Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

The problem isn't vocabulary. It's lack of logic.

We are talking about something that is nonsense.

What are we talking about?

People ought to be able to work no more than six hours a day.

Really?

Why does anyone work eight? Or ten? Or twelve?

Did this 8 to 10 hour per day thing get sprung on people and forced upon them from nowhere?

No. Of course not. It's something that achieved a "natural" balance over decades (centuries?). And the balance has hundreds of variables driving it. From personal happiness to international competitiveness and productivity with even more variables across varied industries and cultures.

Nonsense is picking a number out of thin air, be it six or four hours and proclaiming that, not only will this work but it will result in happiness and a real improvement in employment figures.

It's like going into an ecosystem with some balance and killing off all the rats. There will be consequences. And they will likely not be positive.

You can't force a nation into a six hour work day without leaving behind measurable destruction. And this destruction would range from the personal (individual, family, kids, social groups) to corporate and national. You just can't do that and expect positive results.

This isn't about not liking the idea of working less and devoting more time to "living life". No, this has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the reality that these decisions exist in the reality of a very complex local, regional, national and international competitive marketplace.

A change of the sort being discussed would forcefully move away from a balanced position that allows everyone to earn a reasonable living, companies to remain viable while facing a myriad of competitors operating under different rules and society to function.

And so, proposing that people would be happy while facing a massive change in their standard of living, their ability to save for their future, feed their kids, take trips, have free time (because they will need two jobs), etc. simply isn't in alignment with reality.

To further propose that this would also improve employment is equally misplaced because this metric --the number of people being employed-- isn't a measure of anything other than a head count. A more useful measurement would combine head count with standard of living, savings rate, leisure time, quality of child care, etc.

These conclusions are faulty to such an extent that suggesting this approach would work could only be done from a less than lucid frame of mind.

In other words, it's nonsense and you'd have to be on dope to believe it would actually make society better.

Could we make such a thing work?

Yes, we could.

How?

Through massive global changes that are likely to require centuries to achieve. In other words, Star Trek territory. Not impossible, but, today, highly improbable because it would require dozens of nations to agree on terms and coordinate such changes over extended periods of time while making significant concessions.

This felt like click bait, it's about a Swedish nursing home - I was assuming this was related to office / tech work as it was high up on HN. It does sound ridiculous that reducing hours mean hiring 17 other staff - I've heard of tech companies being able to handle a few less hours per working week and benefiting from it.

> The validity of an argument is absolutely independent of the messenger.

But one's interest in attempting to engage the messenger in debate, or otherwise give them one's time, attention, and audience is not.

> The other interesting thing is people also fail to read and comprehend before posting a comment. Case in point,

I read it fully a couple times. Comprehend? I admitted as much: "Perhaps that wasn't your intent, [...]". Glad you find it interesting...?

My goal here in replying is pointing out what part of your post I thought it likely people were actually objecting to - misinterpretation or not - as I thought you were missing the mark.

> I did not equate "everyone" to this caricature purely intended to drive a point rather than be factually accurate.

And the point I'm trying to drive home here is that this use of caricatures and hyperbole is, perhaps, easier to misinterpret over the internet than you realize - and an ineffective debate technique. And polarizing. And what's getting you flagged - not the underlying message.

Communication is a two way street - part of the onus for communicating clearly does fall on you.

> In the context of a discussion where the proposal is to limit all workers to six hours a day it is far more likely true that people would be unhappy due to the massive hit in income.

Some people will be unhappy. Some people will be happy. There might be an interesting discussion as to what that breakdown looks like, both in percentages and in professions. I think we may disagree on where the lines are - to what degree it may or may not be nonsense - but it seems rather pointless to debate without at least trying to be accurate about it, yeah?

Don't know what vouching is. It sounds like I should thank you for it. Thanks.

Reflecting upon these various exchanges I had a feeling that there's something odd at play. You see, people such as yourself have consistently misconstrued or misunderstood what I've been saying, both in tone and content. Your last comment is no different. At first I thought it was just people choosing to be offended for a truly silly comment intended more as a joke than anything else. A friendly jab, if you will.

Yet, I did not say or mean what you say I said or meant. Not once. And so I wonder if there's a language barrier of some sort at play here. Either that or a simple case of text-based communications being imperfect enough at times that it can lead to people reading something very different from what the author meant to say.

I have a feeling it's a bit like this scene, where two people almost come to blows due to a misunderstanding in language and intent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XguKaKMMKaM

I'll leave it at that.