Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

scienceaim.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 268 posts

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#231

Post by EasyMark »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #17
aeternum wrote: post #3

Papers like this should be called opinion surveys. Calling it a study is a disservice to science. As Feynman said, anything where they have to put science as a suffix is usually not science.

What a hollow dismissal of based on acrobatic leaps of semantics. The word 'study' is no sacred possession exclusive to the natural sciences, and there is nothing wrong with properly conducted surveys as a method in sociology, economics or psychology. If surveys targeting the very people responsible for optimising their businesses' productivity, with no incentive to falsify their conclusions, is good evidence. Withou…

I lot of management types really do not want to hear this. They don't like the idea of employees having 3 idle days to recover and reload on a long weekend. They don't understand that being happy(er) can actually improve productivity

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#232

Post by szatkus »

declan_roberts wrote: post #132

I was contacted this week for a position that was openly 6 days a week. We need to end H1B in this country as soon as possible and keep the 996 schedule firmly out of the United States. They call you lazy for not wanting to compete against the entire world in your own country.

And at the same time the very same people are 10x more productive because of AI, right?

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#234

Post by shushpanchik »

shell0x wrote: post #139
shitloadofbooks wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an Australian with a family and 2 high-paying salaries paying a LOT of tax, none of those countries are remotely comparable to Australia. If you hate taxes and fees, Singapore has a 60% Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty on residential property applied to foreign buyers, on top of an already insane property market. There's huge fines and government intervention into _everything_ and a massive high-stress culture. Hong…

I can get PR in Singapore through my partner, so no 60%. Company paid medical and everything so expat life and no responsibilities. And if I were ever have to have kids, you can’t hire a maid here sleeping at your apartment and you have to clean yourself which is ridiculous. In Hk, SG, Dubai you can get domestic helpers cheaply and they take care of everything

Mate, 3 months ago you admitted on HN that you never get Singapore PR, just admit you want to moan how west is bad. I pay more taxes than you, and that's ok, Australia worth it.

> shell0x 3 months ago | As a white person, I’d probably never get PR too but I think it’s good that they maintain the current percentages, otherwise the country would turn unrecognizable like Germany or France

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#235

Post by surgical_fire »

aeternum wrote: post #100
Mordisquitos wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a hollow dismissal of based on acrobatic leaps of semantics. The word 'study' is no sacred possession exclusive to the natural sciences, and there is nothing wrong with properly conducted surveys as a method in sociology, economics or psychology. If surveys targeting the very people responsible for optimising their businesses' productivity, with no incentive to falsify their conclusions, is good evidence. Withou…

I did read it, thus my comment. Did you actually read the methods? This is what you're defending: "Methods This study took a qualitative approach, using semi-structured interviews with n=15 industry leaders" .. "Participants were identified via media reports " .. "A total of n=15 key informants participated in this study" .. "Recent research into appropriate sample sizes for qualitative research found saturation typi…

Standing by a plainly wrong statement does not make it right.

A qualitative study is still a study, especially considering that the subjects of the study are the sort of people that can evaluate the thing being studied.

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#237

Post by lacerrr »

yshamrei wrote: post #5

Won’t we face an economic decline if we continue reducing the work week even further?

Depends on the type of job. I suspect that creative work (not art, but also things like software development) have a threshold after which more work brings diminishing returns while simultaneously worsening future output. No idea what that threshold is. Also, manual labor unfortunately doesn't seem to share this property to the same degree.

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#238

Post by robocat »

HDBaseT wrote: post #150
shell0x wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you live in inner Sydney, the rent alone is $1350 pw and tax is ridiculous. I basically sold my stocks to have a down payment but then that got added on top of income. If i’d have stayed in HK, i’d have paid 0% for that. I just treat it as paying for Australian citizenship to make me feel better and it still comes out cheaper than buying a Saint Kitts and Nevis passport. Australian passport also opens up the E3 vi…

You don't "have" to live in Sydney though. This is something immigrants like yourself fail to understand. It's a privilege to come into this country, its a privilege to live in Sydney. If you don't like it, you can leave. I make less (even before tax) than you PAID in tax, yet you still want handouts.

> It's a privilege to come into this country

Oz needs the immigrants or it would be screwed. It isn't a fecking privilege.

In NZ ~30% of the population was born overseas. We do it because NZ requires more people of working age - because our demographics are shit and they're becoming deeper shit (aside AU is part of our problem). We need young workers and we bribe them here with lifestyle, money from jobs, and houses for the fortunate.

It's a compounding bad debt solution - since those immigrants also get older and will become unaffordable retirees for our country.

I think Aus has similar dynamics - but not as badly because Oz is much wealthier than NZ.

I'm some years away from retirement age - but the demographics mean that I'm screwed. Everyone will be screwed. If you're fortunate enough to have been able to save for retirement, say goodbye to those savings over time.

I expect NZ will start to increase immigration because there's too many undesirable jobs (jobs that NZers don't want to do, or that there simply isn't enough NZers for the jobs).

Immigrants work. It is a only a stop-gap solution.

Our politicians lack the ability to encourage enough business growth: therefore taxation income can't keep up with NZ government expenses.

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#239

Post by XajniN »

kibibu wrote: post #190
aeternum wrote: post #3

Papers like this should be called opinion surveys. Calling it a study is a disservice to science. As Feynman said, anything where they have to put science as a suffix is usually not science.

> As Feynman said, anything where they have to put science as a suffix is usually not science. This is such an absurd thought-terminating cliche. Science suffixation seems more an indicator of the age of the field, not its scientific rigour. Are "climate science" and "computer science" not science? On the flip side, just because it says "ology" at the end of a word does not mean it's a science.

> Are "climate science" and "computer science" not science?

Computer science – applied mathematics Climate science – writing doom papers because they bring budget

Did you use them as examples on purpose?

Re: The four-day workweek in Australia: insights from early adopters of 100:80:100

#240

Post by cam_l »

mianos wrote: post #213
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the difference is in the Capital Gains Tax, which doesn't apply to the day-to-day running of the business or its profitability or the salaries it pays. Again, my understanding is that the (only) difference is when the business is sold, and the 50% discount to CGT is no longer applied and instead there is an inflation adjustment instead (what I don't understand here is how to get an initial va…

ps. Australia uses a progressive tax system. If you earn very little money, you pay a very low tax rate (or many zero). If you earn a massive corporate salary, you pay the top rate. The new 30% floor completely throws that out the window for capital gains. It means even if your total income for the year is low enough that your normal tax rate should be 16% or 0%, the government steps in and forces a flat 30% tax on t…

>It means even if your total income for the year is low enough that your normal tax rate should be 16% or 0%, the government steps in and forces a flat 30% tax on the asset sale anyway.

From the budget:

"Recipients of means-tested income support payments, such as the Age Pension or JobSeeker, will be exempted from the minimum tax if they receive any payment in the financial year in which they realise the capital gain."

The flat rate is to stop people from dropping their income artificially and claiming the reduced rate. Most people won't run foul of this. Something like 90% of the capital gains discount was taken by the top 1%.

So your argument only applies to people who earn between 20 & 45k who don't get any government benefits (which are means tested, so they cannot be cash or asset rich), and realise a capital gain from an investment (is. not their house).

While philosophically I think it wrong that someone who earns very little cannot spread a tax liability over multiple years, the way corporations can.. I cannot think of a way that a disjoint could be given for this cohort that does not also open the door to loopholes for the 1%. Plus the number of people effected will be vanishingly small, and the amount to which that small number of purple are effected will also be small.

So, largely, contrary to what you are saying, they are not..

Post reply on HN