51–60 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's literally missing the entire point of it. You already have this now - always had it. There's nothing new or interesting about what you're "proposing". What IS new and interesting is getting employees who work 20% less, AND THEREFORE are 20% more productive (and presumably 20% happier), at the same cost.
Wow... So like magic? Why aren't all successful businesses already doing this if they can get more productivity for less time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you have misunderstood the reason behind the move towards the 4 day workweek across Europe. It's literally more productive for less hours.
If workers were more productive working less hours you wouldn't need the government to do anything - businesses acting in their own interests would do this automatically. The government doesn't know how to run businesses better than the businesses themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider this, imagine someone working every single waking minute at their job. Clearly they will not be very happy and after a time not very productive. So there exists some optimum level of productivity between 0 and 18 hours of work per day. The big question is whether it is closer to the 0 or closer to the 18. Currently there is some good evidence for it being in the 3-6 hour range(I don't have the studies on han…
I think this misses the point - the 9 to 9 point was probably just a distraction. Compare 4 day work weeks to 6 day work weeks. 50% more work days seems like a big advantage, even if workers only perform 3-6 hours of work per day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an employer there are plenty of jobs that I would be perfectly fine allowing the employee to work 20% less, as long as they cost me 20% less.
That's literally missing the entire point of it. You already have this now - always had it. There's nothing new or interesting about what you're "proposing". What IS new and interesting is getting employees who work 20% less, AND THEREFORE are 20% more productive (and presumably 20% happier), at the same cost.
What evidence is there for an increase in productivity when moving from 40 to 32 hours/week? I believe productivity increases have been demonstrated in some cases for hourly reductions when moving from overtime (say, 60 hours/week) down to 40. This is grounded in two parts - the diminishing returns of working more than 40 hours/week, and the fact that above 50 or 60 people start getting too tired and too focused on narrow tasks to make good long-term judgements. But I haven’t seen studies showing what you’re suggesting, which is a complete 100% reversal of productivity from 32 to 40 hours/week.
The logical extension, of course, doesn’t work. It’s not possible to work 100% less and therefore be 100% more productive or happier. (I mean, maybe happier, but not more productive, right? ;)) And we already know the delta change in productivity for a given delta change in hours depends heavily on how many absolute hours we’re starting with, and also depends heavily on the job at hand. So is the question about what number of hours gives people peak productivity for a given job? Or peak happiness? Or is this just about making sure employment has reasonable limits, and not even trying to optimize productivity?
* Edit: I googled it, and found the story about Microsoft Japan and it’s 4 day work week. I totally remember reading about this a few years ago. Lots of commentary on HN. The claim is a 40% increase when going to a 4 day week. It was measured for only 1 month, and they changed many other aspects (notably, they capped meeting times). Many people pointing out this is likely Hawthorne Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect). Personally, 40% seems completely implausible, which is why I wrote it off and forgot about it. It seems obvious that if that’s true, it means something was going terribly wrong with their 5 day week. Or that this effect isn’t measuring the change in hours at all.
I recall times when I worked at the office. Friday was a dead day. No one was interested in doing anything but waiting until 5pm. People were wandering around the office like zombies, having endless coffee-breaks and meaningless chats. I guess that it's quite common situation for office workers, unless they are under strict surveillance and control(f.e. Amazon, EPAM).
(genuine question plz, I have no clue either way)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you have misunderstood the reason behind the move towards the 4 day workweek across Europe. It's literally more productive for less hours.
If workers were more productive working less hours you wouldn't need the government to do anything - businesses acting in their own interests would do this automatically. The government doesn't know how to run businesses better than the businesses themselves.
The postwar era status quo of people travelling hours each way to their job, then to spend most of it in meetings or in an open plan office (chosen for managerial oversight, not productivity, which is a clue we will come back to) with too much noise to be productive are being challenged (cv19)
The research is clear, most white collar workers report much less productive work time compared to their work hours.
Reporting and data collection in this ever increasing era of cognitively demanding work is becoming far more accurate. In previous times, people's fear of redundancy has caused false overreach of business hours, and competitive presenteeism. Between this, and micromanagerial institutions like the open plan office, there is plenty of activity that doesn't accurately report productivity up to the business. Assuming the business has perfect information here is the fault. There are forces shaping these standards that are beyond the reach of produtivity, cultural normalisation of unhealthiness is rife. Look at China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The more interesting thing is that, if working 50 hour work weeks was the norm - how would the capitalist class take it to us suggesting its 40 hours? 40 hours isn't some magical "right" number. It was something that was decided before computers, Internet, global fast communication, etc etc etc. I think its beyond late for us to reconsider those hours and decrease them. To answer your question directly: Why would the…
It wasn't even really decided. Like most current worker protections, it was arrived at through struggle between industralists and the then still powerful labor unions. They won the 12 hour workday, then the 10 hour workday, then the 8 hour work day and that's when the unions were defanged.
And now the working hours are going back up. I can talk about my country in Europe, that after the 2008 crisis, and due to the increased competition pressure form globalization, many workers' rights and protections were reduced "to increase economic competitiveness", and many professionals, blue and white collar, are now doing more than the 8h/day either willingly or forced by the circumstances of a poor jobs market with little alternatives.
And with stuff like real estate getting more and more expensive, faster than wages are growing, it's tough for anyone but the most privileged, to have the luxury of working less than 8h/day and maintaining a good lifestyle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an employer there are plenty of jobs that I would be perfectly fine allowing the employee to work 20% less, as long as they cost me 20% less.
I think you have misunderstood the reason behind the move towards the 4 day workweek across Europe. It's literally more productive for less hours.
If this is free productivity, why don't companies already do this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow... So like magic? Why aren't all successful businesses already doing this if they can get more productivity for less time?
In fairness - there are a lot of studies on how much people actually work in white collar jobs. I don't know of a consensus, but I've seen many studies where >20% of people self report working ~20 hours per week. Many studies like this: https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/in-an-8-hour-day-the-aver... - say that the average white collar worker only works ~20 hours per week. There is little reason to believe the vast ma…
> Many studies like this: https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/in-an-8-hour-day-the-aver... - say that the average white collar worker only works ~20 hours per week.
Another way of phrasing this is that people tend to be productive for 50% of the time they spend "working". It's not self evident that people will still be productive for those 20 hours if the work day was shortened. It could just as easily be the case that people will still goof off for 50% of the shortened work day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's literally missing the entire point of it. You already have this now - always had it. There's nothing new or interesting about what you're "proposing". What IS new and interesting is getting employees who work 20% less, AND THEREFORE are 20% more productive (and presumably 20% happier), at the same cost.
The article didn’t make any arguments about increased productivity, it was suggesting that better work-life balance was healthier and helps parents with children. What evidence is there for an increase in productivity when moving from 40 to 32 hours/week? I believe productivity increases have been demonstrated in some cases for hourly reductions when moving from overtime (say, 60 hours/week) down to 40. This is groun…
We probably have some shared view that it’s Laffer-curvish without being sure of the shape.
It just seems unlikely to me that 40 hrs is a total system optimum since it was a historical accident. Personally I think it might be 50 hrs/week but it just seems strange that we’d believe that 40 is the peak of this curve.