Ask HN: Why don't we have 3 day weekends yet?
229 comments
In some places in Europe, after some period of employment, you can demand of your employer to let you work 80% of hours for 80% of pay. I have team members in Europe on this schedule and it works out well for everyone.
Based on that experience, I'd also be open to such an arrangement for employees based in geographies where that's not legally required, but is legally and practically permitted. My guess is that most people are working a 5-day workweek because they're most comfortable doing that, from both a "well, all of my friends are doing that anyway, so I wouldn't have anyone to hang out with" as well as from a "I'm working for my financial future and working only X hours per week is unlikely to give me the same career trajectory as working 25% more hours per week" perspective.
Based on that experience, I'd also be open to such an arrangement for employees based in geographies where that's not legally required, but is legally and practically permitted. My guess is that most people are working a 5-day workweek because they're most comfortable doing that, from both a "well, all of my friends are doing that anyway, so I wouldn't have anyone to hang out with" as well as from a "I'm working for my financial future and working only X hours per week is unlikely to give me the same career trajectory as working 25% more hours per week" perspective.
> My guess is that most people are working a 5-day workweek because they're most comfortable doing that
People are always surprised when I tell them I work 4 days a week; asking if I have kids or a sick mother to attend to. Recruiters are especially weird with questions like: "why do you only want to work 4 days a week?"
I usually just reply "Why do you want to work 5 days a week?", most of the time they don't know what to answer
People are always surprised when I tell them I work 4 days a week; asking if I have kids or a sick mother to attend to. Recruiters are especially weird with questions like: "why do you only want to work 4 days a week?"
I usually just reply "Why do you want to work 5 days a week?", most of the time they don't know what to answer
"And why don't you want to work 6? What are you, a slacker?"
I think you’ll find recruiters expect things from you that they can’t or won’t do themselves.
It's not a legal right in my part of Europe but it's super common here for couples that both work and have young kids. The kids go to daycare 3 days per week and each parent takes a day off to cover the rest.
Having done that now for a while, I would probably keep my 4 days even when the kids get older and aren't at home.
The total output in knowledge work doesn't decrease much (if at all) working 4 instead of 5 days. It's much more about what you output then about how much time you spend on it. And working less hours for me meant being more focused in those hours. My targets and bonus remained the same.
Having done that now for a while, I would probably keep my 4 days even when the kids get older and aren't at home.
The total output in knowledge work doesn't decrease much (if at all) working 4 instead of 5 days. It's much more about what you output then about how much time you spend on it. And working less hours for me meant being more focused in those hours. My targets and bonus remained the same.
Knowledge work output would probably increase significantly for most knowledge workers. Time is the resource but really it's just energy management
Me and another colleague on a team of 6 have the same arrangement. Works well enough but if i worked even less then the limited exposure to the flow of relevant information would start to show. I might make up for that by declaring that i will only focus on some parts of our domain but that would make me less flexible than the rest of the team and i would feel more like a burden.
So there are parts of the world where you could reasonably go to a the day weekend if you wanted enough.
A nice side effect is that if you live in a country with progressive tax you end up getting a higher net per-hour wage than if you worked 5 days because of the lower income and thus lower tax rate.
IIUC the US has this perma-work culture where if you don't want to always be working and earning the most you can earn then something must be wrong with you, maybe you're a commie or a hippie or sth. I hear that Japan had the same but this is radically changing as a result of the pandemic. Maybe the US will change a bit too?
So there are parts of the world where you could reasonably go to a the day weekend if you wanted enough.
A nice side effect is that if you live in a country with progressive tax you end up getting a higher net per-hour wage than if you worked 5 days because of the lower income and thus lower tax rate.
IIUC the US has this perma-work culture where if you don't want to always be working and earning the most you can earn then something must be wrong with you, maybe you're a commie or a hippie or sth. I hear that Japan had the same but this is radically changing as a result of the pandemic. Maybe the US will change a bit too?
They aren’t just going to give you a free day off. There would be a commensurate decrease in your pay. I don’t find the 5 days/week to be “irrational”, “irrational” to whom? It’s completely rational from an employers perspective that they have a job to fulfill and it requires employees to complete the job. If they have people working 4 days /week, they need coverage for the other days. It’s not rational for the customers either, who want everything now. I think you need to get out of the Silicon Valley bubble and see what most people do for work. Insurance claims and other service type things don’t just happen 4 days/week, meaning they would have to hire more workers to accommodate. What will end up happening, is they will just make everyone part time. Be careful what you wish for.
They aren’t just going to give you a free day off. There would be a commensurate decrease in your pay.
This is the realist view, and it shows the power imbalance between employee and employer. It's easy for those with the power in this relationship to say "if you want to reduce work, expect reduced pay". However, worker productivity has risen for decades and compensation/hours worked haven't budged anywhere close to match. Employers will always say "meet me in the middle" while taking a step backwards.
Employers in the US can get away with it because workers are replaceable. The government has their back. Most of the (paltry) welfare benefits from the government have work requirements, so you have to take jobs with bad pay (and you'll be fired if you complain). Individual workers have no power in this relationship. Even recent fed policy is put in place to promote unemployment because workers were gaining just a little ground.
This is the realist view, and it shows the power imbalance between employee and employer. It's easy for those with the power in this relationship to say "if you want to reduce work, expect reduced pay". However, worker productivity has risen for decades and compensation/hours worked haven't budged anywhere close to match. Employers will always say "meet me in the middle" while taking a step backwards.
Employers in the US can get away with it because workers are replaceable. The government has their back. Most of the (paltry) welfare benefits from the government have work requirements, so you have to take jobs with bad pay (and you'll be fired if you complain). Individual workers have no power in this relationship. Even recent fed policy is put in place to promote unemployment because workers were gaining just a little ground.
The OP notes they’re referring explicitly to jobs with a 5 day work week, so your comments re: service industry, etc. are valid, they’re already excluded.
Irrational might not be the right word; arbitrary is pretty accurate, though. If productivity and output change minimally, why should expectations or pay? Let’s be honest, the typical 5-day office job work week the OP is referencing has a LOT of downtime.
Irrational might not be the right word; arbitrary is pretty accurate, though. If productivity and output change minimally, why should expectations or pay? Let’s be honest, the typical 5-day office job work week the OP is referencing has a LOT of downtime.
> has a LOT of downtime
the way I look at it, I'm being paid for being available during those work hours, not necessarily doing work during all those work hours.
the way I look at it, I'm being paid for being available during those work hours, not necessarily doing work during all those work hours.
Ok, but not every job is like this. A lot of my communication is done asynchronously already. I'm paid 95% for productivity and 5% for availability.
Say you're hyper productive and can accomplish your job in only one hour per week, do you think you should still be entitled to your full salary?
Am I giving a multiple of my salary returned as value to my employer in that case? If so then yes, the employer is exploiting my work (knowledge, skills, productivity, etc.) and earning a good profit on it, I should be entitled to keep my share of this agreement, no matter how many hours I worked, I've produced the expected value out of those hours.
Employers pay for productivity and the value generated by employees, not hours in a seat.
That mindset is exactly the mindset of an oppressed labour force, as workers we aren't being paid so employers can get their share of hours of my life, we are being paid to generate value, it shouldn't really matter if that value is created in 1h or 40h per week, for the employer the result is the same.
Employers pay for productivity and the value generated by employees, not hours in a seat.
That mindset is exactly the mindset of an oppressed labour force, as workers we aren't being paid so employers can get their share of hours of my life, we are being paid to generate value, it shouldn't really matter if that value is created in 1h or 40h per week, for the employer the result is the same.
While I agree with you in principle that a 40h week is arbitrary and ridiculous...
> Employers pay for productivity and the value generated by employees, not hours in a seat.
I'm not sure many employers see it that way. If they do, that's great. But I would guess that most think they should be getting 40 hrs worth of "work" out of their employees.
What I imagine happens too frequently is that the employee hides the fact that they're actually working < 40 hrs a week, so the relationship with their employer is dishonest. That's why products like "mouse jigglers" exist, so employees can fool their employer.
> Employers pay for productivity and the value generated by employees, not hours in a seat.
I'm not sure many employers see it that way. If they do, that's great. But I would guess that most think they should be getting 40 hrs worth of "work" out of their employees.
What I imagine happens too frequently is that the employee hides the fact that they're actually working < 40 hrs a week, so the relationship with their employer is dishonest. That's why products like "mouse jigglers" exist, so employees can fool their employer.
The entire employer-employee relationship is predicated on power imbalances specific to our economic and legal system, so how tragic is mouse jiggling, really?
"tragic" is a bit dramatic. It's just dishonest and a sign of dysfunction.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to shed a tear for people that defraud their employer because they think they're more valuable than everyone else.
Also just think of what a luxury it is to have the opportunity to fake it. People that do "real" work don't have that opportunity. Imagine a drive thru worker posing a dummy in the window.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to shed a tear for people that defraud their employer because they think they're more valuable than everyone else.
Also just think of what a luxury it is to have the opportunity to fake it. People that do "real" work don't have that opportunity. Imagine a drive thru worker posing a dummy in the window.
Slacking off can have moral implications in that it can make your coworkers' lives harder, or can be a problem for the public if it's a socially useful activity like healthcare.
If those conditions aren't met however, I don't really see why the worker should let the employer extract additional value out of them for no benefit, especially if they do fulfill the terms of the contract set to them.
Maybe it's a cultural difference but this seems like a Protestant-style fetishization of work and hierarchy for its own sake. The appeal to civility and honesty in the abstract is busted because the structural relationship is highly uncivil to begin with.
There are less lucky workers out there, so other groups of workers should relinquish their cards? Seems like a non-sequitur. You could turn it around and ask why the employer isn't grateful that they can extract as much value as they currently can. In some EU countries, they're not even allowed to monitor workers or send them work correspondence after hours!
If those conditions aren't met however, I don't really see why the worker should let the employer extract additional value out of them for no benefit, especially if they do fulfill the terms of the contract set to them.
Maybe it's a cultural difference but this seems like a Protestant-style fetishization of work and hierarchy for its own sake. The appeal to civility and honesty in the abstract is busted because the structural relationship is highly uncivil to begin with.
There are less lucky workers out there, so other groups of workers should relinquish their cards? Seems like a non-sequitur. You could turn it around and ask why the employer isn't grateful that they can extract as much value as they currently can. In some EU countries, they're not even allowed to monitor workers or send them work correspondence after hours!
> I don't really see why the worker should let the employer extract additional value out of them for no benefit, especially if they do fulfill the terms of the contract set to them.
I agree with this. My contention is that workers are not fullfulling the terms of their contract. I'm not defending the contracts themselves, or saying it makes sense for an employer to require butts in seats for 40 hrs, but I also can't sympathize with people that violate the agreement they entered into.
You're defending "mouse jiggling". That is a deception. Why would they feel the need to fake work if their contract allows them to not work?
I agree with this. My contention is that workers are not fullfulling the terms of their contract. I'm not defending the contracts themselves, or saying it makes sense for an employer to require butts in seats for 40 hrs, but I also can't sympathize with people that violate the agreement they entered into.
You're defending "mouse jiggling". That is a deception. Why would they feel the need to fake work if their contract allows them to not work?
I see what you mean. It's definitely true that the ideal solution would be to introduce this at the contract stage.
The difficulty of doing that is in a sense what prompted me to respond earlier. For most workers in industries where it is physically possible, it is very difficult to negotiate 80% employment or time flexibility or working from home. Even some skilled workers on HN seem to have trouble with it as they testify to in this very thread, and anglophone coders are the cream of the crop when it comes to negotiating power, so we can only imagine what it's like elsewhere.
The typical modern worker (with some exceptions) has to essentially request the privilege of trading the majority of their useful lifespan towards increasing the wealth of another person or face the prospect of the complete dissolution of their life. By contrast, most employers (though of course not all) who face mouse-jiggling type problems merely have to contend with the loss of some self-actualization and additional wealth as the worse case scenario.
If Oliver Twist sneaks in an extra bite of bread from the coal mill's supply during a 12 hour workday, he is being deceptive to his employer when fulfilling a contract willingly entered into. Of course, comparing an office worker to a Victorian child laborer is ridiculous on the face of it, but only in a quantitative sense. In a qualitative sense, the power balance and the context of the deception means that we can't consider it in a vacuum or in comparison to an ideal world. In other words, if the environment were civil, the worker would be easily able to enter into the mutually beneficial contracts you alluded to, and the need for mouse jiggling would disappear on its own except for all but the most boundary-pushing workers.
In Victorian times, the social norms justified child labor and asked workers to be thankful for their lot. Today, the conditions of workers has improved tremendously, but the norms are still designed (or rather, naturally emerged) towards extracting additional value in favor of the employer. The last 50 years have seen the bulk of productivity gains given to the owners rather than the workers, and wage theft is a huge concern all over the OECD. Hence the OP's Ask HN thread and the feeling of social dissonance regarding the work week.
The difficulty of doing that is in a sense what prompted me to respond earlier. For most workers in industries where it is physically possible, it is very difficult to negotiate 80% employment or time flexibility or working from home. Even some skilled workers on HN seem to have trouble with it as they testify to in this very thread, and anglophone coders are the cream of the crop when it comes to negotiating power, so we can only imagine what it's like elsewhere.
The typical modern worker (with some exceptions) has to essentially request the privilege of trading the majority of their useful lifespan towards increasing the wealth of another person or face the prospect of the complete dissolution of their life. By contrast, most employers (though of course not all) who face mouse-jiggling type problems merely have to contend with the loss of some self-actualization and additional wealth as the worse case scenario.
If Oliver Twist sneaks in an extra bite of bread from the coal mill's supply during a 12 hour workday, he is being deceptive to his employer when fulfilling a contract willingly entered into. Of course, comparing an office worker to a Victorian child laborer is ridiculous on the face of it, but only in a quantitative sense. In a qualitative sense, the power balance and the context of the deception means that we can't consider it in a vacuum or in comparison to an ideal world. In other words, if the environment were civil, the worker would be easily able to enter into the mutually beneficial contracts you alluded to, and the need for mouse jiggling would disappear on its own except for all but the most boundary-pushing workers.
In Victorian times, the social norms justified child labor and asked workers to be thankful for their lot. Today, the conditions of workers has improved tremendously, but the norms are still designed (or rather, naturally emerged) towards extracting additional value in favor of the employer. The last 50 years have seen the bulk of productivity gains given to the owners rather than the workers, and wage theft is a huge concern all over the OECD. Hence the OP's Ask HN thread and the feeling of social dissonance regarding the work week.
Yes. That's how it's worked for the ~7 years I worked for myself. I'm currently working a full time remote job in addition to managing my own company, and there it's more like 75/25 productivity/availability. Unless I'm on call, then its flipped.
If I was working retail, I suppose it'd be more like 5/95 productivity/availability.
If I was working retail, I suppose it'd be more like 5/95 productivity/availability.
That's great. I commented elsehwere that I think it's all good as long as the arrangement between the employer and employee is honest.
Is your full time remote employer aware that you're not really "full time"?
Is your full time remote employer aware that you're not really "full time"?
What makes me not full time? Particularly if I'm producing the same amount as everyone else? The teams I work with span 9 timezones collectively, and that's when they're not traveling.
> What makes me not full time?
Because "full time" measures time, not productivity:
From Google:
occupying or using the whole of the usual working day or week
From Merriam-Webster:
the amount of time considered the normal or standard amount for working during a given period
From Oxford:
for all the hours of a week during which people normally work or study, rather than just for a part of it
The only way this is a problem is if you think you're getting paid by your output and your employer thinks they're paying you for your (full) time. The easy way to test if this is to check with your employer to make sure they know you actually work 10 to 30 hrs per week and the rest of the time you're on call. If they know and they're good with it, then great there's no problem. If you're not comfortable telling them then that's a problem. In that case you would effectively be a "mouse jiggler".
Because "full time" measures time, not productivity:
From Google:
occupying or using the whole of the usual working day or week
From Merriam-Webster:
the amount of time considered the normal or standard amount for working during a given period
From Oxford:
for all the hours of a week during which people normally work or study, rather than just for a part of it
The only way this is a problem is if you think you're getting paid by your output and your employer thinks they're paying you for your (full) time. The easy way to test if this is to check with your employer to make sure they know you actually work 10 to 30 hrs per week and the rest of the time you're on call. If they know and they're good with it, then great there's no problem. If you're not comfortable telling them then that's a problem. In that case you would effectively be a "mouse jiggler".
My employer collects "screen time" based metrics and working hours aren't part of my employment agreement. This is beside the point.
Let's look at it another way. Why do you think someone who spends a majority of their assigned working hours eating, shitting, and flirting with the receptionist should earn the same compensation as someone who spends 100% of their working hours doing things that are the in their job description? When I was naive, I tolerated being the latter in a job with many of the former. This was a contributing factor in deciding to work for myself.
Now, if you want me to produce more than my coworkers that's fine, but I'll have to be compensated more.
Let's look at it another way. Why do you think someone who spends a majority of their assigned working hours eating, shitting, and flirting with the receptionist should earn the same compensation as someone who spends 100% of their working hours doing things that are the in their job description? When I was naive, I tolerated being the latter in a job with many of the former. This was a contributing factor in deciding to work for myself.
Now, if you want me to produce more than my coworkers that's fine, but I'll have to be compensated more.
> Why do you think someone who spends a majority of their assigned working hours eating, shitting, and flirting with the receptionist should earn the same compensation as someone who spends 100% of their working hours doing things that are the in their job description?
I don't, but it doesn't matter what I think. All that matters is the agreement you have with your employer. If they trust you enough to let you judge when your weekly productivity target is reached before you pack up and go to the beach, then yeah you're golden.
All I'm saying is that I believe a lot of employers actually expect 40 hours of work, so if you finish your "job" in 10 hours then they expect you to let them know so you can do something else productive for them in the remaining 30. And if you don't do that, they would consider that to be dishonest and grounds for discipline. Not saying this is your deal, just that it's a common thing.
But I'm confused. Your employer collects "screen time" metrics, so they must care how much time you actually spend working. On the weeks that you only work 10 hours, how to you avoid getting flagged?
I don't, but it doesn't matter what I think. All that matters is the agreement you have with your employer. If they trust you enough to let you judge when your weekly productivity target is reached before you pack up and go to the beach, then yeah you're golden.
All I'm saying is that I believe a lot of employers actually expect 40 hours of work, so if you finish your "job" in 10 hours then they expect you to let them know so you can do something else productive for them in the remaining 30. And if you don't do that, they would consider that to be dishonest and grounds for discipline. Not saying this is your deal, just that it's a common thing.
But I'm confused. Your employer collects "screen time" metrics, so they must care how much time you actually spend working. On the weeks that you only work 10 hours, how to you avoid getting flagged?
> But I'm confused. Your employer collects "screen time" metrics, so they must care how much time you actually spend working.
This conclusion doesn't follow. I don't know what they do with them, for which employees, and under what circumstances.
This conclusion doesn't follow. I don't know what they do with them, for which employees, and under what circumstances.
No one from September 2019 would believe you if you told them about the work from home policies in place right now for millions of people who were expected to be seated at their desk at 9:00 (or 8:30) until 5:00 three years ago.
The world isn't static, tradeoffs can change.
The world isn't static, tradeoffs can change.
> No one from September 2019 would believe you if you told them about the work from home policies in place right now for millions of people who were expected to be seated at their desk at 9:00 (or 8:30) until 5:00 three years ago
There were lots of us who couldn't believe that so many employees had to be at a desk from 9 - 5 in industries where it made very little sense.
There were lots of us who couldn't believe that so many employees had to be at a desk from 9 - 5 in industries where it made very little sense.
yes but it took millions of people discussing and organizing with their coworkers and pushing back on their employers in various ways to earn it as solidly as it's been. it doesn't just change with the wind or only because employers change their minds about environmental factors
I think part of OP's point is that there would be tradeoffs. Reducing work hours by 1/5th will reduce work output by some large fraction of that. Companies would have to compensate for that by hiring more employees or reducing their products or services, either of which will tend to increase prices. Price increases or wage cuts would cause people who are in constrained financial situations to have to look for a 2nd job, thereby negating the effect of the policy. Sure things can change, but there are underlying realities which constrain how they can change.
[deleted]
> they will just make everyone part time.
The implicit threat here is withdrawal of benefits - specifically health care insurance
The implicit threat here is withdrawal of benefits - specifically health care insurance
Huh what? You don't get health insurance when you work part time in the US?
There are a few companies that buck the trend, but typically, no. You have to be full time (frequently defined as 32 hours a week or more) to qualify for company-subsidized health insurance.
Correct. This is how our country works because we are a nation of fools who worship the most wealthy among us.
many companies keep their workers under full time to save the cost. in effect this is a handout from the govt to businesses and landlords to enable growth with low wages
So the USA doesn’t have universal healthcare so that it can be used to blackmail employees?
Closer to the opposite - lack of universal healthcare in the USA is a huge downside for most employers here. And I suspect that any decent study would find that just not offering real healthcare (to employees) is 2+ orders of magnitude more common than "or else you won't get healthcare" blackmail.
Correct
Healthcare is a benefit and the lack of universal healthcare has resulted in a competitive market where customers are free to choose the level of care for their need and budget. Universal healthcare is the worst of all worlds, comparatively.
I’m sure all the people who have gone bankrupt from medical bills appreciate that sentiment.
My brother in laws sister was recently diagnosed with cancer. Before she was diagnosed, she quit her job with benefits to stay home and take care of her father with advanced Parkinson’s. Her cancer is treatable, but she doesn’t have and can’t get insurance and doesn’t qualify for government help. Her choice is death or go into such incredible debt that she will never have hope to pay it off. She is 29. She has chosen death.
My brother in laws sister was recently diagnosed with cancer. Before she was diagnosed, she quit her job with benefits to stay home and take care of her father with advanced Parkinson’s. Her cancer is treatable, but she doesn’t have and can’t get insurance and doesn’t qualify for government help. Her choice is death or go into such incredible debt that she will never have hope to pay it off. She is 29. She has chosen death.
How are customers having a heart attack free to choose the level of care for their need and budget? Or poor cancer patients? Yes, Medicare might help but that brings up another layer of bureaucracy and constraints to be managed by the patient.
A society is much better when it's healthy, leaving health to be taken care by the law of the jungle isn't really building a healthy society.
A society is much better when it's healthy, leaving health to be taken care by the law of the jungle isn't really building a healthy society.
A/B Weeks would be interesting but also kinda detaching one half of workers from the other half.
Why did you analyse the situation from everyone's perspective except the worker's?
Many customer-facing occupations provide for extended opening hours, Saturdays and even Sundays. Personally I'd be thrilled if half the organizations I deal with went beyond Mon-Fri 9-5, and to do so they'll need some extra staff.
rotations.
yes you get it, the point of labor negotiating for fewer days is that employers don't want to do it because it could be more expensive for them in various ways. what you are really complaining about isn't workers not wanting to keep businesses open longer, it's that employer cost-cutting measures include narrower service hours, and why would workers take it upon themselves to donate their time to solving that if their organized negotiating power is such that it would be charity to the owners
yes you get it, the point of labor negotiating for fewer days is that employers don't want to do it because it could be more expensive for them in various ways. what you are really complaining about isn't workers not wanting to keep businesses open longer, it's that employer cost-cutting measures include narrower service hours, and why would workers take it upon themselves to donate their time to solving that if their organized negotiating power is such that it would be charity to the owners
Even those that are only open 9-5 M-F are not that hard to keep operational with a 4 day work week. As soon as you have five people, every person gets a different day off during the week. Plenty of people will be happy to have days other than Monday and Friday as well; that breaks up the work week so you have it easier to recover, AND it lets you use that day for errands while everything is open.
One thing I didn't realize until recently is that working 4 days instead of 5 does not slash your salary by a fifth given that your tax bracket will also be lower.
"And we know many people who work barely a fraction of the week, yet need to maintain this kind of presenteeism."
I don't disagree with you necessarily but the people who game it now, will game it with 4 day week as well. Slackers are always going to slack. 5 day or 4 day.
I don't disagree with you necessarily but the people who game it now, will game it with 4 day week as well. Slackers are always going to slack. 5 day or 4 day.
I do not consider myself a slacker, in fact I consider myself a miracle worker in terms of the output I generate (in terms of code, business organization, end product, $$$ generated in the long term); but I do not "work" even a fraction of a 5 day work week, I would even admit this to my manager. Do you have any evidence to suggest programmers/engineers/managers who are productive work every moment of a 9AM-5PM day? Literally never seen a person do that before and I've seen some productivity legends. Let's be real here we're all on HN at 3PM on a Thursday.
EDIT: To give context, I'm a software engineer.
EDIT: To give context, I'm a software engineer.
There’s a lot of background thinking that happens with knowledge work. Spending 3 hours at a desk and 5 hours milling about in the office isn’t necessarily “not being productive”. It’s pretty often that I’ll get stuck on a problem, distract myself on HN for a few minutes, then pump out a solution in minutes or otherwise have an epiphany.
Similarly, talking to coworkers, even (especially) at unrelated parts of a company can be super valuable, even if it codes as “unproductive time wasting”.
TLDR your definition of work might be too constrained.
Similarly, talking to coworkers, even (especially) at unrelated parts of a company can be super valuable, even if it codes as “unproductive time wasting”.
TLDR your definition of work might be too constrained.
One thing is clear, if we continue equalling people who want to work less than full time with slackers we'll never get anywhere...
What should be allowed is to work as much as you want and get the pro rata of the full time salary
I'll let people waste their lives in the office and enjoy the world, if I could get the monthly equivalent of a min wage in my country while working one day a week I'd do it, call me a slacker if you want
What should be allowed is to work as much as you want and get the pro rata of the full time salary
I'll let people waste their lives in the office and enjoy the world, if I could get the monthly equivalent of a min wage in my country while working one day a week I'd do it, call me a slacker if you want
Truth be told, some jobs just involve little actual work.
The most typical example I've seen, are gov. / state jobs where one person was basically working 150%. Then they created an extra position to offload that worker, and suddenly you have two workers with 75% work. And if it turns out they miscalculated the need, because maybe the new worker is much faster / more efficient at their task, said worker is now only working 50% of the time.
Same goes for inefficient workers. I've worked with people that had zero knowledge in how to automate tasks, and would spend a whole day doing stuff in Excel, which could be automated to just seconds. No need for VBA, just basic macros would do the trick.
The most typical example I've seen, are gov. / state jobs where one person was basically working 150%. Then they created an extra position to offload that worker, and suddenly you have two workers with 75% work. And if it turns out they miscalculated the need, because maybe the new worker is much faster / more efficient at their task, said worker is now only working 50% of the time.
Same goes for inefficient workers. I've worked with people that had zero knowledge in how to automate tasks, and would spend a whole day doing stuff in Excel, which could be automated to just seconds. No need for VBA, just basic macros would do the trick.
Choosing life over work isn't slacking.
In our short lives, work will probably be the most fulfilling endeavor we undertake, and we should be grateful that there are so many great companies willing to offer jobs to workers like us.
I really can't tell if this a satirical or parodical comment. Bumping right up against: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
I sure hope this was intended to be sarcastic. I have always found my job interesting and rewarding, but I think most people (myself included) would attribute personal relationships to be a lot more fulfilling.
If your compensation agreement is based on x-hours of work and you deliberately put in less to “choose life” then you are slacking. You agreed to exchange a fixed amount of time for a fixed amount of money and are not delivering on your promise because you are slacking. I wouldn’t call it theft, but it’s definitely slacking.
contract standards at some point in history don't dictate ethics just as laws don't either. it's not as obvious and rule-based as you suggest.
it's also peculiar in my opinion to point out worker laziness without apparent recognition of the worker-employer power dynamic where wage theft vastly outweighs so called time theft dollar to dollar
it's also peculiar in my opinion to point out worker laziness without apparent recognition of the worker-employer power dynamic where wage theft vastly outweighs so called time theft dollar to dollar
You can rationalize all you'd like, but you made an agreement under sound mind and choosing to not fulfill it is slacking. It's dishonest. Wage theft or anything else is immaterial to your agreement. You are free to leave at any time and market yourself to another employer if you no longer wish to partner with your current employer. Or, if you feel your agreement is no longer fair or meets your goals, you can speak with your employer about changing the terms of the agreement.
you're atomizing the solution space by saying that workers must negotiate their conditions individually with their employers directly. that's not how this stuff has changed in the past and how we got to where the current status quo is with contracts. you're even repeating union busting talking points that are hardly settled ethics
I do. My wife works four days a week, and so do I — our weekend starts on Friday. That's actually more than our parents worked back when husbands worked full time and the wives did the household and perhaps some part time work on the side. There is no way we're going to do five days, and in the current economy employers have little choice but to accept it — at least in countries like the Netherlands where there is no real downside to working part time if you can make do with a lower salary, and both parents of children can work at the same time due to childcare being heavily subsidised.
Presenteeism is blight on society and ruins many a fine country and its people (Japan, the US, etc.).
Presenteeism is blight on society and ruins many a fine country and its people (Japan, the US, etc.).
I know people who work 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, 4 days, 5 days, 6 days, 7 days and all sorts of other schedules.
9-5 5 day office jobs aren't everything that's out there, they're not even probably "most jobs". Shift work and contract work are obvious counter examples.
9-5 5 day office jobs aren't everything that's out there, they're not even probably "most jobs". Shift work and contract work are obvious counter examples.
A lot depends on the industry in question. For some things, a 24/7 presence is really needed - network management, many manufacturing processes, power plant and grid operation, etc.
Moving to shorter working hours simply requires hiring more people to keep those things up and running. Now if hourly wages remain the same then labor costs don't change much and it might even improve hourly productivity (as tired people make more mistakes). However, will the resulting decrease in income for the workers be worth it to them, in terms of having more free time?
To maintain income levels, there would have to be a raise in hourly wages, resulting in an increase in labor costs, which would have to be balanced by a reduction in shareholder dividends and executive salaries and bonuses.
That's the answer to the question. Corporations have been doing everything they can to cut labor costs since the 1970s (global outsourcing and automation) while directing the profits to relatively small group of executives and shareholders, and won't change direction willingly.
Moving to shorter working hours simply requires hiring more people to keep those things up and running. Now if hourly wages remain the same then labor costs don't change much and it might even improve hourly productivity (as tired people make more mistakes). However, will the resulting decrease in income for the workers be worth it to them, in terms of having more free time?
To maintain income levels, there would have to be a raise in hourly wages, resulting in an increase in labor costs, which would have to be balanced by a reduction in shareholder dividends and executive salaries and bonuses.
That's the answer to the question. Corporations have been doing everything they can to cut labor costs since the 1970s (global outsourcing and automation) while directing the profits to relatively small group of executives and shareholders, and won't change direction willingly.
From a manufacturing standpoint, having to add an additional crew to a 24 hour schedule would also mean additional handoffs and opportunities for things to be missed. In my experience, manufacturing shifts are typically not more than 12.5 hours, but may bump to 16ish if there are calloffs and the like.
My understanding is that in the medical field, handoffs are viewed as large opportunities for mistakes to happen through miscommunication, and that's at least some of the justification behind having people work 12-24+ hour shifts.
My understanding is that in the medical field, handoffs are viewed as large opportunities for mistakes to happen through miscommunication, and that's at least some of the justification behind having people work 12-24+ hour shifts.
I've been working a 4-day work week for 80% of what would otherwise be my salary for much of my career, through several different jobs.
With different ways of it coming about, sometimes I start the job like that, sometimes I negotiate into it after being there a bit. The first time it happened it was what my employer actually wanted... but now I love it and it would be hard to go back.
I wish more employers were open to it.
I realize not everyone has the luxury to take 80% of the salary they _could_ be making, and still take care of what they consider necessary expenses... but a lot of software engineers do.
At this point I don't understand how anyone has the "luxury" to work 5 days a week and still have enough time to take care of what needs taking care of without going insane!
I am fully confident I am a more "efficient" worker at 4 days than 5, I get done probably 95% of what I would at full time, for 80% of the salary. It's actually a great deal for the employer. I wish employers were universally open to it.
With different ways of it coming about, sometimes I start the job like that, sometimes I negotiate into it after being there a bit. The first time it happened it was what my employer actually wanted... but now I love it and it would be hard to go back.
I wish more employers were open to it.
I realize not everyone has the luxury to take 80% of the salary they _could_ be making, and still take care of what they consider necessary expenses... but a lot of software engineers do.
At this point I don't understand how anyone has the "luxury" to work 5 days a week and still have enough time to take care of what needs taking care of without going insane!
I am fully confident I am a more "efficient" worker at 4 days than 5, I get done probably 95% of what I would at full time, for 80% of the salary. It's actually a great deal for the employer. I wish employers were universally open to it.
How did you arrive at 3 days? Why not 2? Why not 1? Why work at all when we can just print ourselves money until it all collapses? Do you own a business where you've allowed your employees to work different sized workweeks and were able to evaluate the changes in productivity? What data do you have to back up any of your viewpoints that's more substantive than just believing whatever people on reddit or elsewhere on the internet told you is true?
If you'd like to learn more about the four-day work week there is plentiful material. For relatively recent studies I'd start here:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=four+day+work+week&hl=e...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=four+day+work+week&hl=e...
the fact that you have to have owned a business to be allowed to have an opinion about working productivity to so fucking telling about capitalist ideology
How else are you supposed to intelligently judge whether a sweeping change like this will work?
work for who? because I can tell you how it will work for me and OP.
again, the metrics used are only ones that measure business ends, not human ends. human wellbeing is only a means to an end (production/productivity) in capitalism.
again, the metrics used are only ones that measure business ends, not human ends. human wellbeing is only a means to an end (production/productivity) in capitalism.
I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with that - as humans we are generally hardwired to productivity, especially in conservative environments that I grew up in.
yeah, i'm really disappointed in the overall level of responses tbh. there is definitely strong biases. from those who work a lot or those who own business or just a have a dogmatic capitalist view.
its hard to find a middle ground, as people in power are unwilling to shift their expectations.
its hard to find a middle ground, as people in power are unwilling to shift their expectations.
On a side note, has anyone ever negotiated an effective raise by asking for 100% salary for an 80% employment?
- "We're sorry but your salary range is above what we are willing to offer."
- "I am prepared to accept your upper range salary for 80% employment."
- "Deal!"
- "We're sorry but your salary range is above what we are willing to offer."
- "I am prepared to accept your upper range salary for 80% employment."
- "Deal!"
In my experience, hiring managers and recruiters are given specific knobs they can turn. Salary, of course, and a few knobs around equity. Things that aren't presented to the hiring managers are next to impossible to change: vacation time is a big one, but also working hours, because that's all in company policies that are written to apply to all.
I do have a three day weekend. This weekend is actually a four day weekend because of Labor Day on Monday. I negotiated for it. See here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32544658
If enough other people do the same, eventually it will become expected, and more people will get it without having to fight. Either negotiate it yourself, or join a union to negotiate for it on your behalf. It's not just going to be handed to you on a silver platter just because there are good arguments for it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32544658
If enough other people do the same, eventually it will become expected, and more people will get it without having to fight. Either negotiate it yourself, or join a union to negotiate for it on your behalf. It's not just going to be handed to you on a silver platter just because there are good arguments for it.
Do you find it socially challenging to work alongside people who still work 5 days a week though? Do you feel that they are jealous?
I have exactly the same concerns you have. So far, nobody has treated me any differently or expressed any ill will. However, if it does happen, I am entirely prepared for it. Because I'm not in this just for myself. If any co-worker also wants to work less, I am not just willing, but eager, to advocate for them and all my other co-workers to get the same deal. Labor solidarity.
I also have a 4 day weekend this week, but we didn't negotiate directly. Instead people were quitting because we all got pay cuts (in the form of not getting raises for 2 years). I wonder if this long weekend is a good time to prep the old resume.
> For those who say it would lead to a decrease in productivity. Well that is only relative to the 5 day week.
I mean, yeah? That's not a logical argument against it; compared to a 5 day week, a naïve view of it is that that's a 20% productivity loss¹.
> It is not some law ingrained in the universe.
It's not … but I'd also like the work, as I need to make ends meet. What I would prefer is raise … which is why I'm not at all clear why people are so hot on this shorter workweek.
Implicit, I think, in your post, is the assumption that an employer isn't going to go "yes, you can work 80% of the standard week for 80% of the standard week's pay". And why would I take that deal?
¹(yes, I know there are other, better arguments for a 4d week.)
I mean, yeah? That's not a logical argument against it; compared to a 5 day week, a naïve view of it is that that's a 20% productivity loss¹.
> It is not some law ingrained in the universe.
It's not … but I'd also like the work, as I need to make ends meet. What I would prefer is raise … which is why I'm not at all clear why people are so hot on this shorter workweek.
Implicit, I think, in your post, is the assumption that an employer isn't going to go "yes, you can work 80% of the standard week for 80% of the standard week's pay". And why would I take that deal?
¹(yes, I know there are other, better arguments for a 4d week.)
i think it's a matter of perspective, this is why i said its relative.
80% of 5 days sure. but if we had 3 days weekend, then in 20 years or 30 years, 4 days would be considered 100% of your productivity.
in the same way people thought you cannot do your job remotely, but we saw how easy it was actually, despite the issues some extroverts and managers have with it.
80% of 5 days sure. but if we had 3 days weekend, then in 20 years or 30 years, 4 days would be considered 100% of your productivity.
in the same way people thought you cannot do your job remotely, but we saw how easy it was actually, despite the issues some extroverts and managers have with it.
> And beyond that we can see that increases of productivity has not led to increase of leisure time, maybe the opposite.
Something that is often overlooked when this is debated is the fact that people are living longer, but not retiring much later. Combined with the fact that people generally start working later due to longer studies, taking the long view over a full life time, I think we are experiencing a decrease in the fraction of time spent working.
Example with rough-and-ready numbers: 100 years ago, the median male in the UK might have started working aged 14, worked until 65, and died shortly after. In contrast, today they might start working aged 20, retire at 65, and live until 80.
Something that is often overlooked when this is debated is the fact that people are living longer, but not retiring much later. Combined with the fact that people generally start working later due to longer studies, taking the long view over a full life time, I think we are experiencing a decrease in the fraction of time spent working.
Example with rough-and-ready numbers: 100 years ago, the median male in the UK might have started working aged 14, worked until 65, and died shortly after. In contrast, today they might start working aged 20, retire at 65, and live until 80.
What I want to know is how 'salaried' turned into ">=40 hours a week"
It was the other way around. Works weeks were 48 hours or more until Henry Ford enacted a five-day 40-hour week in his factory in 1926[0]. Later, in 1939, laws were passed that officially established the new only-40-hour week as the norm, with 32 hours as the official mark of full- vs part-time, and anything over 40 being deemed "overtime."
At least in the United States, that's the trend.
0. https://www.truthorfiction.com/henry-ford-invented-the-5-day...
At least in the United States, that's the trend.
0. https://www.truthorfiction.com/henry-ford-invented-the-5-day...
Attributing the 5 day work week to Henry Ford is not placing the credit correctly. He may have been the first big CEO, but it was the work of labor rights activists and unions.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/sep/09/viral-imag...
The trade unionists had been pushing for eight-hour days, not five-day weeks. The thing Ford did largely unprompted was switch from six days to five days. Even your own link seems to confuse the two, but is focused on the eight-hour day part of the original false image.
> Ford’s initiative was not widely copied overnight. In 1916, the federal government passed an act to require an eight-hour day and overtime pay for railroad workers, but most workers still didn’t have those protections, and working hours remained a hotly contested issue. "Demands for the five-day week began to proliferate in 1919, a year in which 4 million American workers went out on strike,"
crediting the person who pulls the levers because they're the only person empowered to pull the levers seems dishonest.
he sure as hell didn't do it out of the goodness of his own heart.
he sure as hell didn't do it out of the goodness of his own heart.
Sure, as I said in a separate comment, he figured offering a two-day weekend would enable him to push his workers harder so that they got as much done in 48 hours as they had been doing in 48. He was still a profit-seeking capitalist, but he was considerably more forward-thinking than the majority of CEOs today, and acted far in advance of any legal requirement to do so, albeit far later than unions wanted him to.
He deserves some credit, which is what I gave him.
He deserves some credit, which is what I gave him.
> albeit far later than unions wanted him to.
there we go. I don't know why acquiescence counts as creditable but whatever.
there we go. I don't know why acquiescence counts as creditable but whatever.
But salaries were for professionals and ownership, not labor- and while that meant if you needed to work 60 hours for a week you worked 60 hours, it also meant that if you only needed to work a thirty hour week, you worked thirty.
yes i think you put it more succinctly what i was trying to say.
What does productivity have to do with wages, hours, or conditions?
The labour movement, which got us the weekend and the 8-hour workday, has had its power greatly diminished. That is why we don't work less.
The labour movement, which got us the weekend and the 8-hour workday, has had its power greatly diminished. That is why we don't work less.
It is my understanding that religion, not unions, gave us the two day weekend.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/08/where-t...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/08/where-t...
If we take this over a longer timeframe (as in Keynes' famous prediction, say), then one reason may be: we do actually have a lot more leisure than we did a century ago, but we've largely "chosen" to take it as a lengthier retirement instead of a shorter working week. See: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ecca.12439
To maybe throw the question back - what have you done to make 3 day weekends a reality?
The way the post is worded right now seems to be phrased in a way that 3-day weekends are blindingly obvious, but if you look at the history of labour rights I dont see why anyone expects it to just happen without a massive amount of organising
The way the post is worded right now seems to be phrased in a way that 3-day weekends are blindingly obvious, but if you look at the history of labour rights I dont see why anyone expects it to just happen without a massive amount of organising
Most advances in labor rights came about as a result of hard work: blood, sweat, and tears. Not, it turns out, this particular one!
The five-day work-week came about because Henry Ford declared it to be so in 1926, and wasn't made any sort of law until 1939.
Ultimately, the decision to move to four-day work weeks can only be made by CEOs or equivalents, and while some have, most haven't. At my previous company, the head of HR proposed it, the CTO agreed, and it went to the CEO, who said no. He didn't want the CTO org to have benefits the rest of the company didn't have, and didn't want to extend a four-day work week to all departments.
When they continue to have trouble filling open job positions because they aren't competing will in the market, perhaps he'll change his mind.
https://www.4dayweek.com
The five-day work-week came about because Henry Ford declared it to be so in 1926, and wasn't made any sort of law until 1939.
Ultimately, the decision to move to four-day work weeks can only be made by CEOs or equivalents, and while some have, most haven't. At my previous company, the head of HR proposed it, the CTO agreed, and it went to the CEO, who said no. He didn't want the CTO org to have benefits the rest of the company didn't have, and didn't want to extend a four-day work week to all departments.
When they continue to have trouble filling open job positions because they aren't competing will in the market, perhaps he'll change his mind.
https://www.4dayweek.com
Attributing the 5 day work week to Henry Ford is not placing the credit correctly. He may have been the first big CEO, but it was the work of labor rights activists and unions.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/sep/09/viral-imag...
The trade unionists had been pushing for eight-hour days, not five-day weeks. The thing Ford did largely unprompted was switch from six days to five days. Even your own link seems to confuse the two, but is focused on the eight-hour day part of the original false image.
> Ford’s initiative was not widely copied overnight. In 1916, the federal government passed an act to require an eight-hour day and overtime pay for railroad workers, but most workers still didn’t have those protections, and working hours remained a hotly contested issue. "Demands for the five-day week began to proliferate in 1919, a year in which 4 million American workers went out on strike,"
And that CEO is not necessarily wrong. Even if you posit that certain types of creative problem solving might be as productive with a 32 hour work week as a 40 hour one, I'd also posit that there are a lot of jobs within companies that really do mostly map to hours in seats. And granting, say, engineering only a special privilege like that seems like it would be terrible for morale--especially given that there are doubtless other jobs at a company that could in principle also be equally productive with 4-day weeks.
And it probably goes without saying that most people would not be OK with a pay cut--which might have to actually be more than 20% given the cost of benefits is fairly fixed.
And it probably goes without saying that most people would not be OK with a pay cut--which might have to actually be more than 20% given the cost of benefits is fairly fixed.
To add insult to injury in this case, all departments were completely on board other than sales, and this was an engineering-driven SaaS company. Sales people at that company are paid commission, and most of them outearn all software developers at the company, and even the C-suite. Still, it was in deference to them that the initiative was squashed.
On paper, it may have seemed like the right move, but it was huge demoralizing to the engineering org to be told, essentially: we will neither pay enough to be competitive, nor offer any other compensatory advantages, primarily in deference to this other department that we do pay well.
The morale question was apparently only considered in one direction.
On paper, it may have seemed like the right move, but it was huge demoralizing to the engineering org to be told, essentially: we will neither pay enough to be competitive, nor offer any other compensatory advantages, primarily in deference to this other department that we do pay well.
The morale question was apparently only considered in one direction.
I actually find that a bit surprising. I would assume a lot of sales comp was commission driven so presumably reps could just have kept on working however many days they wanted to. Of course, they presumably wouldn't have had the support they wanted for one day a week so there's that.
> Ultimately, the decision to move to four-day work weeks can only be made by CEOs or equivalents, and while some have, most haven't.
Not how it happened when going 6 to 5 days. People made it happen. And OP is one of them.
Not how it happened when going 6 to 5 days. People made it happen. And OP is one of them.
This is widely believed, at least the first part, but not true.
People (trade unionists) made eight-hour workdays happen, but Henry Ford made a five-day workday happen[0]. As I stated, most labor rights came about because of blood, sweat, and tears. Just... not that particular one, oddly enough.
The fact that Ford's five-day work weeks were made up of eight-hour days, for that you can think unions and the hard work of many people! But the shift from six days to five, not so much.
P.S. OP was probably not working age in 1926, as they would need to be to have made the shift happen originally.
0. https://www.truthorfiction.com/henry-ford-invented-the-5-day...
People (trade unionists) made eight-hour workdays happen, but Henry Ford made a five-day workday happen[0]. As I stated, most labor rights came about because of blood, sweat, and tears. Just... not that particular one, oddly enough.
The fact that Ford's five-day work weeks were made up of eight-hour days, for that you can think unions and the hard work of many people! But the shift from six days to five, not so much.
P.S. OP was probably not working age in 1926, as they would need to be to have made the shift happen originally.
0. https://www.truthorfiction.com/henry-ford-invented-the-5-day...
>The way the post is worded right now seems to be phrased in a way that 3-day weekends are blindingly obvious
Seems like all anti-work propaganda (ie: r/antiwork) to me, there's no meat. You could turn this post into an inductive proof saying it is so obvious that having X-1 days is better than X days of work until you get smacked in the face trying to hand wave that 1->0 will have no impact on productivity.
Seems like all anti-work propaganda (ie: r/antiwork) to me, there's no meat. You could turn this post into an inductive proof saying it is so obvious that having X-1 days is better than X days of work until you get smacked in the face trying to hand wave that 1->0 will have no impact on productivity.
there's no meat
This ignores that there have been trials about this. Companies trying 4 day work weeks have found their workers to be more productive.
Also, consider that worker productivity has gone up since the 70s, but wages haven't kept pace.
In surveys, most people say they'd rather have 4 day work week. 5 days is in second place. then it goes down from 3.
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776163853/microsoft-japan-say...
This ignores that there have been trials about this. Companies trying 4 day work weeks have found their workers to be more productive.
Also, consider that worker productivity has gone up since the 70s, but wages haven't kept pace.
In surveys, most people say they'd rather have 4 day work week. 5 days is in second place. then it goes down from 3.
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776163853/microsoft-japan-say...
So what if there's an impact on productivity? Productivity has increased far more than necessary since the last time we adjusted typical hours.
I'd compare it to getting rid of smaller coins. Sure, it would cause some rounding hassle, but the last time we got rid of a coin the smallest remaining one was worth more than a 2020 quarter.
It seems pretty obvious to me, based on the non-linear utility of money, that as productivity increases the ideal work week shrinks. Is that not a good enough sketch of a proof?
I'd compare it to getting rid of smaller coins. Sure, it would cause some rounding hassle, but the last time we got rid of a coin the smallest remaining one was worth more than a 2020 quarter.
It seems pretty obvious to me, based on the non-linear utility of money, that as productivity increases the ideal work week shrinks. Is that not a good enough sketch of a proof?
it's fine to dream of ways to replace work with automation, for massive productivity increases to lead not only to bigger investor returns but also a higher standard of living, and to talk about how it can be realized without waiting around for it to happen or making everyone's lives worse. aren't we mostly dev types here, where this is what we think of already all the time - how to reach your goals with less action and time. why choose to owe all that time saved to your boss where the primary reward is more work to spend that newly-gained spare time on (I know the reasons people give)
I don't think framing this as someone's individual responsibility is at all fair or realistic.
Productivity has risen 61% since 1979: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/. 40 hour work weeks have been the standard. Wages only rose 17% in that same period. The capitalists have been able to bank the other 44%.
A 3-day work week (aka 40% less productivity if you assume a perfectly linear relationship between time working and productivity) would still mean a nice little gain for the capitalist compared to 1979 numbers.
If you've worked, you've contributed to that 44% productivity gain. Why should you need to revolt or organize to get what you've already worked for? Capitalists are taking a larger and larger share every year. Is that ethical?
I get that pragmatically many aspects in life are a power struggle, but "throwing the question back" is really a way of putting the burden of fixing an unfair system back on the victim.
A 3-day work week (aka 40% less productivity if you assume a perfectly linear relationship between time working and productivity) would still mean a nice little gain for the capitalist compared to 1979 numbers.
If you've worked, you've contributed to that 44% productivity gain. Why should you need to revolt or organize to get what you've already worked for? Capitalists are taking a larger and larger share every year. Is that ethical?
I get that pragmatically many aspects in life are a power struggle, but "throwing the question back" is really a way of putting the burden of fixing an unfair system back on the victim.
Are workers getting more productive, or are tools and technology getting more productive?
It used to take a room full of highly trained engineers using slide-rules, protractors, and graphing paper to design the newest car or plane. Now it's done in AutoCAD. But it's not obvious to me why the employee should collect the difference for the capital investment poured into technology.
In other words, it's not as if humans have evolved since the 1970s to be more productive. Any gains are entirely the consequence of investments in tech and tools and modern managerial techniques.
It used to take a room full of highly trained engineers using slide-rules, protractors, and graphing paper to design the newest car or plane. Now it's done in AutoCAD. But it's not obvious to me why the employee should collect the difference for the capital investment poured into technology.
In other words, it's not as if humans have evolved since the 1970s to be more productive. Any gains are entirely the consequence of investments in tech and tools and modern managerial techniques.
I agree that it isn't obvious who should reap the benefits of productivity gains, but that means it is also not obvious to me that the capitalist should get it compared to the employee.
We created a system that heavily favors the capitalist starting with the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that most of society was subsistence farming. Encouraging capital investment in new machines and factories through laws/policies made sense to help raise society (and thus the workers) out of that situation. We have made enough progress since then that there are now barely any subsistence farmers in the US.
Why should we continue to embrace policies favoring the capitalist? Why should we continue to award 100% of the gains of new technologies to capitalists? Maybe they should only get those gains for a few years, or they should get half and half should go to the workers?
We created a system that heavily favors the capitalist starting with the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that most of society was subsistence farming. Encouraging capital investment in new machines and factories through laws/policies made sense to help raise society (and thus the workers) out of that situation. We have made enough progress since then that there are now barely any subsistence farmers in the US.
Why should we continue to embrace policies favoring the capitalist? Why should we continue to award 100% of the gains of new technologies to capitalists? Maybe they should only get those gains for a few years, or they should get half and half should go to the workers?
"Why should we continue to award 100% of the gains of new technologies to capitalists?"
Because they assume the risk of these ventures. Ever hear the statistics about how 95% of startups fail in the first x years? Meanwhile, the guy clicking around in AutoCAD did nothing to further the rise of productivity. Why should he be gifted the benefits of other's toil simply for breathing?
Because they assume the risk of these ventures. Ever hear the statistics about how 95% of startups fail in the first x years? Meanwhile, the guy clicking around in AutoCAD did nothing to further the rise of productivity. Why should he be gifted the benefits of other's toil simply for breathing?
Entrepreneurs benefit from free toil and public investment all the time. Try starting a business in a poorer country with no good institutions nor infrastructure, inefficient education etc. and it'll become abundantly clear what you are taking for granted.
You literally noted above that 100% of the gains are not going to the capitalists but rather are being split (using your numbers) around 5:2 among capitalists and workers.
But, remember, that’s before considering the impact of healthcare costs (which are majority paid by capitalists and majority benefiting the workers).
But, remember, that’s before considering the impact of healthcare costs (which are majority paid by capitalists and majority benefiting the workers).
Fair enough on my "100%" math, you are correct.
I'm not so sure about the healthcare argument. The link I included above compares productivity to compensation. I'd assume compensation includes the value of benefits like healthcare but I could be wrong. I'd also argue that many of the rising healthcare costs are being rewarded as profit to the capitalists so it might not be as cut-and-dry even if healthcare is a large source of the pay-productivity gap.
I'm not so sure about the healthcare argument. The link I included above compares productivity to compensation. I'd assume compensation includes the value of benefits like healthcare but I could be wrong. I'd also argue that many of the rising healthcare costs are being rewarded as profit to the capitalists so it might not be as cut-and-dry even if healthcare is a large source of the pay-productivity gap.
Modern managerial techniques if anything have regressed the situation.
As for tech and tools, who do you think made those things if not humans?
As for tech and tools, who do you think made those things if not humans?
The human inventors of computers, computer components, productivity improving software (like AutoCAD), robotics, and other systems are very wealthy.
The difference between producitivity and wage gap is fully explained by increasing healthcare costs: https://www.ajmc.com/view/healthcare-costs-increased-twice-a...
The difference between productivity and wages is not fully explained by increasing benefits/health care costs, but it is something like over half the difference.
Benefits costs do a better job explaining increasing wage inequality, but again not all of it and doesn’t address what’s happening outside the US
Benefits costs do a better job explaining increasing wage inequality, but again not all of it and doesn’t address what’s happening outside the US
Healthcare costs are largely driven by metabolic syndrome: the main cause of diseases of major modern civilizations. Half of Americans are on track to be pre-diabetic or diabetic by 2050.
That would be very convenient for capitalists but it is false, though even if it were true for the US it is not true for European countries
Why should you need to revolt or organize to get what you've already worked for?
Because you won't get it otherwise. They're not going to give it back or forgo it in future because controlling a greater share of resources gives them more leverage.
Because you won't get it otherwise. They're not going to give it back or forgo it in future because controlling a greater share of resources gives them more leverage.
Honest question that came to mind with these numbers:
While some fraction has gone to the corporations/shareholders ("capitalists"), what fraction of the productivity gains has turned into cheaper consumer goods, aka (can't point at the data, just many who comment on it) the populace owns a lot more 'stuff' like electronics than they did 43 years ago, aka QOL gains resulting from productivity.
Or is it just silly of me to not assume that ~100% of gained productivity went straight into corporations'/shareholders' pockets?
While some fraction has gone to the corporations/shareholders ("capitalists"), what fraction of the productivity gains has turned into cheaper consumer goods, aka (can't point at the data, just many who comment on it) the populace owns a lot more 'stuff' like electronics than they did 43 years ago, aka QOL gains resulting from productivity.
Or is it just silly of me to not assume that ~100% of gained productivity went straight into corporations'/shareholders' pockets?
> The capitalists have been able to bank the other 44%.
Don't forget the massive growth at all levels of government.
Also don't forget that wages are not the right measure - total compensation is. Total compensation is often 150% of wages (things like health insurance, retirement plans, 401k matching contributions, etc.). All those "employer-paid" benefits are actually coming out of your paycheck.
Don't forget the massive growth at all levels of government.
Also don't forget that wages are not the right measure - total compensation is. Total compensation is often 150% of wages (things like health insurance, retirement plans, 401k matching contributions, etc.). All those "employer-paid" benefits are actually coming out of your paycheck.
> Capitalists are taking a larger and larger share every year. Is that ethical?
How is this possible? Wouldn't capitalists willing to take a smaller share (higher wages, better product for lower price) out-compete those that don't? It seems to me that the major advantage of capitalism is protection from this type of situation?
How is this possible? Wouldn't capitalists willing to take a smaller share (higher wages, better product for lower price) out-compete those that don't? It seems to me that the major advantage of capitalism is protection from this type of situation?
It's mostly false: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Pik
A ton of capitalist-favoring policies assume a perfect free market (all participants have equal knowledge, transactions are instant, etc). Not a single market like that actually exists in reality. We've created many capitalist policies which allow the exploitation of such imperfect markets.
"Job Stability" being a factor in the labor market is a perfect example. People are afraid to leave a stable job for a less stable one even it pays more because they know it takes time and effort and luck to find another job (aka imperfections in the job market). If your unstable job disappears, that might mean there's no money for food or no health insurance. This puts a huge thumb on the scale in favor of the capitalist. If they can offer "stability" then they can also lower their wages considerably.
"Job Stability" being a factor in the labor market is a perfect example. People are afraid to leave a stable job for a less stable one even it pays more because they know it takes time and effort and luck to find another job (aka imperfections in the job market). If your unstable job disappears, that might mean there's no money for food or no health insurance. This puts a huge thumb on the scale in favor of the capitalist. If they can offer "stability" then they can also lower their wages considerably.
We have metrics for these things ("Capitalists are taking a larger and larger share every year"), no need for hyperbole: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Pik
i think if i tried anything i would just be left to fall on my sword alone.
Because in macroeconomics productivity is (almost) everything.
Yes, sure, we can debate all day over “how people are going to be more productive and hate their jobs less if there’s a 4 day working week”, but that’s only applicable to office drones.
If we’re going to get a 4 day working week, it’s going to be by (some) employers doing it as a perk/experiment.
No reasonable legislature anywhere is going to make it a reality any time soon.
Or you can always negotiate yourself 20% less hours for 20% less pay.
Yes, sure, we can debate all day over “how people are going to be more productive and hate their jobs less if there’s a 4 day working week”, but that’s only applicable to office drones.
If we’re going to get a 4 day working week, it’s going to be by (some) employers doing it as a perk/experiment.
No reasonable legislature anywhere is going to make it a reality any time soon.
Or you can always negotiate yourself 20% less hours for 20% less pay.
Please allow me to answer your question in the form of some more questions.
Why are all the bosses trying so hard to get everyone back in the office?
Why are people working from home being subjected to all kinds of "productivity tracking" that results in things like special cradles to put your mouse in to keep it moving around so you look like you're at the computer when you're actually staring off into space thinking about work stuff, at the bathroom, or slacking off in the many ways nobody would care about if you were doing that slacking at work? [1]
Why doesn't your job have a union that can decide that 3-day weekends is a thing they want to negotiate with your bosses for?
Why is modern life structured so that we spend most of our waking hours at work, with little to no room to make social connections elsewhere?
How much more money does your boss make than you do? Why?
Why has the US minimum wage only barely begun to budge past the $7.25/h it was set to in 2009, despite that being below poverty lines for most of the country?
1: https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/21/great-taylors-ghost/#soli...
Why are all the bosses trying so hard to get everyone back in the office?
Why are people working from home being subjected to all kinds of "productivity tracking" that results in things like special cradles to put your mouse in to keep it moving around so you look like you're at the computer when you're actually staring off into space thinking about work stuff, at the bathroom, or slacking off in the many ways nobody would care about if you were doing that slacking at work? [1]
Why doesn't your job have a union that can decide that 3-day weekends is a thing they want to negotiate with your bosses for?
Why is modern life structured so that we spend most of our waking hours at work, with little to no room to make social connections elsewhere?
How much more money does your boss make than you do? Why?
Why has the US minimum wage only barely begun to budge past the $7.25/h it was set to in 2009, despite that being below poverty lines for most of the country?
1: https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/21/great-taylors-ghost/#soli...
> Why has the US minimum wage only barely begun to budge past the $7.25/h it was set to in 2009, despite that being below poverty lines for most of the country?
Nobody actually gets paid $7.25/h. Amazon pays $15/h or more nationwide. That's a baseline. In HCOL areas shitty big chain jobs like Target/Chipotle/Starbucks pay $18-22/h and restaurant servers make 25-30. Making those numbers bigger just enriches landlords unless you vastly increase the amount of housing in HCOL areas.
Nobody actually gets paid $7.25/h. Amazon pays $15/h or more nationwide. That's a baseline. In HCOL areas shitty big chain jobs like Target/Chipotle/Starbucks pay $18-22/h and restaurant servers make 25-30. Making those numbers bigger just enriches landlords unless you vastly increase the amount of housing in HCOL areas.
This simply isn't true. The Taco Bell nearest my house is paying $7.25/hr for kitchen staff (more for front-of-house), even though they've had to cut hours and are now "drive-through-only" for big chunks of every day.
If nobody got paid $7.25/hr, then there would be no problem raising the minimum wage. As it is, almost nobody in HCOL areas gets paid that, but enough people do, especially outside HCOL areas, that companies spend a lot of money lobbying to ensure the minwage isn't raised.
If nobody got paid $7.25/hr, then there would be no problem raising the minimum wage. As it is, almost nobody in HCOL areas gets paid that, but enough people do, especially outside HCOL areas, that companies spend a lot of money lobbying to ensure the minwage isn't raised.
Then the people working there aren't rational actors. Amazon is paying $15/h nationally, why would anyone work for $7.25?
> even though they've had to cut hours and are now "drive-through-only" for big chunks of every day
And when everyone leaves for the higher paying jobs (as they should), they'll raise wages. That's how a market works.
> almost nobody in HCOL areas gets paid that
No, nobody in HCOL areas gets paid that, not only because state and local minimum wages are higher but also because the market price for unskilled labor is way higher than even local minimum wage. And if you're getting underpaid you should quit. There is plenty of access to market wage unskilled jobs, if those people are staying despite being underpaid that's on them.
> even though they've had to cut hours and are now "drive-through-only" for big chunks of every day
And when everyone leaves for the higher paying jobs (as they should), they'll raise wages. That's how a market works.
> almost nobody in HCOL areas gets paid that
No, nobody in HCOL areas gets paid that, not only because state and local minimum wages are higher but also because the market price for unskilled labor is way higher than even local minimum wage. And if you're getting underpaid you should quit. There is plenty of access to market wage unskilled jobs, if those people are staying despite being underpaid that's on them.
20 states (out of 50) either do not have minimum wage laws, or have set their minimum wage to the same as the federal minimum wage: $7.25/hour[0]. Since those states include Texas, which alone has 9% of the national population, I continue to feel like "almost nobody" is a better descriptor than "nobody.".
One of my daughters was recently looking for unskilled work, and interviewed for several positions paying less than $15/hr, even worked one for two days before quitting, so I could ask her why she is such an irrational actor, but you've already stated that you know my own history better than I do, so maybe you can tell me why she bothered. Why anyone bothers.
You seem incredibly sure that the market is more rational than I think evidence suggests. I almost begin to think it's an article of faith, and I'm already over-quota on faith-based arguments for the month.
I surrender! Nobody in this country is working for less than $15/hr, so it's completely incomprehensible why so many people are still fighting for a $15/hr minimum wage. Those people must not know what you know.
0. https://www.minimum-wage.org/wage-by-state
One of my daughters was recently looking for unskilled work, and interviewed for several positions paying less than $15/hr, even worked one for two days before quitting, so I could ask her why she is such an irrational actor, but you've already stated that you know my own history better than I do, so maybe you can tell me why she bothered. Why anyone bothers.
You seem incredibly sure that the market is more rational than I think evidence suggests. I almost begin to think it's an article of faith, and I'm already over-quota on faith-based arguments for the month.
I surrender! Nobody in this country is working for less than $15/hr, so it's completely incomprehensible why so many people are still fighting for a $15/hr minimum wage. Those people must not know what you know.
0. https://www.minimum-wage.org/wage-by-state
[deleted]
I got 4 day weeks by asking my employer, and I know others who have done the same.
Employment is a mutually consensual relationship, and communication is key to make it good.
Employment is a mutually consensual relationship, and communication is key to make it good.
We went from 5x7.5 to 4x8 without reducing pay. 4 months into it and so far it's working on all fronts. No loss of momentum or productivity, no reduction in client billing, happier and more effective people.
We had to get much smarter about how to organise time, work asynchronously and write things down to a better level - but it is the way forward make no mistake.
We had to get much smarter about how to organise time, work asynchronously and write things down to a better level - but it is the way forward make no mistake.
You can negotiate a 4 day workweek for yourself if you have the right skill level or are willing to accept the market wage.
We live in a plutocracy. This can't exist without monopolizing the waking life of the working class, because free time gives rise to thought and rebellion. It's better to have workers output N units of work in 5 days rather than 4 days, simply because it does a better job of dominating and controlling our lives.
If you have more time off then you have more time to find better uses for yourself than being beholden to the corporate world. Your employer doesn't want you to think like that so they don't want to give you more time to think about doing better things with your life.
The few times during the 20th century the working class had a realistic change to enact such a change it prioritized higher wages instead. Now it doesn't have enough power anymore and reduced working hours isn't a very popular idea anyway.
Because society has decided it does not want to.
I mean... If you increase work productivity there's basically two things you can do: Increase free time or increase consumption. Increasing free time is not a popular position. It is widely seen as a given that "increasing consumption" and "economic growth" are good things by itself that don't need any further justification (while of course society could strive for "free time growth" instead). Switzerland had a referendum on reducing work time not so long ago. It failed.
I say this noting that I disagree with the popular position here, but I can't avoid seeing that this is what most people seem to want.
I mean... If you increase work productivity there's basically two things you can do: Increase free time or increase consumption. Increasing free time is not a popular position. It is widely seen as a given that "increasing consumption" and "economic growth" are good things by itself that don't need any further justification (while of course society could strive for "free time growth" instead). Switzerland had a referendum on reducing work time not so long ago. It failed.
I say this noting that I disagree with the popular position here, but I can't avoid seeing that this is what most people seem to want.
Maybe it's because I live in Sweden but I know a lot of people in the company that I work at that work between 50-90%. I myself plan to go down to 80% sometime in the near-ish future (current plan is 2025). Definitely not the norm tough.
The 40 hours split into 5 days is so ingrained into American culture that anything different wouldn't be seen as normal. I had a job I loved that we did 40 hours in 4 days. It was nice having that extra weekday off.
4/10's are fantastic, especially if you commute. The extra 2 hours a day really doesn't feel like much, and I often find I have better "productive" time than in a standard 8 hour day.
I wonder if the issue is the folks who do have unofficial 3 day weekends ... don't "officially" have them and don't want to expose that "hey we're doing that already"?
I worked at a place where it was painfully obvious that the only folks showing up (when everyone was in the office) on Fridays consistently were the tech support guys. Try and get a hold of anyone else? Chances are nope ...
So some folks have it already and sure as hell don't want to fight for it if they've got it without asking already.
I worked at a place where it was painfully obvious that the only folks showing up (when everyone was in the office) on Fridays consistently were the tech support guys. Try and get a hold of anyone else? Chances are nope ...
So some folks have it already and sure as hell don't want to fight for it if they've got it without asking already.
My country has plenty of companies that offer 2 1/2 day weekends ON PAPER. The reality is that unpaid overtime is endemic here and you are likely to work as much there as you would at a place with a regular workweek. I don't want a 4 day workweek where I'm working dozens of hours for free every month. I'd rather see the government use their absurdly high taxes to chase those companies. We can think of a 4 day workweek after that's fixed.
I've never had a full workday of getting absolutely nothing done. Maybe working 1 day less per week would boost productivity even in the long run, but there would be no going back, so I imagine employers are hesitant to take the risk.
It's also because we consume more. Instead of working less than our great-great-grandparents, we drive big cars, live in huge houses, etc.
It's also because we consume more. Instead of working less than our great-great-grandparents, we drive big cars, live in huge houses, etc.
> For those who say it would lead to a decrease in productivity. Well that is only relative to the 5 day week. And the 5 day week, only exist because of some archaic reasons. It is not some law ingrained in the universe.
But it is ingrained in the profit metrics of the company so are you okay taking a 25% or so compensation hit (the extra 5 is due to benefits not scaling down)?
But it is ingrained in the profit metrics of the company so are you okay taking a 25% or so compensation hit (the extra 5 is due to benefits not scaling down)?
Currently working at smallish startup (~20 people) that gives every other Monday off. Been enjoying it, especially during summer.
It's very simple: if you can do five days' worth of work in only four days, you can do even more if you maintain the same level of productivity over five days.
A more interesting approach would be to combine the following:
* Unlimited holidays (offered by more and more companies)
* No difference within week and weekend days - you choose your free days whenever you want
* Fully remote, async work
A more interesting approach would be to combine the following:
* Unlimited holidays (offered by more and more companies)
* No difference within week and weekend days - you choose your free days whenever you want
* Fully remote, async work
Unlimited holidays is a scam!
Euronews has a breakdown you might be interested in: https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/06/06/the-four-day-week-w...
This is likely going to be controversial. I am all for more time off. But the way the world is evolving, to maintain its competitiveness, America cants really afford to be slacking any further. Ultimately, it’s the work of the people that transforms a country and I am afraid, America is working less harder!
The entire idea of week days is arbitrary.
Days are rotations of Earth around its axis, years are orbits of Earth around the Sun and months almost match lunar cycle. Weeks of seven days are just something somebody came up with a long time ago.
Ancient Egyptians, ancient Chinese and pre-Napoleon French revolutionaries used ten day weeks.
Days are rotations of Earth around its axis, years are orbits of Earth around the Sun and months almost match lunar cycle. Weeks of seven days are just something somebody came up with a long time ago.
Ancient Egyptians, ancient Chinese and pre-Napoleon French revolutionaries used ten day weeks.
I would find a weekend of any length welcome at this point in my death march project, tbh.
For some of my colleagues, including me, a 4-days workweek would only make sense if kids got a 4-days school week. I don't think I'm ready to make such a change and reduce my kids' education and socialization by 20%.
See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32544315 - Ask HN: Anyone working 4 day week here, as an employee?
I work 70 hours a week. Surely you wouldn’t outlaw my ethic?
And if a run a company, surely I could require my employees to work 5 days, 40 hours?
The solution is to let business owners switch to 4 day weeks and then let the free market sort it out.
And if a run a company, surely I could require my employees to work 5 days, 40 hours?
The solution is to let business owners switch to 4 day weeks and then let the free market sort it out.
The free market would grind every last human into powder if it could. Labor regulations exist because you can’t trust humans to be various degrees of moral, decent, and empathetic.
If labor regulations ratchet the work week down, you’d be free to offer 32 hour work weeks to employees, and pay them for overtime beyond that. Productivity has exploded over the last four decades (across various economies, developed and developing), it just hasn’t been shared equitably with labor. This effort contributes towards correcting that. Unions in the US brought about the 8 hour day and weekend, for example.
https://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/workday/weekend/8hourday.html
High level, humans exist to live, not to work. The work is a means to economically support one’s life.
If labor regulations ratchet the work week down, you’d be free to offer 32 hour work weeks to employees, and pay them for overtime beyond that. Productivity has exploded over the last four decades (across various economies, developed and developing), it just hasn’t been shared equitably with labor. This effort contributes towards correcting that. Unions in the US brought about the 8 hour day and weekend, for example.
https://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/workday/weekend/8hourday.html
High level, humans exist to live, not to work. The work is a means to economically support one’s life.
Easy to game - declare lower lower base rate for 32 hours that will get to the same number with overtime surcharge?
Different people have different relations to work in different stages of life. E.g. it makes sense to work your ass off while saving for downpayment for a home. Or saving for XYZ. Same people may scale down when kids come up.
Different people have different relations to work in different stages of life. E.g. it makes sense to work your ass off while saving for downpayment for a home. Or saving for XYZ. Same people may scale down when kids come up.
Humans are free to enter contracts of their own choosing, not forced by arbitrary government regulations. As many other commenters here have pointed out, negotiating oneself to a 4 day workweek (or other offers) is possible.
I for one, choose to not take the 20% pay cut and will happily work a 40 hour work week. That's my choice.
I for one, choose to not take the 20% pay cut and will happily work a 40 hour work week. That's my choice.
I strongly encourage you to find a jurisdiction that agrees with your belief systems, versus making everyone else suffer due to yours. I welcome government protecting my labor rights from businesses, and I will vote every election for people who will steward such policy. I will even show up to help organize others, even if it provides myself no benefit whatsoever.
The world libertarians describe of “everyone is free to enter into contracts” is the modern day version of Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle.” We’re currently trying it, and to be frank, it’s pretty fucking terrible for a majority of workers. Perhaps that’s why support of unions in the US is at record highs (since 1965); the beatings continued until we were all out of morale.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2014.html (Refer to Key findings)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle
https://news.gallup.com/poll/398303/approval-labor-unions-hi...
(crafted as politely as possible and not intended as a personal attack; my belief system is a natural result of robust amounts of consumed data, actively collected ground truth, and an overwhelming amount of empathy)
The world libertarians describe of “everyone is free to enter into contracts” is the modern day version of Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle.” We’re currently trying it, and to be frank, it’s pretty fucking terrible for a majority of workers. Perhaps that’s why support of unions in the US is at record highs (since 1965); the beatings continued until we were all out of morale.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2014.html (Refer to Key findings)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle
https://news.gallup.com/poll/398303/approval-labor-unions-hi...
(crafted as politely as possible and not intended as a personal attack; my belief system is a natural result of robust amounts of consumed data, actively collected ground truth, and an overwhelming amount of empathy)
The current labor laws force somebody else's view of what is "full-time" employment on everybody. The ideal of "everybody is free to enter into contracts" doesn't result in crushing employees to dust. It results in businesses that treat their employees poorly going out of business. Competition is required for a healthy economy. In many markets the US has legislated to protect the incumbent businesses at the request of lobbyists. Such legislation allows businesses to treat their employees like shit because starting a competitor is costly and cumbersome due to regulations.
We can have a free and open market and legislation to protect individuals from abuse by employers. Setting a required number of hours to work to qualify as "full-time" and a minimum wage are dictating what an individual is allowed to negotiate for themselves. A high number of work hours or extremely low pay are not abusing individuals if they agreed to work for a company knowing full well what they got in return.
Allow people to make their own choices, whether you agree with them or not, and you will be surprised by the result.
We can have a free and open market and legislation to protect individuals from abuse by employers. Setting a required number of hours to work to qualify as "full-time" and a minimum wage are dictating what an individual is allowed to negotiate for themselves. A high number of work hours or extremely low pay are not abusing individuals if they agreed to work for a company knowing full well what they got in return.
Allow people to make their own choices, whether you agree with them or not, and you will be surprised by the result.
Businesses that treat workers poorly don’t go out of business. They thrive. Amazon Retail. Walmart. Etc.
People agreed to work for those companies knowing what they were in for. We already have laws to punish bad companies. They will be held accountable if they are found guilty of alleged crimes. Apparently the employees accept the abuse for their compensation. If they found the treatment unacceptable they would leave.
Those companies are lobbying for higher minimum wages which will make it impossible for any company to compete with them. If you think their treatment of employees is bad now just wait until their employees truly have no where else to work.
Those companies are lobbying for higher minimum wages which will make it impossible for any company to compete with them. If you think their treatment of employees is bad now just wait until their employees truly have no where else to work.
In theory maybe. I bet most people don't have the luxury to chose a 80% job that still lets them pay their bills. Probably has to do with wages not tracking inflation which was caused by the same free market principles.
... and then we get to core issue. Some people don't want 80% worktime for 80% pay, but 80% worktime for 100% pay :) What if many people will keep working 100% time but now get 125% pay? Inflation happens and we're back at square 1.
Some individuals, in some particular professions, may have this choice. But there are structural forces preventing this on a population level.
Most people in the US live paycheck to paycheck as is, and it's not that they're spending frivolously. Our standards of living are based on what's needed for subsistence, yes, but also cultural and historical. Based on how we grew up and how our parents grew up, and how culture (e.g. hollywood) tells us we should be living. So most people are trying to live according to established standards.
It's already much harder for the present generation to live at the standard of the previous generation or two (e.g. buying a home is less of a possibility). Choosing, then, according to our "freedom", 20% less pay would require also choosing poverty according to established standards of living (i.e. it would look like poverty).
The narrative of "the individual" is a nice narrative from the perspective of the elites of our society to distract from the fact that, as always, there is class conflict and systematic forces in place. Of course, don't get me wrong: it is nice that there is some legitimate freedom on an individual level in the US. But for one, that legitimacy is overblown via mass media marketing (e.g. of course Jeff Bezos is going to tell his rags-to-riches story for everyone to hear). And more importantly, there is also the question of the overall structural forces that establish the population level structure.
Most people in the US live paycheck to paycheck as is, and it's not that they're spending frivolously. Our standards of living are based on what's needed for subsistence, yes, but also cultural and historical. Based on how we grew up and how our parents grew up, and how culture (e.g. hollywood) tells us we should be living. So most people are trying to live according to established standards.
It's already much harder for the present generation to live at the standard of the previous generation or two (e.g. buying a home is less of a possibility). Choosing, then, according to our "freedom", 20% less pay would require also choosing poverty according to established standards of living (i.e. it would look like poverty).
The narrative of "the individual" is a nice narrative from the perspective of the elites of our society to distract from the fact that, as always, there is class conflict and systematic forces in place. Of course, don't get me wrong: it is nice that there is some legitimate freedom on an individual level in the US. But for one, that legitimacy is overblown via mass media marketing (e.g. of course Jeff Bezos is going to tell his rags-to-riches story for everyone to hear). And more importantly, there is also the question of the overall structural forces that establish the population level structure.
We also have legislation that makes it illegal for people to sell food or perform particular services without meeting a large number of requirements. Regulations are costly, inhibit competition, restrict available employment options and largely fail to achieve the desired outcome.
Big business protectionism results in big business abuse of employees because a "where else are the going to go" mentality sets in. Competition is required to allow people to build businesses that put the "employee abusing" companies out of business.
Protectionism comes in many forms but all of it comes from government. Big businesses are currently supporting an increase in the national minimum wage. They can afford to pay their employees more. Their competitors can't. With no competition the big business are free to abuse their employees. Nearly every business that has lobbied for government regulation is playing this same game to secure their place as king of the hill.
Big business protectionism results in big business abuse of employees because a "where else are the going to go" mentality sets in. Competition is required to allow people to build businesses that put the "employee abusing" companies out of business.
Protectionism comes in many forms but all of it comes from government. Big businesses are currently supporting an increase in the national minimum wage. They can afford to pay their employees more. Their competitors can't. With no competition the big business are free to abuse their employees. Nearly every business that has lobbied for government regulation is playing this same game to secure their place as king of the hill.
Compare the Chinese household savings rate to the American one, and I think you'll find people in the US do indeed spend frivolously. Note that living in HCOL locations beyond your means is still spending frivolously. You don't have a right to live in NYC or SF. If more people realized that, then supply of low wage workers would drop in these places and wages would go up.
The Chinese public have invested in quicksand represented as a low quality housing stock pyramid scheme the CCP is barely holding together with control economy duct tape. Perhaps domestic consumption is lower than the US is due to this higher savings rate, but lets not pretend that savings is going into productive enterprises.
With China aging very rapidly and a total fertility rate that will decline below 1 in the next 2-5 years, doesn’t make much sense to save for a future with limited returns (time value of life vs money and so forth).
https://archive.ph/2022.05.23-232226/https://www.bloomberg.c...
> Home prices in China have been falling since September, Chinese stocks and mutual funds aren’t great bets these days either, there’s little access to international markets and cryptocurrencies are officially illegal. Instead, people are increasingly shelving their money in savings accounts, despite benchmark deposit rates staying at record low levels.
> “No matter if you’re high net-worth or not that rich, the golden time of parking your money and letting your wealth grow, it’s gone,” said Wei He, an economist at Gavekal Research Ltd. in Beijing.
> “There’s no other investment options,” said Clawde Yin, a 45-year-old Shanghai resident. “I’ve got no choice but to wait and see.”
With China aging very rapidly and a total fertility rate that will decline below 1 in the next 2-5 years, doesn’t make much sense to save for a future with limited returns (time value of life vs money and so forth).
https://archive.ph/2022.05.23-232226/https://www.bloomberg.c...
> Home prices in China have been falling since September, Chinese stocks and mutual funds aren’t great bets these days either, there’s little access to international markets and cryptocurrencies are officially illegal. Instead, people are increasingly shelving their money in savings accounts, despite benchmark deposit rates staying at record low levels.
> “No matter if you’re high net-worth or not that rich, the golden time of parking your money and letting your wealth grow, it’s gone,” said Wei He, an economist at Gavekal Research Ltd. in Beijing.
> “There’s no other investment options,” said Clawde Yin, a 45-year-old Shanghai resident. “I’ve got no choice but to wait and see.”
Chinese savings are dumped into housing because the stock market isn't trustworthy there, not because everyone decided housing is the most productive enterprise.
Also, dumping your money into savings accounts is definitely better than dumping it into 30% APR BNPL offers for designer clothing and electronics. Or gas guzzling, expensive SUVs and trucks. Ask yourself why Apple has a 50% market share in the US.
> doesn’t make much sense to save for a future with limited returns (time value of life vs money and so forth).
Saving doesn't mean saving until retirement, it just means not spending beyond your means.
Also, dumping your money into savings accounts is definitely better than dumping it into 30% APR BNPL offers for designer clothing and electronics. Or gas guzzling, expensive SUVs and trucks. Ask yourself why Apple has a 50% market share in the US.
> doesn’t make much sense to save for a future with limited returns (time value of life vs money and so forth).
Saving doesn't mean saving until retirement, it just means not spending beyond your means.
Well, saving is a virtue in itself (a virtue that most Americans don’t have I agree). But it’s really a separate issue. Suppose all Americans suddenly started saving 10% of their income. That would just establish a new standard of living, a new equilibrium.
The point is, though, that the population level class structure and socioeconomic mobility/opportunity would remain. As would the fact that the current generation cannot (as a whole) afford housing the way two generations ago could.
The narrative of “the individual” encourages non-elites to compete amongst themselves for a progressively shrinking portion of the pie. From the perspective of elites it has a twofold benefit: discourage worker solidarity and encourage productivity. From the perspective of workers, the latter benefit is good (we all should strive for competence and contribution), but the former is not good (even just in terms of life enjoyment). Also, at some point the pie needs a drastic and more balanced reallocation.
The point is, though, that the population level class structure and socioeconomic mobility/opportunity would remain. As would the fact that the current generation cannot (as a whole) afford housing the way two generations ago could.
The narrative of “the individual” encourages non-elites to compete amongst themselves for a progressively shrinking portion of the pie. From the perspective of elites it has a twofold benefit: discourage worker solidarity and encourage productivity. From the perspective of workers, the latter benefit is good (we all should strive for competence and contribution), but the former is not good (even just in terms of life enjoyment). Also, at some point the pie needs a drastic and more balanced reallocation.
> Humans are free to enter contracts of their own choosing, not forced by arbitrary government regulations.
Difficulty: their counter-parties are often creations of "arbitrary government regulations" (corporations).
Difficulty: their counter-parties are often creations of "arbitrary government regulations" (corporations).
You are looking at a Platonic ideal of an individual and disregarding their actual choice when you take into account their social environment. "Work a very exploitative job or die" is not freedom.
> The free market would grind every last human into powder if it could.
That's interesting, because it's not free market capitalists advocating for importing billions of people and cramming everyone into urban centers in the name of efficiency.
That's interesting, because it's not free market capitalists advocating for importing billions of people and cramming everyone into urban centers in the name of efficiency.
That's the thing with free market capitalism - nobody needs to advocate for policies like moving people to urban areas in the name of efficiency. Instead people living in rural areas are forced to migrate to cities to make a living wage, thereby causing the negative scenario you're describing. Free market capitalism allows those with capital to dominate social decisions.
if the free market was capable of sorting anything out, unions would never have existed
Not true at all. As a group workers have far more power than alone.
So the "free market" for workers says they should unionize as soon as they have the power to, because they can drive the price of their services up. Monopolies happen even in free markets.
So the "free market" for workers says they should unionize as soon as they have the power to, because they can drive the price of their services up. Monopolies happen even in free markets.
Unions are inherently free market. If government controlled all labor, Unions would not exist.
That's not true. Unions are only practically possible because labor laws make it illegal to fire someone for advocating for unionizing, to fire someone for joining a union, and to fire someone for striking (kind of). The law also makes it legally mandatory to negotiate in good faith with a union. Without any of these government interventions, unions could never work.
> The solution is to let business owners switch to 4 day weeks and then let the free market sort it out.
We do "let" business owners switch to 4 day weeks, most don't. The free market has sorted it out.
We do "let" business owners switch to 4 day weeks, most don't. The free market has sorted it out.
I prefer working all the time. It is way more fun to build stuff, especially if that's your own company.
Nope. Your system is flawed because you cannot extended it to all of our society. It's great it works for you but that's about it.
[deleted]
Because most people equate value with output instead of focusing on outcomes and impact, and output is easiest to measure in hours worked (it's not actually, but people incorrectly think it is)
If you can't develop a business that sustains itself with 4-day work weeks, why are you expecting anyone else to?
From what I understand though, some companies are indeed trying 4-day work weeks.
From what I understand though, some companies are indeed trying 4-day work weeks.
I've also seen a general shift away from meetings on Fridays for example. Combined with WFH, there is probably some percentage of people (in the more privileged worker class) who, even if they aren't taking Fridays off, are sliding into the weekends.
Because the more people work, the more stuff is produced.
The more stuff is produced, the more of it there is. The more of it there is, the less it costs. There is more to go around.
The more stuff is produced, the more of it there is. The more of it there is, the less it costs. There is more to go around.
Well then it sounds like a great idea for a start up. You could corner the market on people who only want to work four days a week.
Because everyone keeps arguing against their own interests by rationalizing the status quo. Including in the comments here.
My last job was 60% time. I only committed three days a week to it. The roles are there - you just need to ask for them.
People have chosen to pick the easier battle of remote work instead of pushing for shorter work days or weeks directly.
Because 5 (or 6 or 7) day workweeks, all-nighters, crunch-time, etc are all badges of honor to far too many people.
You really have to understand why weekends were created in the first place.
How would an increase in leisure time increase GDP?
How would an increase in leisure time increase GDP?
Why not a one day weekend? How is three days any less absurd and arbitrary than two?
Frankly, given where we are at as a society in terms of labor and productivity relative to demand, it seems like now isn’t the time to be pumping the brakes. The basis of fully automated luxury communism has not yet been delivered and won’t be for a while; Europeans will likely freeze this winter and even in the US, if I call 911 I’m lucky if the wait time is less than 10 minutes. We still need humans working, as much as it pains me to say it.
Maybe a better approach than specifying an arbitrary number would be to have full flexibility.
Example: I work hourly at a software company. Some days I work 12 hours. Some days I work 3.5. If I’m not going to be productive that day, I just don’t work (this is to my employer’s benefit, because I’m paid by the hour). If I’m on a roll, I keep on rolling. Some days I plan for 9 hours then leave at 6 because my focus is shot. Others I think it will be 5, then leave after 10.
I get to use my time as I see fit, the employer doesn’t deal with me wasting time in the office unproductively, and on net I think I’m as productive if not more than my coworkers.
In jobs where you need time-based coverage, an Lyft-like bidding system to get a wage premium would probably make sense and let people self-sort based on desire to work and schedule preferences.
Why replace one arbitrary system with another?
Frankly, given where we are at as a society in terms of labor and productivity relative to demand, it seems like now isn’t the time to be pumping the brakes. The basis of fully automated luxury communism has not yet been delivered and won’t be for a while; Europeans will likely freeze this winter and even in the US, if I call 911 I’m lucky if the wait time is less than 10 minutes. We still need humans working, as much as it pains me to say it.
Maybe a better approach than specifying an arbitrary number would be to have full flexibility.
Example: I work hourly at a software company. Some days I work 12 hours. Some days I work 3.5. If I’m not going to be productive that day, I just don’t work (this is to my employer’s benefit, because I’m paid by the hour). If I’m on a roll, I keep on rolling. Some days I plan for 9 hours then leave at 6 because my focus is shot. Others I think it will be 5, then leave after 10.
I get to use my time as I see fit, the employer doesn’t deal with me wasting time in the office unproductively, and on net I think I’m as productive if not more than my coworkers.
In jobs where you need time-based coverage, an Lyft-like bidding system to get a wage premium would probably make sense and let people self-sort based on desire to work and schedule preferences.
Why replace one arbitrary system with another?
In the US, we had a 1-day weekend until 1926, and in 1939 the force of law was added to make anything over 40 hours of work "overtime."
Henry Ford thought his workers could be just as productive, if not more so, in 40 hours as 48, and would be happier at the second day off to boot, and he was correct.[0]
You call it arbitrary, and it was, except it's based on what has been collectively deemed obvious: one gets dramatically diminishing returns when requiring an employee to work more than eight hours in a day, or more than (now) five days a week.
It could be that we are also seeing diminishing returns from five days a week, and would be just as productive in four[1], but it will take CEOs acting on that theory to move the established norm.
0. https://www.truthorfiction.com/henry-ford-invented-the-5-day...
1. https://www.4dayweek.com
Henry Ford thought his workers could be just as productive, if not more so, in 40 hours as 48, and would be happier at the second day off to boot, and he was correct.[0]
You call it arbitrary, and it was, except it's based on what has been collectively deemed obvious: one gets dramatically diminishing returns when requiring an employee to work more than eight hours in a day, or more than (now) five days a week.
It could be that we are also seeing diminishing returns from five days a week, and would be just as productive in four[1], but it will take CEOs acting on that theory to move the established norm.
0. https://www.truthorfiction.com/henry-ford-invented-the-5-day...
1. https://www.4dayweek.com
Is a burger flipper or barista serving the same number of customers in four days as five? No? Then where are the diminishing returns there?
Pretty much any reasonable white collar job already lets you work however many hours you want as long as you get the job done and you show up to meetings.
Pretty much any reasonable white collar job already lets you work however many hours you want as long as you get the job done and you show up to meetings.
Interesting. In your answer, you focused on the stream of customers walking in the door, rather than on the welfare of the burger flipper or barista. Do I expect a burger flipper working at a hot grill to be just as safe in hour ten as hour eight or hour six of a given workday? No, I expect that burns, for example, are more likely at the end of long shifts than the beginning.
In addition, since humans are not machines, I expect that an extra day off might make workers more prompt and less likely to take six days at the beginning or end of a workweek.
At the time the trade unionists were fighting for our rights, the question wasn't burger-flipping, but generally factory work. The speed and accuracy at which a person working in a factory could produce goods safely diminishes beyond a certain point, and while it's probably closer to five or six hours for peak efficiency, employers were demanding ten- or twelve-hour days at the time, so a 50% reduction was a bridge too far. Still, through a combination of many different kinds of protest and some documentation that safety incidents climbed dramatically as workers grew more tired, they managed to get hours pushed down to no more than eight as "normal," with anything beyond that requiring overtime pay.
Henry Ford took the reasoning of the trade unionists, who had successfully pushed him into eight-hour days already, and took it farther. He reasoned that giving workers two days off instead of just one would enable him to push them harder, and get just as much work done while making happier employees, more loyal to him. Which worked out well for him, and 13 years later became the norm by law.
If you're talking about work which requires workers to be physically present for a set schedule, then yes, clearly capping each worker at 80% of hours would mean needing to increase staff by 20% to achieve the same result. But most businesses in which physical presence for given hours is important already have flexible scheduling to handle days of the week and times of the day at which business is busier.
If you're instead talking about, as you say, "any reasonable white collar job," then rather than letting only bold or clever people to get their work done in 32 hours while attending meetings to avoid raising eyebrows, it seems more reasonable to make that the norm, so that everybody can do the same. Then the receptionist can also work four days a week, with someone else filling in, rather than only those less visible.
In addition, since humans are not machines, I expect that an extra day off might make workers more prompt and less likely to take six days at the beginning or end of a workweek.
At the time the trade unionists were fighting for our rights, the question wasn't burger-flipping, but generally factory work. The speed and accuracy at which a person working in a factory could produce goods safely diminishes beyond a certain point, and while it's probably closer to five or six hours for peak efficiency, employers were demanding ten- or twelve-hour days at the time, so a 50% reduction was a bridge too far. Still, through a combination of many different kinds of protest and some documentation that safety incidents climbed dramatically as workers grew more tired, they managed to get hours pushed down to no more than eight as "normal," with anything beyond that requiring overtime pay.
Henry Ford took the reasoning of the trade unionists, who had successfully pushed him into eight-hour days already, and took it farther. He reasoned that giving workers two days off instead of just one would enable him to push them harder, and get just as much work done while making happier employees, more loyal to him. Which worked out well for him, and 13 years later became the norm by law.
If you're talking about work which requires workers to be physically present for a set schedule, then yes, clearly capping each worker at 80% of hours would mean needing to increase staff by 20% to achieve the same result. But most businesses in which physical presence for given hours is important already have flexible scheduling to handle days of the week and times of the day at which business is busier.
If you're instead talking about, as you say, "any reasonable white collar job," then rather than letting only bold or clever people to get their work done in 32 hours while attending meetings to avoid raising eyebrows, it seems more reasonable to make that the norm, so that everybody can do the same. Then the receptionist can also work four days a week, with someone else filling in, rather than only those less visible.
> Do I expect a burger flipper working at a hot grill to be just as safe in hour ten as hour eight or hour six of a given workday? No, I expect that burns, for example, are more likely at the end of long shifts than the beginning
This is completely unrealistic - you clearly have never worked in food service or any sort of low wage customer facing role. There is a rush for each of the 3 meals of the day, and in between your volume is pretty low. And you never work a 10 hour shift, if anything they don't give you enough hours and you work 3-4 hour shifts.
> Then the receptionist can also work four days a week, with someone else filling in, rather than only those less visible
The difference is that the clever people who get their work done in 32 hours are still giving 100% output. The receptionist obviously cannot give 100% output if they are only present for 80% time.
> He reasoned that giving workers two days off instead of just one would enable him to push them harder, and get just as much work done while making happier employees, more loyal to him
No, it was not because they got just as much work done, but because it would reduce turnover [1]. It was a calculated economic decision. And in the real world, corporations have done that analysis and either decided on Ford's approach (as Costco has) or on the minimum pay possible approach (like Walmart). As a worker, you have the choice of going to Costco or Walmart to work.
I'll remind you that factory jobs needed a lot more training than fast food, which meant turnover cost had a real impact for Ford.
> But most businesses in which physical presence for given hours is important already have flexible scheduling to handle days of the week and times of the day at which business is busier.
But each worker still serves X customers per hour and works Y hours per week with flexible scheduling. If you suddenly have 20% fewer hours, then the worker has to get paid 20% less, else the business now pays more for labor. Considering a lot of restaurants operate on razor thin margins, this doesn't work out as well as you think.
[1] https://hankeringforhistory.com/history-weekend/
This is completely unrealistic - you clearly have never worked in food service or any sort of low wage customer facing role. There is a rush for each of the 3 meals of the day, and in between your volume is pretty low. And you never work a 10 hour shift, if anything they don't give you enough hours and you work 3-4 hour shifts.
> Then the receptionist can also work four days a week, with someone else filling in, rather than only those less visible
The difference is that the clever people who get their work done in 32 hours are still giving 100% output. The receptionist obviously cannot give 100% output if they are only present for 80% time.
> He reasoned that giving workers two days off instead of just one would enable him to push them harder, and get just as much work done while making happier employees, more loyal to him
No, it was not because they got just as much work done, but because it would reduce turnover [1]. It was a calculated economic decision. And in the real world, corporations have done that analysis and either decided on Ford's approach (as Costco has) or on the minimum pay possible approach (like Walmart). As a worker, you have the choice of going to Costco or Walmart to work.
I'll remind you that factory jobs needed a lot more training than fast food, which meant turnover cost had a real impact for Ford.
> But most businesses in which physical presence for given hours is important already have flexible scheduling to handle days of the week and times of the day at which business is busier.
But each worker still serves X customers per hour and works Y hours per week with flexible scheduling. If you suddenly have 20% fewer hours, then the worker has to get paid 20% less, else the business now pays more for labor. Considering a lot of restaurants operate on razor thin margins, this doesn't work out as well as you think.
[1] https://hankeringforhistory.com/history-weekend/
> you clearly have never worked in food service or any sort of low wage customer facing role
Weird that you know more about my life than I do, I wonder how I made up those memories of working at Carl's Jr as a young person. Tell me, what else have I done or not done, contra my own lived experience?
>> He reasoned that giving workers two days off instead of just one would enable him to push them harder, and get just as much work done while making happier employees, more loyal to him > No, it was not because they got just as much work done, but because it would reduce turnover [1].
Weird that you started with "No," and then went on to say the same thing I said? "happier employees, more loyal to him" vs "would reduce turnover" seem like the same thing. You linked to an article covering almost exactly the same ground I did, and thought that represented disagreement? So, so weird.
> And in the real world, corporations have done that analysis and either decided on Ford's approach (as Costco has) or on the minimum pay possible approach (like Walmart).
I'm not sure the last time you checked in with "the real world," but these days Walmart isn't paying minwage any more, at least not where I live. That extreme turned out to be unsustainable in today's labor market--again, at least where I live--so "the market" and "the real world" seem to be moving on.
> But each worker still serves X customers per hour and works Y hours per week with flexible scheduling. If you suddenly have 20% fewer hours, then the worker has to get paid 20% less, else the business now pays more for labor. Considering a lot of restaurants operate on razor thin margins, this doesn't work out as well as you think.
I have a child working in food service today, right now, in 2022, in America, in the real world. So I can tell you that many employers already flexibly schedule their workers, especially their front-of-house workers, and in some cases get closer to 32 hours than 40 already, specifically ensuring that they're not paying employees to sit idle during slow times. Most restaurants don't have 40 rush hours per week. That was my point--businesses that require physical presence are already scheduling as needed. I then contrasted that by shifting to "office jobs."
But yes, costs rise. Industry-wide, chains which had locations paying federal minimum wage and other locations paying local wages as high as $15/hr had menu price differences ranging from 4-10% for the same food at the same chain restaurants. While restaurant margins are thin, many chains find that location rental costs dwarf even labor costs when determining prices. A McDonald's in Manhattan has menu prices higher than a McDonald's in Pocatello, Idaho, not only because they pay their employees more.
Still, yes, part of this popular push at the low-end is alongside a $15 minimum wage. Either way, labor costs are rising. Some fast-food restaurants in my area have resisted the push for higher wages, and have struggled to find workers, with several (Taco Bell, Wendy's, Dairy Queen) reducing hours of operation, or switching to drive-through-only until they could staff up. Many (including a local McDonald's franchisee) had no trouble with hours because they raised wages to $12/14/15/hour. How much of the subsequent rise in menu prices is due to higher labor costs, and how much is due to international shortages affecting everyone, is unclear. Either way, I'm happy to pay even 20% more for my hamburgers if my kids can get better treatment as workers.
Weird that you know more about my life than I do, I wonder how I made up those memories of working at Carl's Jr as a young person. Tell me, what else have I done or not done, contra my own lived experience?
>> He reasoned that giving workers two days off instead of just one would enable him to push them harder, and get just as much work done while making happier employees, more loyal to him > No, it was not because they got just as much work done, but because it would reduce turnover [1].
Weird that you started with "No," and then went on to say the same thing I said? "happier employees, more loyal to him" vs "would reduce turnover" seem like the same thing. You linked to an article covering almost exactly the same ground I did, and thought that represented disagreement? So, so weird.
> And in the real world, corporations have done that analysis and either decided on Ford's approach (as Costco has) or on the minimum pay possible approach (like Walmart).
I'm not sure the last time you checked in with "the real world," but these days Walmart isn't paying minwage any more, at least not where I live. That extreme turned out to be unsustainable in today's labor market--again, at least where I live--so "the market" and "the real world" seem to be moving on.
> But each worker still serves X customers per hour and works Y hours per week with flexible scheduling. If you suddenly have 20% fewer hours, then the worker has to get paid 20% less, else the business now pays more for labor. Considering a lot of restaurants operate on razor thin margins, this doesn't work out as well as you think.
I have a child working in food service today, right now, in 2022, in America, in the real world. So I can tell you that many employers already flexibly schedule their workers, especially their front-of-house workers, and in some cases get closer to 32 hours than 40 already, specifically ensuring that they're not paying employees to sit idle during slow times. Most restaurants don't have 40 rush hours per week. That was my point--businesses that require physical presence are already scheduling as needed. I then contrasted that by shifting to "office jobs."
But yes, costs rise. Industry-wide, chains which had locations paying federal minimum wage and other locations paying local wages as high as $15/hr had menu price differences ranging from 4-10% for the same food at the same chain restaurants. While restaurant margins are thin, many chains find that location rental costs dwarf even labor costs when determining prices. A McDonald's in Manhattan has menu prices higher than a McDonald's in Pocatello, Idaho, not only because they pay their employees more.
Still, yes, part of this popular push at the low-end is alongside a $15 minimum wage. Either way, labor costs are rising. Some fast-food restaurants in my area have resisted the push for higher wages, and have struggled to find workers, with several (Taco Bell, Wendy's, Dairy Queen) reducing hours of operation, or switching to drive-through-only until they could staff up. Many (including a local McDonald's franchisee) had no trouble with hours because they raised wages to $12/14/15/hour. How much of the subsequent rise in menu prices is due to higher labor costs, and how much is due to international shortages affecting everyone, is unclear. Either way, I'm happy to pay even 20% more for my hamburgers if my kids can get better treatment as workers.
> That extreme turned out to be unsustainable in today's labor market--again, at least where I live--so "the market" and "the real world" seem to be moving on.
Yes, the minimum possible being the minimum market wage that they can hire workers for (even if turnover is high). I don't mean they pay $7.25...
> So I can tell you that many employers already flexibly schedule their workers
Yeah, but those employees get paid only for the time they work, not 100% pay for 80% time. That's the point I was making.
> Either way, I'm happy to pay even 20% more for my hamburgers if my kids can get better treatment as workers.
What actually happens is those jobs get replaced with automation and your kids can't get fast food jobs in the first place. Order taking gets replaced with kiosks and things like fry production get automated [1]. It might not happen overnight but the tech is basically there already with computer vision and robotics.
My local Walmart is already 50% self checkouts (advertising $18/h wages, btw). Amazon has licensed their Amazon Go tech to 3rd party stores. If wages go up 20% overnight the impetus to buy that tech goes way, way up.
[1] https://misorobotics.com/
Yes, the minimum possible being the minimum market wage that they can hire workers for (even if turnover is high). I don't mean they pay $7.25...
> So I can tell you that many employers already flexibly schedule their workers
Yeah, but those employees get paid only for the time they work, not 100% pay for 80% time. That's the point I was making.
> Either way, I'm happy to pay even 20% more for my hamburgers if my kids can get better treatment as workers.
What actually happens is those jobs get replaced with automation and your kids can't get fast food jobs in the first place. Order taking gets replaced with kiosks and things like fry production get automated [1]. It might not happen overnight but the tech is basically there already with computer vision and robotics.
My local Walmart is already 50% self checkouts (advertising $18/h wages, btw). Amazon has licensed their Amazon Go tech to 3rd party stores. If wages go up 20% overnight the impetus to buy that tech goes way, way up.
[1] https://misorobotics.com/
Why rest at all? I mean we are all machines and our goal in life is to work!
I encourage you to read the rest of the comment, where I lay out alternatives to arbitrary day-based systems that allow _more_ rest for people who want that and _more_ flexibility for everyone.
Read the comment. The point was not flexibility. The point was that we could be a post scarcity society where we don't have to work. At all.
[deleted]
This feels like a rhetorical question, you've clearly got an answer you're satisfied with.
Because there would be an increased chance you would unionize
it’s not “we” it’s “you” that are trapped in this mindset. i’ve worked 4 day weeks for 6 years now. i started after being annoyed that my dentist is only open 4 days
why are we not getting 1 day weekend. With services such as amazon, drive pickups we should be more efficient and generate a bigger value instead of becoming dumber.
A lot of folks are paid by the hour or by the day and would not enjoy getting their hours cut to 32 per week or something. Especially because various laws and regulations create expectations around "full time" and "part time" employment based on the number of hours worked.
Even if the number of hours were cut back per employer, a lot of folks would need a supplemental part-time job to make ends meet.
I guess what I'm saying is that the average HN commenter probably doesn't wear steel-toed boots or a uniform to work.
Even if the number of hours were cut back per employer, a lot of folks would need a supplemental part-time job to make ends meet.
I guess what I'm saying is that the average HN commenter probably doesn't wear steel-toed boots or a uniform to work.
We do in Europe. It's the future.
Network effects.
The same reason we dont' have universal base income.
Because that contradicts the capitalist mode of production and thus the bourgeoisie ideology associated with it.
Because it’s a bad idea
More time you have without purpose the more idiotic people will be. Less hours spent working daily though might lead to more creativity.
Yes. People are basically idiots /s
For those who say it would lead to a decrease in productivity. Well that is only relative to the 5 day week. And the 5 day week, only exist because of some archaic reasons. It is not some law ingrained in the universe.
And beyond that we can see that increases of productivity has not led to increase of leisure time, maybe the opposite.
And we know many people who work barely a fraction of the week, yet need to maintain this kind of presenteeism. It seems absurd. Will we be trapped in this irrational mindset forever, or just until a certain generations dies out?