Vacation

Here's a graph I stole from Ezra:

The U.S., it seems, isn't that little bar on the right hand side showing ten days of paid leave and zero paid holidays. That bar's Japan. The U.S. is to the right of Japan -- i.e., blank -- a country with no legislatively mandated vacation time whatsoever. Unlike most other rightwing economic policies it at least is clear that this does boost GDP (people work more, more stuff gets made) but seemingly at the cost of making it increasingly hard for many people to find time to spend with their families. On the other hand, I will agree that Finland may have taken things too far in the other direction.

Comments

and yet Finland continues to place high in competitive indexes, productivity ratings, and gdp growth; likewise with similar nordic economies. hmm, maybe Galbraith-fils is on to something.

Posted by lawrence | May 17, 2007 8:55 AM

What is the substantive evidence for believing the Finns have "taken things too far"? Competitiveness in hi-tech industries demanding high levels of innovation and service? (Nokia: now kicking Motorola's behind for about the 8th year out of 10?)

This is an area where one has to be particularly wary of saying things that turn out to be motivated by envy or resentment, rather than evidence. (Much like doctors who think residents should have to work 20-hour shifts because that's how they had to do it.) I've found in general with Scandinavians that their increased time off goes along with a sharply increased awareness of deadlines and time organization, which allows them to be more productive in less time than Americans or Japanese, who tend to just work overtime until they get things done rather than planning ahead and collaborating efficiently.

Posted by mattsteinglass | May 17, 2007 9:06 AM

At times like this, it's good to be working for the Dutch (even if one is working in the U.S. for the Dutch). In addition to 8 paid vacation days, as a new hire at my company, you get nearly 5 weeks (24 days) of time off that can be taken whatever way you want (sick time, vacation time, personal time, sick of the office time, whatever). Since I have been here a while, I can take off nearly 6 weeks and next year, I look forward to having a whopping 34 days off at my disposal, plus the 8 holidays. I'll be doing better than the Finns! Even the Dutch in the Netherlands don't have it so good... So, you know, go globalization! At least until my job is outsourced.

More seriously, it's not that nobody has paid vacation and holidays in the U.S., but that nobody is mandated by the government to have paid vacations and holidays, so thus there is no standardization. I wonder as a practical matter what the worst, best, and average level of "paid time off" for full time workers in the U.S. is (worst being easy--no pay for any time off--curious how many people are in that situation)

Posted by JMS | May 17, 2007 9:09 AM

I don't give a rat's ass whether it affects Finland's GDP, where do I sign? I'll do that deal in a heartbeat. A fella can do some serious drinkin' & recreatin' in 39 days!!

Posted by scott | May 17, 2007 9:11 AM

At least Matt, unlike some liberals, takes the Finnish menace seriously.

Posted by Minipundit | May 17, 2007 9:21 AM

I agree with Matt about Finland. If I had to spend that many days with my family, I think I'd go nuts.

Posted by Jim W | May 17, 2007 9:23 AM

So glad I'm not married to Jim W (previous email)

Posted by Berni | May 17, 2007 9:28 AM

And yet somehow in America most workers still get paid holidays without it being government mandated. Amazing! A more useful graph would show the actual number of paid holidays workers actually get as opposed to government mandated holidays. I suspect we would still be at or near the bottom, but it is unfortunate to see an usually sensible liberal like Matt acting like a cliche 'nothing happens in America unless the government orders it' liberal.

Posted by Counterfactual | May 17, 2007 9:33 AM

"Unlike most other rightwing economic policies it at least is clear that this does boost GDP (people work more, more stuff gets made) but seemingly at the cost of making it increasingly hard for many people to find time to spend with their families."

Along the lines of noting that Finnish companies do fine even with large amounts of vacation, you might also note that birth rates in the US are much, much higher than they are in Europe, even though Europe has all of those "family friendly" policies.

Posted by James Robertson | May 17, 2007 9:34 AM

Counterfactual has it right.

How is it that paid holidays exist in the US without the government mandate them?

Could it be that the normal interplay of markets manages to produce such things without government?

And if this, what else?

Posted by Tim Worstall | May 17, 2007 9:36 AM

Birthrates are even higher in sub-Saharan Africa. Maybe, if the Republicans are successful enough, we can finally achieve the "family-friendliest" conditions that they enjoy.

Posted by Jim W | May 17, 2007 9:38 AM

IIRC in Denmark we generally have 30 days annual leave+ the 9 holidays+ weekends off course. I don't think any of them are mandated by law, but rather the result of negotiations between the unions and the employers.

/Limagolf

Posted by Limagolf | May 17, 2007 9:51 AM

This is somewhat fishy. No paid holidays? In-real-life (and outside of retail), Americans minimally get Memorial Day, Labor Day, Fourth of July, Christmas, New Year, and Thanksgiving (two days), in addition to paid vacation leave.

Posted by MattF | May 17, 2007 9:51 AM

Like many of our bad economic policies, this really screws people at the margins the most. People with steady, full time employment are probably doing ok and getting something like two or three weeks of paid leave. Temps, people who do seasonal work, people who work multiple part time jobs all get screwed on paid leave, which means that they get no paid leave which means that any kind of personal or family emergency gets exasperated by the lack of money coming in or the threat of job loss that comes with taking leave that you don't have a right to take. During the 90's I lived in London and worked as a temp in a crappy office job, but was given my pro rated share of paid leave because it was required by law. It was great.

Posted by JDS | May 17, 2007 9:52 AM

Market mandate or otherwise, the U.S. sucks for worker compensation. As a first-year professional, I get 8 holidays and a whopping 5 days of vacation time. Forgive me for being cynical, but I think I'd feel much better without the protection of the free market.

Posted by Aaron B | May 17, 2007 9:54 AM

well again, common sense here. Obviously lots of people in the US get paid holidays and vacation. But because it isn't standardized, do we know how many people get NO paid days off, how many get a level that is by most accounts too low, what the average is, and how many people are in vacation free-for-alls, like me? An average is a place to start, but is not the end of the story. The difference between the "market" taking care of things and the government mandating things is that in a "market", it's highly likely that SOME people will have no paid time off at all, whereas in a government mandate, everyone gets something. If you're not one of the unfortunates, maybe you don't care, but if you are, you might want the government telling your employer that they have to pay you during Memorial Day or whatever.

Posted by JMS | May 17, 2007 9:55 AM

"Unlike most other rightwing economic policies it at least is clear that this does boost GDP (people work more, more stuff gets made) but seemingly at the cost of making it increasingly hard for many people to find time to spend with their families"

No it isn't clear. Sandwichman at Max Sawicky's has done a long series on economists Chapman & Hicks that, in so far as I understand it, seems to prove that both management & labor will tend to push work-hours past the point of optimal productivity, unless there is third-party intervention.

Posted by bob mcmanus | May 17, 2007 9:56 AM

As to the wag who mentioned birth rates in sub-sarahan Africa - birth rates are higher in the non-developed (and developing) world in general. In countries that still have high rural populations, large families tend to be the norm (as they were in the settlement days of the American West, or during the medieval period in Europe).

The anomaly is that American birth rates are at (or slightly above) replacement level given our post-industrial economy. There are theories about this having to do with higher levels of religious feeling here, or with higher levels of optimism - but regardless, the fact remains that US birth rates are very anomalous compared to those in the rest of the developed world.

Posted by James Robertson | May 17, 2007 9:58 AM

I posted without reading counterfactual's comments, but what I said above I think speaks to his/her point. Markets have probably solved the paid leave problem for most people. However, those at the margins are the most vulnerable under a market based approach. This isn't just time off for vacations we're talking about, this is paid leave for illness or family emergencies. Even though most people make more than minimum wage, we still have that safety net for those at the margins. A state mandated paid leave policy would serve the same purpose.

Posted by JDS | May 17, 2007 9:59 AM

Why would it be clear that not having vacations or holidays would boost GDP? It doesn't seem at all clear to me.

For example, a person might be unemployed, or underemployed, or partly employed, or simply (like so many in the health care insurance industry) not producing anything of value.

OTOH, when we consider how meaningless the GDP metric is in terms of quality of life for any actual person, perhaps Matt intended for the double-meaningless to cancel each other out.

Out here some people work year round picking salal and packing it for florists- which "adds" to the GDP. But, hey- at least they're not making monstrously bad decisions that cost us billions, like they do in Washington DC.

Posted by serial catowner | May 17, 2007 10:03 AM

And yet somehow in America most workers still get paid holidays without it being government mandated.

The key word is "most". Most Americans have healthcare without the government getting involved, so should we stop worrying about that too? IMHO, everyone who works should have the right to paid holidays and vacation days. Without it being law less scrupulous employers will take advantage of their workers, usually ones who cannot afford to take time off without pay.

Disclaimer: I am not saying providing paid vacation and providing healthcare are morally equivalent, just that neither issue is handled fairly in our current system.

Posted by ibid | May 17, 2007 10:09 AM

Matt F -- I know a good amount of people working at smaller companies where Labor Day/Memorial Day/etc. are not guaranteed days off. And I don't know if I've ever worked anywhere where the day after Thanksgiving has been a holiday -- at at least my last two jobs, I've had to use a vacation day to cover it. None of these jobs has been anywhere close to retail...

Posted by Tobias | May 17, 2007 10:19 AM

To just expand a little on my 9:56, and understanding that "hours" has a direct relation to wages and NAIRU:

It is intuitively obvious that a worker will be marginally less productive at the last hour of a 140-hour work week, over a year of working them. Maybe he will be dead. It is less obvious, but probable that productivity declines at the 100th, or 80th hour. How about the 50th or 40th?

It may even be quantifiable, with observation & measurement. But it is not easy for economists to work into their models, so they assume the 80th work-hour is as productive as the first. This distorts everything about the market dynamics of preferences, wages, efficiency, productivity.

Posted by bob mcmanus | May 17, 2007 10:21 AM

The E.U. embassies in D.C. had an open house last weekend - Finland was by far the coolest.

They had a pretty hot girl in traditional Finnish dress handing out fact sheets on Finland to people waiting in line to get inside, followed by a nice guy handing out Finnish spring water...

According to the fact sheet, Finland is the "least corrupted" country in the world, and the capital of Finland (the fact sheet did not say "Helsinki" but just "the capital of Finland") is the "second safest city in the world."

It had more stuff about Nokia, being the most wired and wireless country in the world at the same time, most per-capita coffee consumption and most per-capita library cards, 200,000 lakes in Finland, etc...

But nothing on the list about 40 days off. You'd think that would be a huge selling point.

Posted by SoCalJustice | May 17, 2007 10:24 AM

It is also a safe assumption that there will be many workers willing to work 60 hour weeks for a 50% wage premium rather than working a 40-hour week for less wages. That eliminates half-a-job, distorting wages and holding down inflation:NAIRU.

I have a salaried pink-collar acquaintance in the midst of several projects who worked a 12 hour day yesterday, and then went online form 11-3AM to fix an emergency. This has been the pattern for six months, he has 6 weeks of stored vacation-time he is trying to use-or-lose on an afternoon when possible basis.

High five figures, good health care, scared of China. America sucks for management also.

Posted by bob mcmanus | May 17, 2007 10:34 AM

"In-real-life (and outside of retail), Americans minimally get Memorial Day, Labor Day, Fourth of July, Christmas, New Year, and Thanksgiving (two days), in addition to paid vacation leave."

I've worked a couple of minimum-wage retail jobs, and a couple of minimum-wage-plus-tips restaurant jobs, and in both cases, we got holiday pay for working on the holidays. I didn't get vacation time, though.

Anyway, I think it's fair to point out that U.S. workers have less vacation and holiday time than other workers, without lying, by implying that U.S. workers have zero time off.

I'm no workaholic, but I can't imagine having 40 days a year off. What the hell do you do?

Posted by too many steves | May 17, 2007 10:36 AM

"I'm no workaholic, but I can't imagine having 40 days a year off. What the hell do you do?"

My grandfather in the mid-60s, skilled blue-collar union guy, spent a month at his lakeside cottage and a month traveling the country in a motor home. A nice life at 60 for a high-school education.

Posted by bob mcmanus | May 17, 2007 10:46 AM

Ditto with the folks who point out that most workers manage to get vacation without a government mandate.

Are there some folks who don't get paid vacations, or just a little? Yes. Presumably they have some choice in the matter; they could take another job that gives them that option (Aaron B, I'm looking at you).

Also, there's also going to be a tradeoff; more paid vacation means lower pay, because of lower output. Some would prefer the money, not the time off. Should we force these people to accept lower pay because we think they should take vacation?

I recognize that things are tough for folks on the margin. But if there's a government solution, it's something like the earned income tax credit, which boosts income and gives folks more flexibility, not a time-off mandate.

Posted by Dave | May 17, 2007 10:46 AM

The only thing too extreme about Finland is the shortrage of sunshine in the winter.

I don't know why Matt has a problem with vacation time. Time away from work is a good thing. This isn't the 17th century. We're under no obligation to work as hard as possible, for as many hours as possible, to ensure the survival of mankind. Indeed, I would argue that less is better.

The people making smug comments about how most Americans get vacations despite the lack of a legal mandate are interesting for the qualifications that have to be used ("most", "aside from retail", etc.). Faith in the efficiency of free markets is always endearing, but let's always keep in mind that it is nothing more than faith. In practice, markets tend to be very different from efficient, and unregulated markets tend towards extreme behavior.

Something economists (and Matt) need to keep straight: GDP is not the purpose of human existence. It really is OK if we don't put all of our effort into maximizing economic production.

Posted by RickD | May 17, 2007 10:55 AM

I'm no workaholic, but I can't imagine having 40 days a year off. What the hell do you do?

The fact that you ask this question confirms that you are a workaholic indeed.

Posted by bullfighter | May 17, 2007 10:57 AM

"It is also a safe assumption that there will be many workers willing to work 60 hour weeks for a 50% wage premium rather than working a 40-hour week for less wages."

If you look at software developers working for the Department of Defense, you see people voluntarily making this choice all the time. If you stay with the Feds, you have a secure job, and after 3 years, 20 days off per year (plus sick time, plus Federal holidays).

If you leave, you get higher pay, but dramatically less time off - I have friends who have taken jobs which have no time off during the first year - and they did it specifically for the higher pay.

It's a tradeoff, and different people come down differently on the value proposition.

Posted by James Robertson | May 17, 2007 11:02 AM

It would be interesting to overlay this on hourly productivity levels in the respective countries. As has been noted, the US isn't getting the most bang for the hours worked.

Posted by Pat | May 17, 2007 11:05 AM

Too Many Steves: No one is sneakily implying that no one in the US gets paid time off; obviously that is silly. The point is that none is legally mandated, and therefore, the most vulnerable get no protections whatsoever. It's kind of like healthcare: there's no universal healthcare, but that doesn't mean that no one has insurance, just that 40 million don't.

Posted by moo_cow | May 17, 2007 11:05 AM

I worked in a supermarket as a teenager. If I was working that kind of job, I'd say the more days off the better.

But, working in an intellectually stimulating job as an adult, I am content with the 20 paid vacation days I get per year (plus 12 holidays). I guess 5 or 10 more days a year would be fine, but I can imagine reaching a point where I wouldn't really want to take the extra time off.

And, I'm not a workaholic. I never work more than 40 hours in a given week.

Posted by Jim W | May 17, 2007 11:06 AM

Gee, if there is no law mandating something it never happens? How... cliche!

Let's go farther. How much paid vacation does a prosperous, or not very prosperous for that matter, building contractor get, in reality not just mandated by a law. That would be none! How about a member of a building trades union. None! A freelance magazine writer? None! Let's abolish all these careers! We'd make the world a better place! Or possibly the whole paid/unpaid distinction is silly too.

MY had a very intelligent post a while back about Christopher Hitchen's success in his career as a newspaperman, in the English sense of the word. Wait, how much paid vacation does Christopher Hitchens get? None! Let's send him our condolences. Hitchens has a raft of ridiculous opinions but Hitchens seems to take especial care to not be silly in a cliche'd fashion. That seems to work for him in his chosen career.

As far as stuff about income inequality factors, it just might be useful to mention the elephant in the room driving it. It's even 'current' in the sense that Washington pol's are currently considering legislating on the topic. You have to read Kaus to hear about it though. Is that a good thing?

Last but not least, wonderful comment thread about the prescribed ethic that comes with born again Christianity concerning sex. Progressives sure care about the poor.

Posted by j mct | May 17, 2007 11:10 AM

Check out today's Center for American Progress report for stats on days off.

---But unfortunately, nearly one in four Americans receive no paid vacation or holiday time. Even worse, nearly "half of all full-time private sector workers in the U.S. get no paid sick days,"---

Posted by Pat | May 17, 2007 11:20 AM

I think it's fair to point out that U.S. workers have less vacation and holiday time than other workers, without lying, by implying that U.S. workers have zero time off.

I don't think anyone was implying that US workers have to work five days a week, 52 weeks a year. If no one said so it's because it's assumed that everyone already knows this. The point is that employers are not required to pay them for reasonable amounts of time away from the office/store/restaurant/coal mine/etc.

more paid vacation means lower pay, because of lower output.

Is this a fact? This is an honest question. Just wondering, because on its face I'm not convinced things would work this way in practice, at least not to a significant level.

I see the intent of these laws as making sure people get paid if they want to take time off. I agree people should be able to make more if they want to waive the vacation time. I'm not sure of the best way to accomplish this, although maybe some counties who have such laws have a found a good way to handle this.

Posted by ibid | May 17, 2007 11:27 AM

"counties" above should read "countries"

Posted by ibid | May 17, 2007 11:28 AM

Nearly every American I know wants to work fewer days and fewer hours than their employer will allow, paid or unpaid. So without government or union intervention, all these people are forced to work more than they want.

I always laugh when someone asks me what I'd do with more time. I'm a contractor and have gone months between contracts several times; but I somehow never ran out of wonderful interesting things to do with my time.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 17, 2007 11:42 AM

Personally, I think the genesis of this post is that Matthew's boss at Atlantic Media asked Matthew to put up a few posts on Memorial Day. Matthew thought the government mandated that he take that day off, but sadly for him (and good for us) not true...

Posted by Al | May 17, 2007 11:45 AM

I happen to like my job. I enjoy my time off (I think I get 2 or 3 weeks a year), but I certainly wouldn't enjoy having 2 months off. So there.

To me, a workaholic is someone who won't even take the 2 weeks vacation.

Posted by too many steves | May 17, 2007 11:57 AM

Limitless amount of money.

Finite amount of time.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it

tempus fugit

carpe diem

Gather ye rose-buds while ye may,
Old Time is still aflying,
And this same flower that smiles today,
Tomorow will be dying.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 17, 2007 12:06 PM

What is the substantive evidence for believing the Finns have "taken things too far"?

Matt is engaging in High Broderism here without even knowing it. Finland is at one of the extremes, and the optimal solution is automatically presumed to be somewhere in the middle.

Posted by Steve | May 17, 2007 12:29 PM

What's the difference between a Finnish introvert and a Finnish extrovert? At any gathering, the introvert spends all his time looking down at his shoes. The extrovert spends all his time looking down at others' shoes.

Mikko came over to Uurpo's house one Saturday morning with several bottles of Schnapps. They went out onto the back porch at 9:30 and started drinking.
At 11:00, Mikko said: "Uurpo, I'm getting another bottle of Schnapps." He came back with a fresh bottle and they continued drinking.
At 12:30, same thing. And so on until the sun began to set, several bottles later.
Mikko turned to Uurpo and said: "This has been a nice day, hasn't it, Uurpo?"
Uurpo growled back at him: "Damn it Mikko, are we drinking or talking?"

Posted by CJColucci | May 17, 2007 12:32 PM

I think people are way underestimating how many of the benefits we have are carryovers from the days of strong unions and how fast they are erroding. Even in well paid high tech jobs you see a lot of work done by contractors who don't get paid holidays or vacation, very few if any benefits.

Posted by Eric | May 17, 2007 12:54 PM

You know how the GOP is always selling itself as being the "family values" party?

(Yeah, riiiiight. But people believe them.)

The Dems should package an agenda of their own as "pro-family." Two weeks' paid vacation, 5-7 days of paid sick leave per year, no consequences wrt promotion or keeping one's job for using those days. Universal, single-payer health care. Making college tuition more affordable. Things like that.

Posted by low-tech cyclist (formerly RT) | May 17, 2007 1:06 PM

You know how the GOP is always selling itself as being the "family values" party?

(Yeah, riiiiight. But people believe them.)

The Dems should package an agenda of their own as "pro-family." Two weeks' paid vacation, 5-7 days of paid sick leave per year, no consequences wrt promotion or keeping one's job for using those days. Time and a half for overtime if you're not in six figures. Universal, single-payer health care. Making college tuition more affordable. Things like that.

Posted by low-tech cyclist (formerly RT) | May 17, 2007 1:06 PM

I don't think the reason that a lot of American employees get paid vacation is the magical markets. I think that while there is no federal mandate, there are mandates in some states.

Posted by bobbo | May 17, 2007 1:42 PM

The difference between the "market" taking care of things and the government mandating things is that in a "market", it's highly likely that SOME people will have no paid time off at all, whereas in a government mandate, everyone gets something

Maybe, but people who work in jobs that involve no time off are usually seasonal (roofers, heating/ac repair) or don't have static schedules (where if they want days x, y, and z off, they just write it on the schedule). And though the seasonal workers don't get days off, they do get whole months of paid vacation (which is not to say the work is easy).

A bigger problem with government-mandated days off is that the state would end up fining those who don't take them. Any law mandating days off must include a provision punishing an employer who pressures his employees to work them anyway, which sort of makes sense. But what about the proprietor of a convenience store or a guitar shop? If he works on his mandated days, he gets fined. If he doesn't, he hemorrages money.

New laws need to be given a good hard thinking before they're implemented, which includes the possible unintended consequences.

Posted by Steve W | May 17, 2007 1:45 PM

I agree with Matt about Finland. If I had to spend that many days with my family, I think I'd go nuts.

If you were asked to work without holidays right through a Finnish winter, you'd slit your wrists.

Markets have probably solved the paid leave problem for most people.

Ya think so? Those are the same markets that make employees who don't take their paid leave more valuable to employers than those who do.

An interesting metric would be the percentage of workers who get to take an entire week's vacation. My gut sense is that when leave is spent, it's generally on non-recreational activities, or at best upon stretching a weekend by a day.

Time away from work is a good thing. This isn't the 17th century.

Wrong century. It was the Industrial Revolution that more or less imposed the 'workday'. People would work long hours when the work was there, and take time off when it wasn't. Mechanisation changed all that.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 17, 2007 3:10 PM

I haven't taken a vacation in years. I got so bored last time, I couldn't wait to go back to work.

Posted by merlallen | May 18, 2007 3:23 AM

"During the 90's I lived in London and worked as a temp in a crappy office job, but was given my pro rated share of paid leave because it was required by law. It was great."

You do realize that your pay was lower because of that leave, don't you?

Posted by Nick Danger | May 20, 2007 3:41 AM