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

221–230 of 268 posts

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

#221

Post by Tadpole9181 »

declan_roberts wrote: post #217
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top comment seems to insinuate the 996 (or any overwork scheme) is being brought over because of H1B visa workers. The responder is saying that domestic American capitalists do not need foreign influence to abuse or exploit labor. The H1B visa program has absolutely nothing to do, for example, with Walmart telling their full time employees how to apply for government assistance programs because they refuse to pay…

Software talent doesn't compete against Walmart greeters. That's the connection you're missing for h1b.

I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion. The parent's point is that companies in America do not need to import cruelty or an acceptance thereof, they are more than capable and more than willing to do it themselves.

I brought up Walmart as an example, it was never intended to be a 1:1 analog with H1Bs.

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

#222

Post by mianos »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #215
mianos wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My non-heavily-researched understanding is that people who make their entire, or a majority of, their annual 'earnings' from capital gains may not be all that poor. There's a whole spectrum of examples that can be used to demonstrate fairness or lack of fairness. Can you elaborate on your example of taxing a poor person even more by forcing a flat 30% tax on capital gains? Is this person you? What does your life enta…

It's not me. I actually work for a living and I receive a salary. Many people I know with their own business plan to hopefully get out of it some day. They all make less than me but own a business of their own.

Let's say this works and those people who already have assets get taxed a bit more, when they are gone, there would then now very little incentive to work hard and start a business.

Such short term thinking will pretty much destroy the economy in the long term. You can't tax an economy to health and fairness.

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

#223

Post by raincom »

ycombinator_acc wrote: post #205
genxy wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You give away your bias when it is the other way around. The H1B is a byproduct and a tool of corporate greed.

Or it’s a way for the less fortunate (geographically) to seek a better future. They more or less got rid of it last September, yet the job market has only worsened. Scapegoating minorities, whether it be trans people, brown people, Muslims or immigrants, doesn’t work. All it does is destroy lives. > You give away your bias when it is the other way around. How so?

Why not both? It is a feedback loop. When the US allowed railroad/mine workers from China, it is true that Chinese labor wanted a better future and that capitalists want to use Chinese labor to suppress American wages. For instance, look at the animosity towards Chinese workers in Wyoming by European workers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Springs_massacre

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

#224

Post by genxy »

ycombinator_acc wrote: post #205
genxy wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You give away your bias when it is the other way around. The H1B is a byproduct and a tool of corporate greed.

Or it’s a way for the less fortunate (geographically) to seek a better future. They more or less got rid of it last September, yet the job market has only worsened. Scapegoating minorities, whether it be trans people, brown people, Muslims or immigrants, doesn’t work. All it does is destroy lives. > You give away your bias when it is the other way around. How so?

American corporations could care less about giving anyone a better future.

archagon was attempting to paint declan_roberts comment as blaming H1B workers on working conditions, which they did not do. But H1Bs will be used to suppress wages by working more hours 996 under worse conditions (oncall, etc). This is low rhetoric. To call out how H1Bs are being used is not scapegoating nor is it racist. It makes zero difference where they come from. The cause is corporate greed, the effect is more H1Bs.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-h-1b-hiring-faces-1230...

https://americanbazaaronline.com/2026/05/20/amazons-33181-h-...

Amazon has cut, what 30k+ folks while increasing their H1B allocation.

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

#225

Post by stubish »

akomtu wrote: post #197
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.

6 am, 6 pm, 6 days a week. Why is it called 996?

The term '666 schedule' got nixed by marketing.

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

#226

Post by AnnikaL »

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.

Well, yes, but the courses I've taken for the computer science portion of my degree feel much more like math or engineering than science; experimental/empirical verification of natural facts are hardly present.

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

#227

Post by stubish »

HDBaseT wrote: post #141
ENGNR wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

House tax changes... strong yes Share tax changes... ugh My hope was cashed up bogans would start betting on shares instead of housing/crypto. At least it could be funnelled into something productive

You shouldn't have to rely on shares investments to make a living or retire though. Just because someone doesn't invest in shares, doesn't mean they are a bogan. I'm sick of this term being thrown around at people you look down upon...

Yeah, everyone is forced to accept their own individual risk in their super and other investments (as usual, favoring the wealthy with enough spare money, time and contacts to get proper financial advice). Better if that risk was born collectively. But government funded pensions are communist or something. At least most of the super funds I see are non-profits.

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

#228

Post by eastbound »

latexr wrote: post #37
eastbound wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You lost me. As in, I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. Are you saying you don’t trust climate science but you would trust them if they declared some other branch of science which has nothing to do with them as being unscientific? What does one thing have to do with the other? Are you also saying medicine is not a science because doctors got it wrong about masks? Science isn’t about always being righ…

Yes, I am saying that I don’t trust anyone who trusts obviously-bad science and requires me to believe it.

Some parts of science became political. The goal seems to convince a population, not determine what is true or not.

So if you extract one field which is extremely corrupt, with practices that would seem obvious to anyone who studied Stalin, which soils the ideas and principles of sciences, and another fields rejects the idea of denouncing the first field: that demonstrates that they are both politicized sciences. Covid science, climate science and social sciences all three ask you to “trust the science” and use authority to become right.

Meanwhile a researcher who is funded by private companies for technical advances, generally produces good science. They don’t usually need to jail their opponents.

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

#229

Post by csallen »

jkldotio wrote: post #193
thegrim33 wrote: post #145

An AI-generated article which summaries a pre-print release which surveyed 15 people at 15 companies about their thoughts on whether the arrangement was working for them. Of those 15, a grand total of 6 (unidentified) people at 6 (unidentified) companies (all in the same country), said they "thought" productivity had increased. Not a single data point was taken about whether it actually increased. The questions that…

It's 15 companies that adopted a technique and it's part of a broader constellation of experiments in this area which have been confounding the traditional logic that productivity would decrease. https://www.4dayweek.com/research The people representing the businesses in the preprint hold titles like co-founder, CEO/founder, COO, General Manager, and CEO. The size of the business and sector are also noted. I think yo…

Having read all of the above, I think it is fair to say that this is a study about what these people "thought." Just because their thought involves some homegrown, personally-favored metrics, doesn't change the fact that this is a qualitative survey report.

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

#230

Post by piva00 »

eastbound wrote: post #228
latexr wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You lost me. As in, I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. Are you saying you don’t trust climate science but you would trust them if they declared some other branch of science which has nothing to do with them as being unscientific? What does one thing have to do with the other? Are you also saying medicine is not a science because doctors got it wrong about masks? Science isn’t about always being righ…

Yes, I am saying that I don’t trust anyone who trusts obviously-bad science and requires me to believe it. Some parts of science became political. The goal seems to convince a population, not determine what is true or not. So if you extract one field which is extremely corrupt, with practices that would seem obvious to anyone who studied Stalin, which soils the ideas and principles of sciences, and another fields rej…

> Meanwhile a researcher who is funded by private companies for technical advances, generally produces good science. They don’t usually need to jail their opponents.

This is such an ideology-laden bullshit leap that it pushes you into the "not even wrong" category.

Post reply on HN