Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week • Hacker News Board

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#131

Post by rebootthesystem » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 11:32 PM UTC

Johnny555 wrote: post #109

rebootthesystem wrote: post #58

> In a perfect situation this would have led to higher employment numbers and happier employees. What kind of hippie logic is this? Happier employees? I don't know ANYONE who would be happier if they got a 25% pay cut except for, maybe, single hippies who want to smoke dope all day and have no responsibilities. The average person, on the other hand, and particularly those with kids, would be devastated by a 25% cut i…

I don't know ANYONE who would be happier if they got a 25% pay cut except for, maybe, single hippies who want to smoke dope all day and have no responsibilities. The average person, on the other hand, and particularly those with kids, would be devastated by a 25% cut in pay. While a 25% pay cut sounds extreme, my wife took a 20% pay cut to work a 4 day week and she's never been happier. She has more time to do the th…

Yours isn't a valid example. Did your household income go down by 25%.

In other words, if a law was passed that nobody could work more than 6 hours a day, five days a week your family would be severely affected. At that point it is almost guaranteed your wife (and you) would not be happy because your life would change accordingly.

That's my point. Sure, in a case where a spouse can make-up the loss or there's an income surplus a change in income might not be traumatic. My wife could stop working entirely and we would probably not even notice. Yet that's not typical at all, is it?

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#132

Post by fetbaffe » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 11:32 PM UTC

andrewstuart2 wrote: post #124

dang wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, we put "30 hour work week" in the title instead. Thanks!

Wait, hold the phone. That's not really accurate according to the article nor the paper he linked. The trial was 6 hour work days, as the article claims. After downloading the aforementioned paper and uploading the to google translate, since I don't speak Swedish: > Summary 18 months with 6 hours > 6 hours of trial > City of Gothenburg decided in 2014 to conduct a trial with 6-hour day with follow-up research. The tr…

EDIT: This comment is not that informative on the subject. Ignore it. Read this one instead https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13323756

It does say 5 to 7 hours and looking up other Swedish media that have reported on the length on shifts they also say 5 to 7.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article22726117.ab

http://www.gp.se/nyheter/göteborg/sextimmarsdag-på-äldreboen...

http://www.fria.nu/artikel/119894

The report itself is a bit vague what it actually means by in practice.

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#133

Post by benchaney » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 11:36 PM UTC

saverio-murgia wrote: post #126

Here on HN I always read people saying that you are more productive working 5 to 6 hours a day instead of 8. According to the people claiming that, the people who got a 25% cut in working hours should have performed better thus accomplishing the same amount of work. That obviously did not happen.

Well as another commenter pointed out, they had to hire fewer people than a naive man hours calculation would suggest, so their productivity did increase.

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#134

Post by rebootthesystem » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 11:38 PM UTC

scrollaway wrote: post #99

rebootthesystem wrote: post #58

> In a perfect situation this would have led to higher employment numbers and happier employees. What kind of hippie logic is this? Happier employees? I don't know ANYONE who would be happier if they got a 25% pay cut except for, maybe, single hippies who want to smoke dope all day and have no responsibilities. The average person, on the other hand, and particularly those with kids, would be devastated by a 25% cut i…

I'm vouching this comment because you're bringing a valid point into the discussion but you need to tone the hostility down.

No hostility intended. When something is nonsense it isn't hostile to call it nonsense. Why waste paragraphs?

That's part of the problem these days. You can't call bullshit bullshit because people get offended.

I think this idea is unmitigated manure. A smart 13 year old with experience making and selling lemonade could explain this in 15 in front of a whiteboard. I find it perplexing that governments spend millions in such nonsense programs. If you dig there's always a motivating factor with less than honorable intentions.

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#135

Post by rebootthesystem » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 11:44 PM UTC

scrollaway wrote: post #114

nitrogen wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd advise caution. Last time I did the same I lost the ability to vouch. Responding to the comment itself: the idea behind reduced workweeks is that some jobs become more productive with fewer hours worked. But those are probably all white collar jobs. I'd say there's something deeply, fundamentally broken in a society if the very thought of people being able to live while working less seems so anathema.

> Last time I did the same I lost the ability to vouch. Shoot an email to the mods, I'm sure they'll restore it. Looking at rebootthesystem's previous comments, a couple are a bit heated but in general it's decent quality. I've made worse comments than that one without getting flagged myself; assuming good faith goes a long way.

People are just too sensitive these days. Calling bullshit for what it is without going around in circles not to offend anyone used to have a name: Being honest.

These days people are so delicate that get offended by straight talk and "flag" you. I wonder if they realize the facts don't change at all.

Every time I run into these kinds of situations I remember that my grandparents survived a Genocide. People are so incredibly delicate these days that we can't even engage in straight talk. My grandparents didn't have to face words, they had to face reality, a brutal reality. Guess what, they ended-up being fine.

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#136

Post by tluyben2 » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 11:45 PM UTC

xiaoma wrote: post #9

JamesBarney wrote: post #2

I imagine the optimal working day depends on the work one is doing. I used to work 8 hour shifts at Circuit City and leave with plenty of energy. But 8 hours of solid coding leaves me exhausted. I'm more curious to see the results of Amazon's 30 hr work week because I believe that includes developers.

That's interesting. 8 solid hours of coding leaves me wanting to go for a run or go out singing with my friends. OTH, back when I was paining houses and hauling ladders around all day, I felt like sitting down in front of a computer for the rest of the evening after finally getting home.

Me too; not that I often code 8 solid hours (I take out time to walk in the mountains and cook for instance) but when I anything more than 4 hours solid I have tons of energy. After 3 hours of meetings however, not so much.

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#137

Post by Johnny555 » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 11:48 PM UTC

rebootthesystem wrote: post #131

Johnny555 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know ANYONE who would be happier if they got a 25% pay cut except for, maybe, single hippies who want to smoke dope all day and have no responsibilities. The average person, on the other hand, and particularly those with kids, would be devastated by a 25% cut in pay. While a 25% pay cut sounds extreme, my wife took a 20% pay cut to work a 4 day week and she's never been happier. She has more time to do the th…

Yours isn't a valid example. Did your household income go down by 25%. In other words, if a law was passed that nobody could work more than 6 hours a day, five days a week your family would be severely affected. At that point it is almost guaranteed your wife (and you) would not be happy because your life would change accordingly. That's my point. Sure, in a case where a spouse can make-up the loss or there's an inco…

You said "I don't know ANYONE...", and I gave a counter example of how SOMEONE might choose to take a pay cut in return for fewer hours. While our household income didn't go down by 20%, her own disposable income did go down by 20% (actually more than that since she kept her 401k contribution the same, she pays a fixed amount for health care so that ended up being a higher percentage of her income, and her transit pass was not any cheaper even though she only needed it 4 days a week instead of 5).

Our needs are pretty modest compared to our income, we try to live below our means... if a law were passed that no one could work more than 6 hours/day, we'd get along just fine.

I took a 15% pay cut just to move to a job closer to home - I gave up a 60 - 90 minute commute in exchange for a 10 minute bike commute.

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#138

Post by MaulingMonkey » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 11:55 PM UTC

rebootthesystem wrote: post #134

scrollaway wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm vouching this comment because you're bringing a valid point into the discussion but you need to tone the hostility down.

No hostility intended. When something is nonsense it isn't hostile to call it nonsense. Why waste paragraphs? That's part of the problem these days. You can't call bullshit bullshit because people get offended. I think this idea is unmitigated manure. A smart 13 year old with experience making and selling lemonade could explain this in 15 in front of a whiteboard. I find it perplexing that governments spend millions…

> When something is nonsense it isn't hostile to call it nonsense. Why waste paragraphs?

Correct, that part's fine.

The part that comes off as hostile is equating everyone who would be fine with a 25% paycut to being a "single hippie who wants to smoke dope all day and have no responsibilities" - certain implications of lawlessness ("dope" being illegal in various parts of the world, and frowned upon by many) and sloth (a vice or sin in various religions.)

Perhaps that wasn't your intent, but that's how you're coming across to me - and perhaps others. And as it doesn't actually help your argument in any way, I must ask you the same: Why waste paragraphs?

> That's part of the problem these days. You can't call bullshit bullshit because people get offended.

Bullshit.

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#139

Post by Klockan » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 11:57 PM UTC

loup-vaillant wrote: post #115

Something in those numbers doesn't add up. I gather they maintained the salaries. Good. They had to hire more people, at a cost of 12 million kronor. This mechanically reduced unemployment, and saved the state 4.7 million kronor. Shall I deduce the unemployed people were paid 40% less than the salary they got? Something is wrong there: in France, unemployment insurance maintains 75% of the base salary. Saving only 40…

It could be their first job, they could have been long-term unemployed (you don't get aids forever) or they could have had jobs with lower salaries before.

Re: Sweden reveals results from pilot of 30-hour work week

#140

Post by alkonaut » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 12:05 AM UTC

rebootthesystem wrote: post #129

alkonaut wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know ANYONE who would be happier if they got a 25% pay cut First of all, relax. Second: Pay was not cut. This was an experiment with a 30h work week with 100% pay. Unions would never agree to anyones pay being cut. The benefits they were looking for in this case would not be higher employment. The main benefit would be reduced people on sick leaves because of work related illness (stress, depression, overwo…

> First of all, relax. Second: Pay was not cut. First of all, I am relaxed. Second of all, please read my comment and the comment I was responding to. It says: >> the hours that were cut also wouldn't have to be paid to the people not working them. and then the conclusion is: >> In a perfect situation this would have led to higher employment numbers and happier employees. Which, again, is hippie logic. I don't know a…

That's not my interpretation of the message you responded to. It too points out that the article mentions no pay cut and that a different source confirms there was no pay cut.

I think it's important to know that this experiment was done to quantify the positive benefits such as reduced number of sick days. In a country where sick days are paid by a public insurance, that's no small factor in this (a public employer that is).

Basically: if our government both provides for those who are employed but sick (often overworked) and for those who are unemployed, then perhaps more people should share public jobs?

The drawbacks and costs (how many you need to hire and what that would cost) was known.

In a full scale implementation of this, I doubt the deal would be 100% pay for 30h weeks, either it would be like in the Volvo scenario with e.g 90% pay 80% work, or a deal could include freezing wages for N years in exchange for slowly lowered hours over the same period.