I changed my mind on the issue. For a long version of my new thinking, I have a blog post: The Four Economic Classes and Their Respective Plights http://intellectual-detox.com/2013/01/20/economic-classes/ I'll try and give a shorter version here.
The problem is that an increasing percentage of jobs in the economy are either zero-sum or positive sum but very competitive or winner-takes-all in nature. In such a situation, unilaterally choosing to take a vacation can be a death sentence. But if everyone takes a vacation, everyone could be better off.
This is a classic prisoners dilemma problem. As a sales person at a software company, I might want more vacation time. But if I take off the time, I might lose the sale to a competing firm, who does not take time off (the I lose, they win quadrant of the game). So both might work the extra day, and we both lose because we are working more. But if there is a law mandating a national holiday, then we both can take the day off, without losing the sale to the competing firm.
For the minimum wage worker, yes, that particular worker might be fighting for more hours. But when all the low wage workers fight for more hours and give up benefits, it just drives down the wages for everyone. The U.S. is rich enough to both give all workers a living wage and enough vacation, so why not enact the policies to do so? (Just mandating more vacation alone, might not be a good idea, but mandating vacation plus giving some sort of wage subsidy either in the form of cash or in health benefits, might be a quite good idea).
I'm left though wondering whether society's attentions should be focused on the plight of your "rat-racers" --- the doctors, lawyers, software salespeople. They may be caught in any number of collective action problems, but on the whole American productivity is high and the parts of society that rat-racers engage with are generally not dysfunctional. Rat-racers in the US are not generally working themselves to death, like they are in Asia. So I'm not sure how concerned I should be about the work-life balance of someone making $250,000/yr.
The median household income in the US is $44,000. Does mandatory vacation help a family of 4 making $44,000? Or would they be better off with higher wages?
Perhaps I have 'yummyfajitas to blame for this, but every time an issue like this comes up on HN, I can't help but think about the differing quality of life between the US middle class and the rural poor of Asia. Humanity's big problem is probably not improving the lot of Americans.
Well, most rat-racers are not making $250k. A more typical example of a rat-racer is a Dunder Mifflin sales reps in The Office, who would probably make between $40-$70k.
The median household income in the US is $44,000. Does mandatory vacation help a family of 4 making $44,000? Or would they be better off with higher wages?
I do not see any reason why the right policies could not both raise purchasing power and grant more vacation time. Keep in mind, as I say in the essay, that the output of most goods in the modern economy is not bound by labor. Most output is bound by natural resource production, land, regulation, and natural monopoly. So if you decrease total labor output by 5%, that does not necessarily mean a decrease in output of food or housing or fuel oil by 5%. So there could be ways of increasing vacation time without lowering people's income.
Humanity's big problem is probably not improving the lot of Americans.
Well yeah, but this article is about America, and I'm a lot more involved in the problems of America than the problems of India. I do not know what I can contribute to solving the problems of India.
I wouldn't be. I don't wanna trade money for vacation. I am young, immigrant, I wanna save up money, I don't wanna trade vacation time for my salary.
You can make your case if you want, but please avoid taking anonymous authority and say things like "if everyone takes a vacation, everyone could be better off, if we just used the government to force every employer to give everyone vacation time".
My point is that the tradeoff between money and vacation does not exist in the aggregate. You get the vacation for free simply from moving to the lose-lose quadrant of the prisoner's dilemma to the win-win quadrant.
You mention Germany: Germany does not have a statutory minimum wage; however, it guarantees you certain minimum living standards as long as you are working or actively looking for work (or, of course, if you're disabled, too young, too old, etc.). This includes a roof over your head, comprehensive health insurance, and enough money to get by (if you earn too little, the government will top it off). It's a frugal life (even if it's technically above the subsistence level), but one that can be managed and one that you're not improving on by working extra hours.
If you want to improve upon that situation, your best chance to accomplish that is to acquire extra skills, not to commit yourself to becoming a wage slave. If you're fine with that standard of living, your quality of life will be better by only working 40 hours a week and having 4-5 weeks of guaranteed annual vacation time rather than working 60 hours and not having any vacation time.
If time and money aren't fungible, shouldn't there be a comparison we could do between Germany and the US to show that? Maybe there is one. I haven't looked hard.
Vacation is more visible which can make it a problem. This also creates a "negative vacation" problem- people working on weekends, holidays, long hours and during their "vacation".
What would you compare between Germany and the US? Perhaps a more adequate comparison is US salary level vs. vacation days across different companies. Also a very hard/noisy compare.
We should do an HN survey... (I'd be interested in how much vacation people are getting/taking).
I am sorry but if I do a good job, and ask for a bigger salary, that means without mandatory vacation laws I would get an even bigger salary.
I don't understand how you think that's actually an equal solution?
Because the actual trick to have an absolute lot of money is not linked to the hours worked. It's about working in Wall Street, or in some criminal activities, or in some investment. It's never about time spent at the desk, the whole point of earning loads of money is to decouple the revenue from the time worked. You have to earn money while you sleep. Then, why not earning while you tan?
That's the whole discussion between J.Schwartz and B.Gates on the java patents. And I think Gates knows a little bit about having loads of money (I can't say the same about Schwartz).
You have a weird idea of what's "wrong."
What's wrong is American companies that have created this environment where employees feel guilty to stay home when they have the fucking flu or take a week or two off to spend time with their families on vacation. These are the companies that ostensibly offer paid time off benefits.
Then there's the vast majority of the working poor who don't even get this option, so they're screwed when they or their kids get sick or they're at the end of the rope and just need a break. It's not even just pay either -- unpaid sick time can result in getting fired.
From a European perspective, social welfare is supposed to be there to ensure crisis does not turn into disaster, that illness does not bankrupt you, that workers are as free as possible to move to better jobs. See above.
[1] They didn't militarily invade any country recently, also there are waves of Germans swarming sunny European beaches during the holidays, they eventually recess in the fall.
Just want to clarify my point: in theory I agree that there is likely to be some substituability between the two, but in practice I haven't seen employers do this.
Who's to say everyone wants to go to work more to earn more money?
> Meanwhile, if you're making near minimum wage, aren't you more likely to be fighting for additional hours rather than looking for reasons to give them up?
Not when it's paid time off.
Minimum wage jobs tend to be hourly mcJobs. In the UK thats 6.31 an hour, or 9700 a year (~14,500 USD). I struggle to think of salaried jobs that low (apprentice positions maybe but they are highly protected)
[1] https://www.gov.uk/holiday-entitlement-rights/entitlement
If they work only 20 hours a week they will be entitled to half of the yearly paid vacations that a full-time worker is entitled to.
It's a little bit more complex than that because local laws in Europe differ about how many hours each person needs to work continually to accumulate a portion of a day off, but the principal is generally correct.
Meanwhile, if you're making near minimum wage, aren't you more likely to be fighting for additional hours rather than looking for reasons to give them up?