Increasing levels of unemployment seems to be due to a surplus of labor, which can be explained by the efficiencies brought about by computers and automation. A solution would be to cut the hours of the standard work week.

While this would cause economic disadvantage to countries doing it unilaterally (as France experienced), if it were done by treaty among all of the G-7 countries, it would level the playing field and instantly increase the value of labor and cut unemployment.

I know this is going to be an almost unbelievable shock to all the liberals reading this but the purpose of an employer hiring someone is to get work done not to supply someone with a wage they would happen to want. Its proposals like this that explain outsourcing to the far east (and by the way increased unemployment here). Mr Hughes apparently thinks that if it hurts all developed economies at the same time then its OK.

Do you object to current 40-hour work rules? Why would a 32-hour mark for overtime to kick-in be considered "radical" in an age where computers and automation have made labor much more productive?

Also, you seem to miss the point that if your global competitors have to play by the same rules, you suffer no disadvantage.

HAVE to play? And who's going to make them - the UN? The World Bank? I'm sure all the corporations in the world will fully back a plan to dry up their sources of cheap labor. We could all work 10 hours a week and they'd still find it financially beneficial to hire some underage slave in China or Thailand to make their crappy pants and shoes.

Have you ever noticed that the number of employees far outnumbers the number of employers? In order to assume that your order of receiving satisfaction is correct, you have to leave democracy behind.

......why work at all?! Let's just all sit around on our front stoops and wait on uncle Obama to come to the rescue. Damn evil businesses!!!!!

" Let's just all sit around on our front stoops and wait on uncle Obama to come to the rescue."

Do you mean like a bank? Only, in their case it's Uncle Hank, isn't it?

The countries that have shorter work hours also have single party payer health care that most workers participate in. As an employer with two employees who work full time and others working less than 25 hours a week, I see:
(a) Group health plans will only take employees scheduled for and working at least 25 hours per week.
(b) My cost per hour rises dramatically when I cut back a worker's hours because my contribution to insurance is fixed, not proportional. So I cannot cut back someone's hours and keep them on the same health insurance.

Even taking if we had single payer or another form of universal health insurance, cutting hours can have perverse effects that can harm the economy after it has rebounded. Among other nations, Italy traditionally shortens the allowed hours per week for all workers during a recession, in theory to spread the available work among all the workers. This has the effect of creating an unreported and untaxed underground economy of people working second and third jobs to make ends meet.

So the only reason that the 40 hour week is in stone is the fixed cost of health care, which makes layoffs preferable to cutting hours and spreading the work.

Elle:

"cutting hours can have perverse effects that can harm the economy after it has rebounded."

as opposed to the hidden costs of working fewer longer with or without OT?

If healthcare had a fixed cost, it would not increase of decrease and would be a constant. Its not a constant which is part of the problem other than the exponential incremental increases. I do agree with the need for subsidized healthcare or a greater than previous tax break to assist businesses offering it - 125% of cost?

Yes, employers employ labor to get work done...but "work" is essentially product, and that is for whom, eh???? Ultimately, the consumer, who is overwhelmingly LABOR. So while each idiot employers views everything from his own little prism, in fact, if the balance between producer and consumer (labor) is broken, the producer (employer) goes down just as surely.

Quite obviously, the employer and consumer balance right now is totally out of whack, among other things, due to intrinsic processes, but mostly due to the INSANITY of the current Republican power structure.

But I think that shortening the working day right now would increase the labor supply, when the problem is that globally there is a massive surplus of labor, and you cannot impose tariffs because any increase of trade barriers would likely result in world war. Increasing the labor supply would depress wages, which is the last thing needed...in fact, raising wages would help this economic recession a great deal.

As for who would enforce any G7 (it would have to be G20, not just the G7) agreement, so far treaties are fairly effective, unless imposed by force, and threat, like Versaille.

YA.Lets do anything we can to decrease the wages of americans for the sake of the minority.Great idea ,this should truley boost the economy and provide more money for the average(the 75% that runs the economy)citizen to spend ....wait? something does not seem right about that!?

We already have millions of people who work two jobs, because the government regulations require for some businesses to provide medical insurance for people who work 40 hours. Now, if you make it a crime to work 40 hours a week in one company - many people would have to find a second job.

Of course, you can make it a federal crime for anyone to work more than 32 hours. Tell us more how you want to enforce this.

BTW, what about over-time? Any ideas? How about contractors? Can a self-employed person work more than 40 hours?

Everyone on this thread so far has missed the most important point. Per capita economic growth comes about precisely because one person can now accomplish the work of ten from a hundred years ago. It is this increase in productivity that makes it possible for all of us to own more stuff than our grandparents.

Case in point. In 1900, 50% of our population was employed in agriculture. Then along came the tractor. This allowed one man to do much more work, which had the effect of reducing the number of people employed in agriculture down to about 3% of the population today while producing more food per consumer than ever before. It was precisely this innovation that freed up the workforce to make america the undisputed industrial champion of the world and made possible our very high standard of living we all enjoy.

If we would have followed your proposal, we would have told the farmers to only work 20 hours a week with their new tractors in order to preserve all the farming jobs currently in existence. But all that would have led to is economic stagnation.