32-Hour Work Week (1 Viewer)

[Alex P Keaton]

I honestly think this is sort of a pie in the sky kind of idea. Employees would love to have to work less, but they are not going to agree to the corresponding 20% pay cut. Employers are not going to give them a 20% raise and lose the corresponding production. So other than a few outliers, this will probably never be realistic .

Why? It's happened multiple times already in history.

With productivity per hour factored in modern companies are essentially getting 160 hour workweeks worth of productivity compared to the 40 hours companies were getting in 1940 when the workweek was reduced to 40.

Imagine if our grandparents and their grandparents were as weak to their company overlords as we are today. We'd all still be working six 10+ hour days a week at a minimum baseline and thinking that was a reasonable work/life balance.

So are we okay with the wealth gap that will created between the 32-hour employees and those who choose to continue to work 40?

As well as the wealth gap that will be exacerbated even further with the ones that currently work 50-60+ and ultimately receive the promotions, large performance bonuses and equity in the company?

I’m 100% ok with it. Lazy people, on average, already have it way too good in this country. Hard work and sacrifice should matter.

Most people vastly underestimate the role luck plays in their lives.

Nothing I wrote disagrees with that sentiment. I’ve been massively fortunate. Others I know have been massively unlucky.

You seemed to be equating hard work with success and laziness with being poor. I'd argue plenty of people work hard but are not given the same opportunity for success as others, and many lazy people achieve success due to their lot in life.

No, you are inferring that I’m equating hard work with success and laziness with being poor. Read my comment, word for word, without interpreting.

And to be super clear, I have a ton of extremely hard working friends and relatives who live on the margins. The system has screwed them big time.

I also know a lot of really lazy, wealthy people. Most of them inherited their wealth.

But our society also has a ton of lazy people who are freeloaders. In general, most people gravitate toward getting something for nothing. Or toward doing as little possible for the greatest reward. Taken to an extreme, that is a huge net negative for society (and IMO for individuals). The 32-hour work week chatter — and the natural mindset of “I’ll go to 32 hours if I don’t have to take a pay cut!” — is just the latest example of this thinking.

 

[massraider]

But our society also has a ton of lazy people who are freeloaders. In general, most people gravitate toward getting something for nothing. Or toward doing as little possible for the greatest reward. Taken to an extreme, that is a huge net negative for society (and IMO for individuals).

And this is the mindset the corporations love, 100%

 

[Grahamburn]

But our society also has a ton of lazy people who are freeloaders. In general, most people gravitate toward getting something for nothing. Or toward doing as little possible for the greatest reward. Taken to an extreme, that is a huge net negative for society (and IMO for individuals).

And this is the mindset the corporations love, 100%

Corporations love a “bare minimum do just enough to not get fired and then ask for more” mindset?

 

[massraider]

But our society also has a ton of lazy people who are freeloaders. In general, most people gravitate toward getting something for nothing. Or toward doing as little possible for the greatest reward. Taken to an extreme, that is a huge net negative for society (and IMO for individuals).

And this is the mindset the corporations love, 100%

Corporations love a “bare minimum do just enough to not get fired and then ask for more” mindset?

No, they love the mindset where people blame each other, and call out poor people, and welfare cheats, rather than the corporate welfare, which makes freeloaders net negative look like a rounding error.

Catch that video I posted earlier.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I can't speak for APK, but I don't welfare cheats (is it 1980 again already?) are very relevant to a discussion about paid work. I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same. I would be pissed if my employer added a day of work with no compensation, so I why is this reasonable?

By all means feel free to work part time. Just don't force that on me.

 

[NutterButter]

I can't speak for APK, but I don't welfare cheats (is it 1980 again already?) are very relevant to a discussion about paid work. I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same. I would be pissed if my employer added a day of work with no compensation, so I why is this reasonable?

By all means feel free to work part time. Just don't force that on me.

How about if all the folks that want to continue to work 40 hours get a 25% raise?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I can't speak for APK, but I don't welfare cheats (is it 1980 again already?) are very relevant to a discussion about paid work. I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same. I would be pissed if my employer added a day of work with no compensation, so I why is this reasonable?

By all means feel free to work part time. Just don't force that on me.

Exactly. My post didn’t mention poor people at all, and I explicitly noted earlier that many poor people work extremely hard, and many rich people are quite lazy.

This entire topic is about the mindset of wanting something for free. Wanting to work 20% less for the same pay, for no apparent reason.

 

[Max Power]

I can't speak for APK, but I don't welfare cheats (is it 1980 again already?) are very relevant to a discussion about paid work. I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same. I would be pissed if my employer added a day of work with no compensation, so I why is this reasonable?

By all means feel free to work part time. Just don't force that on me.

Exactly. My post didn’t mention poor people at all, and I explicitly noted earlier that many poor people work extremely hard, and many rich people are quite lazy.

This entire topic is about the mindset of wanting something for free. Wanting to work 20% less for the same pay, for no apparent reason.

I don't see it as wanting something for free.

It's a debate on if the workers should see some of the benefits from advancements in workplace technology or if that benefit should stay with the CEOs.

 

[fruity pebbles]

I can't speak for APK, but I don't welfare cheats (is it 1980 again already?) are very relevant to a discussion about paid work. I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same. I would be pissed if my employer added a day of work with no compensation, so I why is this reasonable?

By all means feel free to work part time. Just don't force that on me.

Exactly. My post didn’t mention poor people at all, and I explicitly noted earlier that many poor people work extremely hard, and many rich people are quite lazy.

This entire topic is about the mindset of wanting something for free. Wanting to work 20% less for the same pay, for no apparent reason.

I don't see it as wanting something for free.

It's a debate on if the workers should see some of the benefits from advancements in workplace technology or if that benefit should stay with the CEOs.

Should or will? Because I think we know the answer to that. Think it’s more likely most people work 48 hours than 32 in the future.

 

[the moops]

I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same.

Again, if people who currently work 40 hours can get the same work done in 32 and be paid the same, why does that bother you?

 

[fruity pebbles]

I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same.

Again, if people who currently work 40 hours can get the same work done in 32 and be paid the same, why does that bother you?

Serious question though. Unless you’re in a high demand segment and irreplaceable, wouldn’t a publicly traded company be more likely to give you more work to fill your 40 hours and have a big layoff?

 

[Instinctive]

I can't speak for APK, but I don't welfare cheats (is it 1980 again already?) are very relevant to a discussion about paid work. I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same. I would be pissed if my employer added a day of work with no compensation, so I why is this reasonable?

By all means feel free to work part time. Just don't force that on me.

Exactly. My post didn’t mention poor people at all, and I explicitly noted earlier that many poor people work extremely hard, and many rich people are quite lazy.

This entire topic is about the mindset of wanting something for free. Wanting to work 20% less for the same pay, for no apparent reason.

I actually would frame it as I’d like to maintain the same output and be less concerned about spreading it over more hours. I don’t plan to do less. But I bet I could do what is needed in 40 in 32 instead.

 

[NutterButter]

Just between the folks on this thread, I can probably get my current workload done in 24.

 

[Max Power]

I can't speak for APK, but I don't welfare cheats (is it 1980 again already?) are very relevant to a discussion about paid work. I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same. I would be pissed if my employer added a day of work with no compensation, so I why is this reasonable?

By all means feel free to work part time. Just don't force that on me.

Exactly. My post didn’t mention poor people at all, and I explicitly noted earlier that many poor people work extremely hard, and many rich people are quite lazy.

This entire topic is about the mindset of wanting something for free. Wanting to work 20% less for the same pay, for no apparent reason.

I don't see it as wanting something for free.

It's a debate on if the workers should see some of the benefits from advancements in workplace technology or if that benefit should stay with the CEOs.

Should or will? Because I think we know the answer to that. Think it’s more likely most people work 48 hours than 32 in the future.

I can't imagine going to 48. The younger generation entering the workforce now prioritizes a better work/life balance than those before them.

I wouldn't be shocked to see them prefer to make less money for less hours.

Ultimately I think all of our society and culture would benefit from working less.

 

[Max Power]

Just between the folks on this thread, I can probably get my current workload done in 24.

There have been studies that show a lot of people can easily get their 40 hours done in 32.

Company culture needs to change. Many of them have unproductive hours baked into the day. A lot of meetings could be emails, but aren't because people have time to waste.

 

[the moops]

Just between the folks on this thread, I can probably get my current workload done in 24.

I think I can go as low as 18

 

[the moops]

Heard a very juvenile yet apt to this thread chatter between some 20 something year olds at the climbing gym last night. One dudes goal was 420 69 when it comes to working. I was laughing to myself as he explained it to his buddy. Wants to have a full time job but really only work 4 days, 20 hours total, and make the equivalent of 69 dollars an hour for those actual hours worked.

 

[Sand]

Heard a very juvenile yet apt to this thread chatter between some 20 something year olds at the climbing gym last night. One dudes goal was 420 69 when it comes to working. I was laughing to myself as he explained it to his buddy. Wants to have a full time job but really only work 4 days, 20 hours total, and make the equivalent of 69 dollars an hour for those actual hours worked.

I hope he has a heck of a skillset to be able to command a 140k effective salary. Anything is possible, but that's a stout pay grade.

 

[fruity pebbles]

I can't speak for APK, but I don't welfare cheats (is it 1980 again already?) are very relevant to a discussion about paid work. I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same. I would be pissed if my employer added a day of work with no compensation, so I why is this reasonable?

By all means feel free to work part time. Just don't force that on me.

Exactly. My post didn’t mention poor people at all, and I explicitly noted earlier that many poor people work extremely hard, and many rich people are quite lazy.

This entire topic is about the mindset of wanting something for free. Wanting to work 20% less for the same pay, for no apparent reason.

I don't see it as wanting something for free.

It's a debate on if the workers should see some of the benefits from advancements in workplace technology or if that benefit should stay with the CEOs.

Should or will? Because I think we know the answer to that. Think it’s more likely most people work 48 hours than 32 in the future.

I can't imagine going to 48. The younger generation entering the workforce now prioritizes a better work/life balance than those before them.

I wouldn't be shocked to see them prefer to make less money for less hours.

Ultimately I think all of our society and culture would benefit from working less.

I agree, I just question whether most would be able to afford it.

 

[the moops]

Heard a very juvenile yet apt to this thread chatter between some 20 something year olds at the climbing gym last night. One dudes goal was 420 69 when it comes to working. I was laughing to myself as he explained it to his buddy. Wants to have a full time job but really only work 4 days, 20 hours total, and make the equivalent of 69 dollars an hour for those actual hours worked.

I hope he has a heck of a skillset to be able to command a 140k effective salary. Anything is possible, but that's a stout pay grade.

I think it was the 70K pay grade. The hourly rate for actual hours worked - the mythical 20 hour work week while his boss thinks he works 40

 

[fruity pebbles]

Just between the folks on this thread, I can probably get my current workload done in 24.

There have been studies that show a lot of people can easily get their 40 hours done in 32.

Company culture needs to change. Many of them have unproductive hours baked into the day. A lot of meetings could be emails, but aren't because people have time to waste.

Agree with this as well but I struggle to see how this benefits corporate profit. Atleast at the publicly traded level, layoffs and stock buybacks are the easiest way to boost the stock price. Instead of getting a 32 hour week, I think you’d get more work and a mass layoff.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Heard a very juvenile yet apt to this thread chatter between some 20 something year olds at the climbing gym last night. One dudes goal was 420 69 when it comes to working. I was laughing to myself as he explained it to his buddy. Wants to have a full time job but really only work 4 days, 20 hours total, and make the equivalent of 69 dollars an hour for those actual hours worked.

I mean I’d like to be Brad Pitt. More likely he works 4 jobs at 20 hours each making 6-9 bucks an hour

 

[Grahamburn]

I can't speak for APK, but I don't welfare cheats (is it 1980 again already?) are very relevant to a discussion about paid work. I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same. I would be pissed if my employer added a day of work with no compensation, so I why is this reasonable?

By all means feel free to work part time. Just don't force that on me.

Exactly. My post didn’t mention poor people at all, and I explicitly noted earlier that many poor people work extremely hard, and many rich people are quite lazy.

This entire topic is about the mindset of wanting something for free. Wanting to work 20% less for the same pay, for no apparent reason.

I don't see it as wanting something for free.

It's a debate on if the workers should see some of the benefits from advancements in workplace technology or if that benefit should stay with the CEOs.

Should or will? Because I think we know the answer to that. Think it’s more likely most people work 48 hours than 32 in the future.

I can't imagine going to 48. The younger generation entering the workforce now prioritizes a better work/life balance than those before them.

I wouldn't be shocked to see them prefer to make less money for less hours.

Ultimately I think all of our society and culture would benefit from working less.

Yeah, no. They want the work life balance for the same pay or more.

How else will they afford their $9 lattes?

 

[NutterButter]

Just between the folks on this thread, I can probably get my current workload done in 24.

I think I can go as low as 18

Name that tune. I feel like we're on that game show with each person going lower than the next.

 

[massraider]

Cal Newport — The Key to Productivity without Burnout | Prof G Conversations

Cal Newport, a professor of computer science at Georgetown University and bestselling author, joins Scott to discuss productivity, the importance of work-lif...

youtu.be

Prof G with a discussion of productivity.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I can't speak for APK, but I don't welfare cheats (is it 1980 again already?) are very relevant to a discussion about paid work. I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same. I would be pissed if my employer added a day of work with no compensation, so I why is this reasonable?

By all means feel free to work part time. Just don't force that on me.

Exactly. My post didn’t mention poor people at all, and I explicitly noted earlier that many poor people work extremely hard, and many rich people are quite lazy.

This entire topic is about the mindset of wanting something for free. Wanting to work 20% less for the same pay, for no apparent reason.

I actually would frame it as I’d like to maintain the same output and be less concerned about spreading it over more hours. I don’t plan to do less. But I bet I could do what is needed in 40 in 32 instead.

I can appreciate that framing. Unfortunately my hypothesis is that much like driving skills, most people think they are above-average productivity relative to the average worker. Which means most people who work 32 hours will simply be 20% less productive.

Again - that’s just my hypothesis. I could absolutely be wrong.

 

[FairWarning]

Lazy people, on average, already have it way too good in this country. Hard work and sacrifice should matter.

My ideals and reality often come into conflict, but rarely more often than on this subject- you get out what you put in. So if you don't put it in (hey-o!!!) then good luck

It doesn’t apply in all jobs, but it surely does in sales. Cant make money if one cuts out early every day. I bartend on the side also. The number of bartenders who would call in sick on the day after a big night of tips was staggering.

 

[FairWarning]

I can't speak for APK, but I don't welfare cheats (is it 1980 again already?) are very relevant to a discussion about paid work. I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same. I would be pissed if my employer added a day of work with no compensation, so I why is this reasonable?

By all means feel free to work part time. Just don't force that on me.

Exactly. My post didn’t mention poor people at all, and I explicitly noted earlier that many poor people work extremely hard, and many rich people are quite lazy.

This entire topic is about the mindset of wanting something for free. Wanting to work 20% less for the same pay, for no apparent reason.

I actually would frame it as I’d like to maintain the same output and be less concerned about spreading it over more hours. I don’t plan to do less. But I bet I could do what is needed in 40 in 32 instead.

I can appreciate that framing. Unfortunately my hypothesis is that much like driving skills, most people think they are above-average productivity relative to the average worker. Which means most people who work 32 hours will simply be 20% less productive.

Again - that’s just my hypothesis. I could absolutely be wrong.

It would depend on how reliant the job is to other jobs, but I basically agree with you.

 

[Instinctive]

I can't speak for APK, but I don't welfare cheats (is it 1980 again already?) are very relevant to a discussion about paid work. I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same. I would be pissed if my employer added a day of work with no compensation, so I why is this reasonable?

By all means feel free to work part time. Just don't force that on me.

Exactly. My post didn’t mention poor people at all, and I explicitly noted earlier that many poor people work extremely hard, and many rich people are quite lazy.

This entire topic is about the mindset of wanting something for free. Wanting to work 20% less for the same pay, for no apparent reason.

I actually would frame it as I’d like to maintain the same output and be less concerned about spreading it over more hours. I don’t plan to do less. But I bet I could do what is needed in 40 in 32 instead.

I can appreciate that framing. Unfortunately my hypothesis is that much like driving skills, most people think they are above-average productivity relative to the average worker. Which means most people who work 32 hours will simply be 20% less productive.

Again - that’s just my hypothesis. I could absolutely be wrong.

It would depend on how reliant the job is to other jobs, but I basically agree with you.

I think it really depends on the nature of the work. I think a lot of white collar jobs everyone is just more productive and there's a lot of time wasted every week. Sales, above, is a good example where more time really does tend to mean more productivity.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I can't speak for APK, but I don't welfare cheats (is it 1980 again already?) are very relevant to a discussion about paid work. I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same. I would be pissed if my employer added a day of work with no compensation, so I why is this reasonable?

By all means feel free to work part time. Just don't force that on me.

Exactly. My post didn’t mention poor people at all, and I explicitly noted earlier that many poor people work extremely hard, and many rich people are quite lazy.

This entire topic is about the mindset of wanting something for free. Wanting to work 20% less for the same pay, for no apparent reason.

I actually would frame it as I’d like to maintain the same output and be less concerned about spreading it over more hours. I don’t plan to do less. But I bet I could do what is needed in 40 in 32 instead.

I can appreciate that framing. Unfortunately my hypothesis is that much like driving skills, most people think they are above-average productivity relative to the average worker. Which means most people who work 32 hours will simply be 20% less productive.

Again - that’s just my hypothesis. I could absolutely be wrong.

It would depend on how reliant the job is to other jobs, but I basically agree with you.

I think it really depends on the nature of the work. I think a lot of white collar jobs everyone is just more productive and there's a lot of time wasted every week. Sales, above, is a good example where more time really does tend to mean more productivity.

A lot of “white collar jobs” are simply people pushing paper. Activity rather than productivity. “Signaling activity.”


Someday when we are better able to measure productivity of white collar jobs, compensation levels will plummet for a ton of really unproductive and unimpactful people.


Meanwhile, we keep squeezing blue collar workers……

 

[Grahamburn]

I can't speak for APK, but I don't welfare cheats (is it 1980 again already?) are very relevant to a discussion about paid work. I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same. I would be pissed if my employer added a day of work with no compensation, so I why is this reasonable?

By all means feel free to work part time. Just don't force that on me.

Exactly. My post didn’t mention poor people at all, and I explicitly noted earlier that many poor people work extremely hard, and many rich people are quite lazy.

This entire topic is about the mindset of wanting something for free. Wanting to work 20% less for the same pay, for no apparent reason.

I actually would frame it as I’d like to maintain the same output and be less concerned about spreading it over more hours. I don’t plan to do less. But I bet I could do what is needed in 40 in 32 instead.

I can appreciate that framing. Unfortunately my hypothesis is that much like driving skills, most people think they are above-average productivity relative to the average worker. Which means most people who work 32 hours will simply be 20% less productive.

Again - that’s just my hypothesis. I could absolutely be wrong.

It would depend on how reliant the job is to other jobs, but I basically agree with you.

I think it really depends on the nature of the work. I think a lot of white collar jobs everyone is just more productive and there's a lot of time wasted every week. Sales, above, is a good example where more time really does tend to mean more productivity.

A lot of “white collar jobs” are simply people pushing paper. Activity rather than productivity. “Signaling activity.”


Someday when we are better able to measure productivity of white collar jobs, compensation levels will plummet for a ton of really unproductive and unimpactful people.


Meanwhile, we keep squeezing blue collar workers……

My Dad was a carpenter and general contractor. We’ve done several renovations together over the last several years. I’m happy to say these guys (blue collar) are making significantly more money than they used to. To the point where they can live well.

 

[the moops]

I have three meetings today. Each an hour long. Not one of them couldn't be either 15 minutes each or accomplished by the one person leading the meeting writing up a document that we all could comment on.

If I was in charge -

I would have just saved 12 different people at least 2.5 hours of their workday.

I also would tell everyone they need to use the damn stairs and not wait for the one functional elevator we have in the building. Another 20 - 30 minutes saved.

 

[Desert_Power]

I can't speak for APK, but I don't welfare cheats (is it 1980 again already?) are very relevant to a discussion about paid work. I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same. I would be pissed if my employer added a day of work with no compensation, so I why is this reasonable?

By all means feel free to work part time. Just don't force that on me.

Exactly. My post didn’t mention poor people at all, and I explicitly noted earlier that many poor people work extremely hard, and many rich people are quite lazy.

This entire topic is about the mindset of wanting something for free. Wanting to work 20% less for the same pay, for no apparent reason.

I actually would frame it as I’d like to maintain the same output and be less concerned about spreading it over more hours. I don’t plan to do less. But I bet I could do what is needed in 40 in 32 instead.

I can appreciate that framing. Unfortunately my hypothesis is that much like driving skills, most people think they are above-average productivity relative to the average worker. Which means most people who work 32 hours will simply be 20% less productive.

Again - that’s just my hypothesis. I could absolutely be wrong.

It would depend on how reliant the job is to other jobs, but I basically agree with you.

I think it really depends on the nature of the work. I think a lot of white collar jobs everyone is just more productive and there's a lot of time wasted every week. Sales, above, is a good example where more time really does tend to mean more productivity.

A lot of “white collar jobs” are simply people pushing paper. Activity rather than productivity. “Signaling activity.”


Someday when we are better able to measure productivity of white collar jobs, compensation levels will plummet for a ton of really unproductive and unimpactful people.


Meanwhile, we keep squeezing blue collar workers……

I think it is going to take a broader rollout of AI to reduce a lot of this. Management actually really likes these type of BS jobs

 

[massraider]

I think it is going to take a broader rollout of AI to reduce a lot of this

Think AI will improve efficiency dramatically in some fields.

But man, if your job involves disseminating information people can get elsewhere if they knew where to look-- which is a good amount of workers, you may be on borrowed time.

 

[Max Power]

I have three meetings today. Each an hour long. Not one of them couldn't be either 15 minutes each or accomplished by the one person leading the meeting writing up a document that we all could comment on.

If I was in charge -

I would have just saved 12 different people at least 2.5 hours of their workday.

I also would tell everyone they need to use the damn stairs and not wait for the one functional elevator we have in the building. Another 20 - 30 minutes saved.

I have 5 set weekly meetings on my calendar every week. This is before I add the ones I actually need to be at. Often the bosses cancel meetings when they can't make it or have other things more pressing.

The worst part of all my meetings is that the audience is about 80% the same people and the meetings have a lot of crossover material. I'll give a manpower brief on Monday and tell the boss how much is allocated to each project. He'll then ask for updates on the projects, which I give him. But Tuesday's meeting is 100% about the project updates and I just provided all that to him on Monday.

 

[Gally]

I think it really depends on the nature of the work. I think a lot of white collar jobs everyone is just more productive and there's a lot of time wasted every week. Sales, above, is a good example where more time really does tend to mean more productivity.

It is really job dependent.

My job as a facility engineer really revolves on keeping systems up. As long as proper maintenance and upkeep is done (which is what I schedule and oversee) then I can get my job done in 20 hrs a week most weeks. However, when an unexpected monkey wrench breaks something and systems go down (power, HVAC, etc) then I am working long days and coordinating with everyone under the sun to get parts, fixes, find out why something happened and report it up the chain etc. It becomes hectic. Long hours and things have to be done now.

But if I do my job well it really is smooth without much actual work on a day to day basis.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I can't speak for APK, but I don't welfare cheats (is it 1980 again already?) are very relevant to a discussion about paid work. I'm more bothered by the folks who think they're entitled to work 20% less and be paid the same. I would be pissed if my employer added a day of work with no compensation, so I why is this reasonable?

By all means feel free to work part time. Just don't force that on me.

Exactly. My post didn’t mention poor people at all, and I explicitly noted earlier that many poor people work extremely hard, and many rich people are quite lazy.

This entire topic is about the mindset of wanting something for free. Wanting to work 20% less for the same pay, for no apparent reason.

I actually would frame it as I’d like to maintain the same output and be less concerned about spreading it over more hours. I don’t plan to do less. But I bet I could do what is needed in 40 in 32 instead.

I can appreciate that framing. Unfortunately my hypothesis is that much like driving skills, most people think they are above-average productivity relative to the average worker. Which means most people who work 32 hours will simply be 20% less productive.

Again - that’s just my hypothesis. I could absolutely be wrong.

It would depend on how reliant the job is to other jobs, but I basically agree with you.

I think it really depends on the nature of the work. I think a lot of white collar jobs everyone is just more productive and there's a lot of time wasted every week. Sales, above, is a good example where more time really does tend to mean more productivity.

A lot of “white collar jobs” are simply people pushing paper. Activity rather than productivity. “Signaling activity.”


Someday when we are better able to measure productivity of white collar jobs, compensation levels will plummet for a ton of really unproductive and unimpactful people.


Meanwhile, we keep squeezing blue collar workers……

My Dad was a carpenter and general contractor. We’ve done several renovations together over the last several years. I’m happy to say these guys (blue collar) are making significantly more money than they used to. To the point where they can live well.

A lot of “skilled trades” are doing well. Many other folks are not. I’m also happy to hear that GCs and trade contractors are doing well.

 

[NutterButter]

I don't think this is what you guys have in mind.

Large Company Is Mandating A 6-Day Work Week For All Executives To ‘Inject A Sense Of Crisis’ In Their Employees

Many companies don't realize that getting employees to work harder doesn't mean adding more days to a work week.

www.yourtango.com

 

[Grahamburn]

I don't think this is what you guys have in mind.

Large Company Is Mandating A 6-Day Work Week For All Executives To ‘Inject A Sense Of Crisis’ In Their Employees

Many companies don't realize that getting employees to work harder doesn't mean adding more days to a work week.

www.yourtango.com

Honestly think stuff like this, as well as requiring people to come back to the office more versus working remotely, is just a not so thinly veiled attempt to trim payroll.

 

[Max Power]

I don't think this is what you guys have in mind.

Large Company Is Mandating A 6-Day Work Week For All Executives To ‘Inject A Sense Of Crisis’ In Their Employees

Many companies don't realize that getting employees to work harder doesn't mean adding more days to a work week.

www.yourtango.com

Interesting article with some solid statistics. At least in Korea (Samsung) they are only forcing the executives to work the 6 days. Work staff will remain at 5. The answer to Samsung's sales issue is better quality control. Some of my best appliances have been Samsung and also my worst have also been Samsung. It absolutely pushes the brand down the list when considering options.


Another interesting line of thinking is how the more hours a person works correlates to a person's health. With more hours, a worker is sacrificing time to workout, eat right, sleep more and take care of their mental state. Over the years (burnout) will create a less functional employee. Now the company is forced to deal with a less productive employee as a result.