[notahacker]

Without knowing more I'd say the situation is contrived and artificial, and there's almost never a situation in which a nation improving its economic conditions makes its medium run economic output worse because it had never occurred to anyone else to do this and the other countries all copy it better.

There are real world tradeoffs like boosting the value of a country's currency making its exports a little more expensive to foreign purchasers of its manufacturing output, but your question is more akin to 'if I knew of a perpetual motion machine, should I hide it from the boss of my motor company'. The perpetual motion machine doesn't exist, and if it did, the benefits outweigh any potential losses to your company's existing revenue streams.

[Eoan]

>in which a nation improving its economic conditions makes its medium run economic output worse

It doesn't say that economic output would decrease, only that luxury goods sales would decrease. I will take this misunderstanding into future consideration. It is also a misunderstanding to assume that "the other countries all copy it better": the implication is that when the first country uses the system, it buys fewer luxury goods from other countries as well. However, people would be more divided on the benefit of a country BUYING fewer luxury goods. If people want expensive German cars and they can afford them, let them, right? But everyone in Germany presumably wants Germany to SELL more luxury cars.

Also, in regards to whether an unused system could be beneficial, it's worth pointing out that the overtime system was basically invented in the 1930's, during the Great Depression. Companies suggested it as an alternative to further mandated decreases in working hours.

[notahacker]

If the tradeoff is if we enact this policy we will have more jobs, a better budget balance and more money collectively and the only downside is our people will buy different types of goods and in particular fewer luxury goods from overseas, I can't imagine why any self-respecting economist wouldn't recommend the policy on purely economic grounds. Assessing which parts of the economy will be worse off and whether there will be a net benefit is literally what the advisers are paid for, and every policy or non-enactment of policy has an opportunity cost.

If the problem is that there exists a cost-free solution to economic growth but other countries adopting it might kill your economic base of exporting luxuries to them if they do it, it's probably safe to assume that either they will do it anyway or that they aren't doing it because they face other political barriers or adverse consequences.

If your solution is protectionism or luxury tax or devaluation or similar it's neither cost free nor something other countries haven't considered and don't have plenty of specific reasons why it's not a good idea for them even if it'll work for your economy.

And time and a half pay legislation not being copied by [e.g] the UK which also had a Great Depression cutting its industrial output, pays great attention to the US economy and generally has more generous labour laws kind of underlines the pointlessness of keeping good ideas secret in the assumption you'll be harmed by everyone else following your lead.

[Eoan]

>I can't imagine why any self-respecting economist wouldn't recommend the policy on purely economic grounds.

I would like to agree with that, but there's this: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/2012102915...

"Most economists are not paid for knowing about the economy. They are paid for telling stories that justify giving more money to rich people."

Or another, more famous quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

Is that the case for economists? I can't say for sure. If people don't care whether economists actually try to fix problems, though, then it's more likely that they will not. That's what this question (not precisely a poll, but meant to be) was for.

>If your solution is protectionism or luxury tax or devaluation or similar

It's a way of getting people to work less. Relevant details about why it works 'mechanically' (as opposed to psychologically) include that rich people spend a lower percentage of their income than poor people; rich people tend to buy higher-profit or expensive items, meaning their spending goes to other rich people; limited possibilities for targeted pricing when income inequality is high mean that e.g. there are many homeless people at the same time as many homes are unoccupied; and possibly other things I'm forgetting.

I may not reply again.