Famously, a hundred years ago Keynes predicted that by now people would be working just fifteen hours a week. That hasn’t quite happened
This tangentially reminded me of Jason Crawford's essay on this, which pointed to this interesting paper:
Nicholas Crafts came up with these estimates for expected lifetime hours of work for men aged 20:
Year Work hours Other hours 1881 114,491 (49%) 119,269 (51%) 1951 94,343 (33%) 191,429 (67%) 2011 70,612 (20%) 276,522 (80%) A reduction from 49% of an adult life spent working to 20% is almost as great as a reduction from forty hours a week to fifteen.
This was due to a combination of factors: working hours per week dropped by nearly half, child labor waned, and retirement was invented plus life expectancy increased.
Child labor shouldn't have an influence on expected life time (non-)work hours for a person of age 20, as they're no longer a child, right? Or am I missing sth?
You claim that:
the government is [not] somehow stopping people from working more.
but also:
the Netherlands [...] has enacted part-time-friendly policies
I'm skeptical that both of these claims are straightforwardly true. Due to the nature of labor law, a policy that is friendly to shorter work-weeks will in practice also be unfriendly to longer work-weeks.
In particular, my uninformed guess is that a Dutch employer and employee seeking to formalize a 40-hour-per-week working arrangement will encounter obstacles or costs that wouldn't arise for a <35-hour-per-week arrangement. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
What's the effect on unemployment? If a company can make use of (say) 800 hours of assembly-line labor per week, but each worker is providing 32 hours instead of 40, then logically that company should be employing 25 workers instead of 20.
Effect is hard if not impossible to determine but the Netherlands have one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_unemployment_rate
Or move to the country next door.
..to mention just one of the most obvious complexities your suggestion left out.
My intuition was that the Dutch having flexible working schedules would improve workforce participation. Second order effects would actually be higher GDP/capita. I've checked and indeed - the Dutch have the highest workforce participation in the EU. Workforce participation is 83.5% in the Netherlands vs 75.8% in the EU for ages 20-64. They have also the 4th highest GDP/capita in the EU after Ireland and Luxembourg - which have finance-based economies - and Denmark, which works only slightly longer hours.
Famously, a hundred years ago Keynes predicted that by now people would be working just fifteen hours a week. That hasn’t quite happened, but the Dutch are already down to four-day weeks.
And this isn’t because bad actors are gaming the system or because the government is somehow stopping people from working more. Rather, it’s the result of people increasingly choosing to work part-time.
Interestingly, this is one of the issues where libertarians and progress studies people, who usually get along well, would disagree. Libertarians would say that if you can afford it, by all means, work just one day a week. Progress studies people would point out that GDP growth decreased by, say, 1% over 100 years will leave people in the resulting economy almost three times poorer.
Anyway, the Netherlands lead in part-time jobs, because it has enacted part-time-friendly policies in the past. Was that a mistake? Should governments instead be trying to make the creation of part-time jobs more difficult?
Also keep in mind that not all jobs are created equal. Those working on increasing the productivity (scientists etc.) are, by working more, increasing the exponent of the exponential growth curve. By contrast, assembly-line workers only increase its base. Is that an argument for sector-based policies? Discourage part-time work in science, but make it easier for manual jobs?