1. Comments on: Labor market effects of worksharing arrangements in Europe Jan van Ours Tilburg University

2. Long history  May 1, 1886 – Chicago  Eight hour song  We want to feel the sunshine (…)  8 hrs for work, 8 hours for rest, 8 hours for what we will  Chapman (EJ 1909) – Hours of labor  Why work 10 hours per day if 9 is optimal?

3. Annual changes in hours actually worked per employee 1950-19751975-2004 France-10.5-16.0 W-Germany-25.2- Netherlands-21.0-12.2 Sweden-17.0-0.9 Italy-7.4 U.K.-11.0-9.0

4. Decomposition – 2002 Hours/ week France36.2 Germany36.5 Netherlands31.8 Sweden38.1 Italy37.4 U.K.38.2

5. Decomposition – 2002 Hours/ week Weeks/ year France36.240.5 Germany36.540.6 Netherlands31.838.4 Sweden38.135.4 Italy37.441.0 U.K.38.240.5

6. Decomposition – 2002 Hours/ week Weeks/ year Hours/ year France36.240.51467 Germany36.540.61480 Netherlands31.838.41223 Sweden38.135.41349 Italy37.441.01533 U.K.38.240.51546

7. Decomposition – 2002 Hours/ week Weeks/ year Hours/ year Employment rate France36.240.5146762.2 Germany36.540.6148065.3 Netherlands31.838.4122374.5 Sweden38.135.4134974.9 Italy37.441.0153355.6 U.K.38.240.5154672.7

8. Decomposition – 2002 Hours/ week Weeks/ year Hours/ year Employment rate Hours/ person France36.240.5146762.2912 Germany36.540.6148065.3966 Netherlands31.838.4122374.5911 Sweden38.135.4134974.91010 Italy37.441.0153355.6852 U.K.38.240.5154672.71124

9. Work-sharing arrangements  Standard hours per week   France, Germany  Weeks per year:  Sweden  Part-time work , employment   Netherlands  Extensive margin:  Italy

10. Common elements  Downward trend in average working week  More flexibility  Germany – increase working time  Netherlands – part-time work  Worksharing – no positive employment effects  Employment rates of men slowly falling  Employment rates of women strong increase

11. Main differences  Forced – voluntary  France  the rest  France: strong government influence – massive subsidies

12. Main differences  Forced – voluntary  France  the rest  France: strong government influence  Opposition against part-time work  Netherlands  the rest  NL: at first opposition of unions

13. Main differences  Forced – voluntary  France  the rest  France: strong government influence  Opposition against part-time work  Netherlands  the rest  NL: at first opposition of unions  Availability of childcare facilities  Netherlands  the rest  NL: still few formal childcare facilities

14. Dichotomy  France and Germany  Position of male full-time workers  Events similar  Sweden and the Netherlands  Combining work and family life  Different routes

15. Comments Nice and interesting paper/chapter overview of many studies & empirical observations French bias almost 60% of the authors theoretical model France (& Germany) French lazy & crazy: decreasing productivity, rising wages, government intervention

16. Main comments - theory  Interesting reduction of standard working hours  Upper limit working hours “over the hill”  Small decreases: employment  Big decreases: employment

17. Main comments - theory  Interesting reduction of standard working hours  Upper limit working hours “over the hill”  Small decreases: employment  Big decreases: employment  Explanation  Non-competitive world: Monopsony/bargaining  State regulation may be required

18. Main comments - theory  Interesting reduction of standard working hours  Upper limit working hours “over the hill”  Small decreases: employment  Big decreases: employment  Explanation  Non-competitive world: Monopsony/bargaining  State regulation may be required  Other forms of working time reduction: part-time work & leave policies  Theory less clear

19. Main comments - theory  Interesting reduction of standard working hours  Upper limit working hours “over the hill”  Small decreases: employment  Big decreases: employment  Explanation  Non-competitive world: Monopsony/bargaining  State regulation may be required  Other forms of working time reduction: part-time work & leave policies  Theory less clear  Interaction between extension margin of labor supply (participate or not) and the intensive margin of labor supply

20. Main comments - II  Growth of part-time work in NL – “Butterfly effect”?  “In no country work-sharing per se has created employment”  Not sure: part-time work encouraged increase of labor supply  Competitive world: employment is determined by labor market participation

21. Main comments - III  Sweden – no working hours reduction but leave facilities  Almost 1 week in 5 is lost due to “absence for other reasons than holidays”  For competitive reasons?  More flexibility?  Conclusion: “work sharing through career interruptions is not an attractive policy option”  Question: “why is it maintained?”

22. Conclusions – worksharing  Normative point of view  nothing against; preferences  Economic efficiency  does not reduce unemployment  difficult to persuade non-economists  Actual hours follow standard hours  norms follow actual changes

23. Are Europeans lazy or Americans crazy?  Suggests that one of the two is true

24. Are Europeans lazy or Americans crazy?  Suggests that one of the two is true  Maybe both are true

25. Are Europeans lazy or Americans crazy?  Suggests that one of the two is true  Maybe both are true  “Are some Europeans more crazy than others?”