back their consumption and growth and rely on the fruits of the labour they are willing to supply. Doing so would provide the work-life balance they seek, as well as ensuring a sustainable future. But as of now, few are willing to accept this tradeoff.
Most people want to have their cake and eat it. But that isn’t possible. To maintain their current quality of life, citizens of high-income countries must either open their borders to new immigrants or work more. Given the current global tensions, the pendulum seems to be swinging in the direction of more work, whether it comes through a higher retirement age or a longer work week. Greece may be more of a trendsetter than a trend breaker.
Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg, a former World Bank Group chief economist and editor-in-chief of the American Economic Review, is Professor of Economics at Yale University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2024, published here with permission.
23 Comments
They sold us a lie.
I am of the age to remember when they developed the Concorde.
Apparently, with the promise that by the end of the century (2000) everyone would be flying supersonic.
Look what happened to that..It just became a plaything for the rich and famous.
AI will be exactly the same.
The bigfish need the minions to keep working no matter what,always beenthat way,and always will.
Young people have to start working longer hours to pay for an unaffordable entitlement system that benefits old people. This entitlement system won't be round when these young people are old, they will be on their own.
Old people are so arrogant and entitled these days.
Coming to NZ in 2030
Or younger people can spend at least 21 years of their lives raising children (say 3 kids 1 years apart) so there is someone to do the work when they are old. That is how society has worked since it began, but kids are just arrogant and entitled these days.
Or perhaps each generation should stop attacking each other and find a solution without finger pointing.
I personally think the we should all consume less is the best and only real option, all of the others are just delaying the inevitable. But that goes against modern economics of endless growth. Most of us in New Zealand live in an amazing world where comparatively speaking we are much better off than even royalty of a couple 100 years ago but will we give up any of that, I hope so but I doubt it until we are forced to.
You live in a bubble old man. It is pretty desperate out there now for 30 year olds. Those 30 year olds on an average wage see all of there income go to tax, food, petrol, utilities and rent. There is not much left after that. It is the new normal. If you want to live in "the amazing NZ" be born to rich parents or be born exceptionally entrepreneurial.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/495838/more-than-half-of-new-zealan…
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350262301/five-things-many-kiwis-can-no…
"Most people want to have their cake and eat it."
This really is the crux. Everyone wants cheap rates, and yet wants suburban sprawl that costs a fortune to deliver services. No one wants to support the cost of training, or vocational or higher education, yet we all want highly skilled workers. No one wants to pay a decent wage yet we wonder why we don't attract talent, or we complain that the only talent willing to work for peanuts is imported from third world countries. We lay blame at low-wage workers for their own career failures, but demand those cooks, cleaners and retailing positions be filled. We want the freedom to drive, but have no practical alternative to driving. We bemoan the lack productivity, but only invest in assets that are a net drain on economic activity. We want people having families, but then tell them they're on their own. We focus on the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.
As a country, our economic culture is miserly, everyone-for-themselves, short-term and full of hypocrisy. The only thing we're not hypocritical about is wanting our houses to be a profit-generating, appreciable asset. We're not hypocritical there because that would suggest we want lower mortgages for our kids. But no one wanting their property value to grow seems to care what that implies for their kids mortgages in the future.
From climate change, housing, transport, health, education to law and order. Everything we vote and apply policy on is about shifting the burden elsewhere. NEVER is there an appetite for shouldering the burden ourselves or taking on the challenge. Its just an ongoing process of kicking the can down the road or on to someone else's street.
NZ has a stunning lack of business and political leadership, and an electorate who are obsessed with rights and not interested in responsibilities. This is the bed we are making ourselves, and we will lie in it. Who we're told is to blame (someone else, of course) won't make that bed any more comfortable.
I don't know if that's true, it does seem like it from the media but it maybe selection bias, that is we hear the people that moan an complain but not the majority of people that just go to work. There will always be someone who complains.
I think people are willing to pay for these, but see money being wasted on useless things and don't want to give more because they think it just be wasted. Like $500,000 per pedestrian crossing. I just recently rode the Petone to Melling bike lane and I cycle every day but what the hell, lights every few meters when you are right next to the motorway with lights, anyway I have a bike light, yes I think people should cycle more and there should be a safe place to cycle more than 1m away from trucks going 100km/h but the people who designed this have no idea of proportionality when spending other peoples money. Its not even in a useful place, right next to a wide 50km/h road with only 1 place in the middle to get on or off.
See this is the problem. Each new house in these new outer developments has service delivery costs in the six figures per household. That's right - whenever a new suburban area goes up instead of urban intensification, we're paying the same as a 500k crossing every three dwellings. The sprawl in our major areas is costing councils billions. No single dwelling will ever pay back in rates, what it costs in services. Each new development runs at a loss over time. But all we ever talk about is chump change like cycle ways - which thousands of people will get value from, instead of 3-5.
If we want to get real about debt and "other people's money", it's not cycleways, crossings or other supposed council pet projects. It's the fact that we are pouring billions that is unrecoverable in to new developments that are subsidised by the rates from existing ones. And then in 25 years it has to be replaced when it hasn't even been paid for when it was first laid. The only way to finance this seeing as the rates aren't covering it, is to borrow or use the short-term cash injection from a new development. For every dollar of your rates wasted on a cycleway, you've probably given 20 to subsidise the roads or wastewater to a single outer-suburb household.
If every new suburban development was forced to pay their true cost of services, we could build thousands of 500k crossings, cycleways and parks for zero debt. If you cancelled every project in the country deemed "wasteful" by the general electorate, you wouldn't even save enough to pay for the billion dollar upgrade required to service Drury - an existing Auckland suburb.
This is what I mean about burden. We're not even willing to accept the burden we place on the systems ourselves, let alone address the challenge to enable future generations. Starting to get way off topic from the article now, but suffice to say that our urban planning and rates income is part of the same Ponzi scheme as our workforce.
At the end of the day those who take what they don't make - I'm thinking rentiers, ticket clippers and overpaid bureaucrats and execs - are going to have to take a haircut so that the people actually producing goods and services can enjoy a fair lifestyle in return. Otherwise the whole system collapses as work ceases to be worthwhile - already starting to happen imo.
I agree,but most of the production jobs in New Zealand are generally small businesses,usually run by persons with no real drive to expand or explore other markets.
They are usually run on nepotism, low pay ,non-union and immigrant labour.
Skills are usually not really recognized in these businesses and generally aren't very transparent as to what the business is doing going foward or it's Financials.
But the other underlying problem is the passive,complient and passionless demeanor of the kiwi worker that hates confrontation and being willing to accept these conditions.
This really is canary in the coal mine stuff. Greece has been broke, they know what it is like, and they have rightly figured out that if they want to pay for all the stuff they need, they need to actually work.
We are on the wrong side of this currently. We still have this dream that we can work less and enjoy our lives and have all the services we want (while we slowly go broke). One day soon we will be broke, like Greece and we will figure out that a four day week was a lunatic idea and we will be back to working again to get out of the mess put ourselves into.
Not necessarily so. The future will/is making do with less. The smart operators will do more with less and have everything they need. It's not only a mind shift but it also a physical lifestyle shift. I live in a Waikato provincial town and have done for the last 50 years. I can no longer purchase furniture that will last, have a bike repaired, go to a butcher, choose clothes other than the Warehouse's latest fashions, buy wool or material or any haberdashery and a whole host of other requirements. In this town it has been a downward slope for 30 plus years.
In place of all the establishments that supplied the above and catered to a much smaller town and surrounding area are now wall to wall cafes, fast food outlets, gyms and $2.00 shops. Twenty years ago I saw the writing on the wall and began to make sure I have the skills to to see me out. All up it is in praise of slow and a quality level I'm comfortable with.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.