I'd like to believe this article, and in fact strive myself to reduce my working hours one day and have more time for all that other good stuff the article mentions. Shorter weeks could bring a lot of benefits with them to those who can enjoy them. Some problems I have with the article however: 1. Working less may well not result in getting more (or the same amount) done. The article mentions a correlation between sh…
one of the potential benefits mentioned by the article is the climate change perspective. from that perspective, the whole point of working less is a mechanism to reduce the rate that stuff gets done.
the downsides of this would be:
1. less stuff gets done 2. on average people have less income 3. on average people have less income, and this hurts poor people far more than wealthy people 4. perhaps the economy doesn't grow, and we don't know how to run society that way
the upsides might be:
5. there's a reduction in negative side effects (both generation of pollution and rate of depletion of non-renewables and unsustainable depletion of renewables (fish stocks, timber, soil, ...)) 6. we've got more time to do stuff that isn't work. hurray! 7. we've got more time to think carefully about what we're doing before we hit some hard limit 8. a lot of stuff that gets done is unhelpful, and now there's less of it 9. it's fairly obvious that we cannot keep growing the physical economy indefinitely, it might be a wise idea to try to learn how to run society in a different way before we're forced into collapse.
e.g. see the book "Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet" by Tim Jackson.