And of course there is one more significant reason for the result. If we accept the correlation between work hours and wealth, we see that with long work hours comes most of the benefits of being wealthy as well. These include – fo example – family, social acceptance, love, security etc.

But I agree with Will that work itself tends to make people more happy – even when the statistics are “cleared” from the abovementioned factors – in well developed societies. For the well-educated workers (who work the longest hours in US, don’t they?) work is usually very rewarding. The same cannot be said about the less lucky (the ones who didn’t have money for education and/or “genes” or supportive environment for building their value in labor market). These people are the losers in well-developed capitalist societies.

I’ve pondered this question (in Finnish context, but I guess it sort of:) applies in US as well) and come up with a sort of solution that maximizes the overall happiness level within society and works in preserving the environment.

The first 20 or so work hours/week should be (at least almost – 10-15%) tax free and then the income tax should rise progressively hour to hour, maybe 2,5% or 4% per hour. So for the 40. hour one pays maybe 60% tax. These taxes go to a collective basic income pool. Because the work the “hardest workers” do is rewarding in itself this shouldn’t bother them too much (if it does, it’s because they are jealous of the others) but the happiness level of the less well of rises as does their happinees level.

Well, this is just side effect. My actual concern is that the environment can’t cope with the amount of work that is currently done in the world. We should come up with some measures to make people do less work to preserve the environment for the future generations.

And of course there is one more significant reason for the result. If we accept the correlation between work hours and wealth, we see that with long work hours comes most of the benefits of being wealthy as well. These include – fo example – family, social acceptance, love, security etc.

But I agree with Will that work itself tends to make people more happy – even when the statistics are “cleared” from the abovementioned factors – in well developed societies. For the well-educated workers (who work the longest hours in US, don’t they?) work is usually very rewarding. The same cannot be said about the less lucky (the ones who didn’t have money for education and/or “genes” or supportive environment for building their value in labor market). These people are the losers in well-developed capitalist societies.

I’ve pondered this question (in Finnish context, but I guess it sort of:) applies in US as well) and come up with a sort of solution that maximizes the overall happiness level within society and works in preserving the environment.

The first 20 or so work hours/week should be (at least almost – 10-15%) tax free and then the income tax should rise progressively hour to hour, maybe 2,5% or 4% per hour. So for the 40. hour one pays maybe 60% tax. These taxes go to a collective basic income pool. Because the work the “hardest workers” do is rewarding in itself this shouldn’t bother them too much (if it does, it’s because they are jealous of the others) but the happiness level of the less well of rises as does their happinees level.

Well, this is just side effect. My actual concern is that the environment can’t cope with the amount of work that is currently done in the world. We should come up with some measures to make people do less work to preserve the environment for the future generations.

AEI visiting scholar Arthur C. Brooks writes in the WSJ that, while it’s true that Americans work far more hours and take less vacation time than their European counterparts, it’s not true that we’re therefore less happy.
For most Ame…

If moving around from job to job is so important for people’s thriving and happiness, it of course follows that a flexible labor market is important, but does it not follow, equally if not more so, that large amounts of unemployment insurance and government retraining a la Denmark are important. Even if one can make a big mid career change, ie the market isn’t locked up, if they don’t have the requisite social net and governmental support, they won’t be willing to use that labor market flexibility to their advantage. I really don’t know your take on it, so if you have come out in support of generous unemployment benefits/insurance, I don’t know.

If moving around from job to job is so important for people’s thriving and happiness, it of course follows that a flexible labor market is important, but does it not follow, equally if not more so, that large amounts of unemployment insurance and government retraining a la Denmark are important. Even if one can make a big mid career change, ie the market isn’t locked up, if they don’t have the requisite social net and governmental support, they won’t be willing to use that labor market flexibility to their advantage. I really don’t know your take on it, so if you have come out in support of generous unemployment benefits/insurance, I don’t know.