Introducing the 4-day Work Week

[Kathandira]

This topic just came up on the radio this morning. I'd personally love to see this put in place at our company. I could use the extra time to catch up on some more around the house chores.

[Ghostpanther]

Would be great to only work 4 days a week when I worked. I prefer 0 work days a week however. Planned for and made sacrifices for my retirement. And because I did, I got to retire at age 53 when the opportunity was available.

[Applenazi]

A friend of mine believes the federal government should subsidize a four-day workweek and make it the new national standard: http://theantagonisticapple.com/#ah

[Donatello Trumpi]

4 days work week is certainly more realistic than the economically illiterate and populistic "universal basic income for all!!"

[Elegiac]

4 days work week is certainly more realistic than the economically illiterate and populisitc "universal basic income for all!!"

Exactly what is your proposed solution when automation only increases the number of long term unemployed?

[Kathandira]

How does this affect hourly workers?

As a salary employee, i'd expect to get paid my yearly salary even only working 4 days since i'm more or less on call 24/7 any way. But if you are hourly, does that mean you get paid more, or have to work more hours each of the 4 days?

[Elegiac]

How does this affect hourly workers?

As a salary employee, i'd expect to get paid my yearly salary even only working 4 days since i'm more or less on call 24/7 any way. But if you are hourly, does that mean you get paid more, or have to work more hours each of the 4 days?

The idea is the weekly rate remains the same, just with fewer hours.

[Applenazi]

The idea is the weekly rate remains the same, just with fewer hours.

And the reason why this can't work is that the company would need to hire more people to offset the lack of labor, thus increase the cost of their product or service, which causes inflation.

[Elegiac]

And the reason why this can't work is that the company would need to hire more people to offset the lack of labor, thus increase the cost of their product or service, which causes inflation.

If only we lived in a world where labor didn't represent 100% of production costs. /s

Your math is bad.

[Amerissis]

The idea is the weekly rate remains the same, just with fewer hours.

I don't think that's anyone's idea. As I said, I work 4 days, but obviously only get paid for 4 days. My coworkers get 1 FTE (about 4.1k a month), I get 0,89 FTE (3.3k). Yes, not 0,8, because our standard fulltime work week is 36 hours. Most people work 40 though, and get 4 hours extra vacation a week, so they have a lot of weeks off every year

[Applenazi]

If only we lived in a world where labor didn't represent 100% of production costs. /s

Your math is bad.

That reply is completely meaningless, and what specifically about my math is bad? I have to warn you, you're about to argue with someone that will require you to do more than simply claim to be right. You'll have to actually form whole thoughts and shit. None of this "IM RIGHT BECAUSE REASONS" garbage that so frequently seems to work at this care-bear factory.

Having your employees work less for the same money means less work gets done... for the same cost. To get the same work done you have to hire more people, which means the same work now costs MORE money to get done. Do you think the company is going to absorb that cost? I can't want to see your "good" math.

[Elegiac]

I don't think that's anyone's idea.

Aside from the thing under discussion in the OP.

Also, fun fact, not even medieval peasants worked 40 hours a week year round. You're being exploited.

[Donatello Trumpi]

Exactly what is your proposed solution when automation only increases the number of long term unemployed?

Automation has been around for decades. Also, as technology replaces some jobs, it enhances the productivity of current ones and also creates many new working opportunities.


As long as the ferility rate in the west stays the same and there is a focus on skilled migration, then the balance will be maintained and automation will be a net positive.
The majority of a populace once used to be poor farmers after all.

[Elegiac]

That reply is completely meaningless, and what specifically about my math is bad?

As I said; labor does not represent 100% of production costs, therefore prices cannot raise commensurately to cancel out the increase in employment or buying power.

Also; prices are not necessarily determined by costs. This is evident in the way some goods and services are sold at a loss, because the market is unwilling to tolerate a higher price level for the good or service being provided.

Having your employees work less for the same money means less work gets done... for the same cost. To get the same work done you have to hire more people, which means the same work now costs MORE money to get done. Do you think the company is going to absorb that cost? I can't want to see your "good" math.

Yes, I do. Because:

a) The increase in employment means more liquidity for consumers, meaning more aggregate demand that companies benefit from, and -

b) Most employees are only productive for roughly three hours a day. That's right - three out of eight.

Businesses are already clearly capable of absorbing these costs. The real challenge is overcoming the 'work till you die' mindset that has been ingrained in our culture.

- - - Updated - - -

Automation has been around for decades. Also, as technology replaces some jobs, it enhances the productivity of current ones and also creates many new working opportunities.

And these opportunities are almost universally in high skill sectors - they generally do not provide replacement employment for people lower down on the ladder, a problem only increasing as automation takes place in more and more fields.

As long as the ferility rate in the west stays the same and there is a focus on skilled migration, then the balance will be maintained and automation will be a net positive. The majority of a populace once used to be poor farmers after all.

Ah yes, the West's fertility rate that is currently below replacement to such an extent that "skilled immigration" will never make up for it.

The majority of the population also used to be employed, too. Unemployment is a feature of industrial societies, not a bug.

[Applenazi]

As I said; labor does not represent 100% of production costs, therefore prices cannot raise commensurately to cancel out the increase in employment or buying power.

Because labor doesn't represent 100% of production costs--except in all the industries where it nearly completely does of course... whoops--prices cannot... raise? Did you mean rise? Raise? Cannot raise to cancel out the increase in employment or buying power? How would reducing unemployment from 3% to whatever you think it'll get reduced to, offset the cost increase of having to hire entire employees, complete with benefits, and train them, at every business employing full-time staff?

Also; prices are not necessarily determined by costs. This is evident in the way some goods and services are sold at a loss, because the market is unwilling to tolerate a higher price level for the good or service being provided.

This means nothing, very nearly less than nothing. Selling PS4's at a loss because you know you'll make it up in the long run has nothing at all to do with paying more people to do the same amount of work. Is an argument going to be presented here at some point or are you just going to ramble?

Yes, I do. Because:

a) The increase in employment means more liquidity for consumers, meaning more aggregate demand that companies benefit from, and -

Hahaha, wow. Wow. You just described the first half of inflation, and then pretended the second half, the part where in response to consumers having more buying power, companies simply charge more for the same shit. I love this, It's like I'm talking to all the most gullible Bernie Sanders supporters at once.

Don't worry everyone, everything is going to work out because when people have more to spend, they will just have more to spend, the end. Nothing else will change, that'll be it. The end of low-income America. We solved it gang, we did it! Can you please present an argument that observable reality doesn't instantly shit all over please?

How does working less hours for the same money increase ones "liquidity"? This is fun! I mean, I'm working less, but my income hasn't gone up, it's stayed the same. Or do you mean that the extra what, 1% in the workforce because of this, will justify all of full-time America suddenly working 8 less hours? Holy fuck Will Hunting, clearly your math truly is superior.

b) Most employees are only productive for roughly three hours a day. That's right - three out of eight.

Businesses are already clearly capable of absorbing these costs. The real challenge is overcoming the 'work till you die' mindset that has been ingrained in our culture.

Capability means nothing, I never asked if they could, I asked if they would billy; and the world around us very clearly shows they would not. Jeff Bezos is capable of of employing workers that love their jobs, but he doesn't, because hes a sociopath. Sorry for the length, you just said so many things that were wrong and illogical that it took time to really wade through it all. Best part for me was the increased liquidity, I got really excited thinking about all that additional exactly-the-same-amount-of-money I'd earn working four days instead of five.

[Elegiac]

Because labor doesn't represent 100% of production costs--except in all the industries where it nearly completely does of course

Which represent a fraction of the total market. We're not talking about haute couture here, we're talking about basic things like manufacturing.

Even in the most labor heavy industries the cost rarely exceeds the realm of 70%, so...No.

... whoops--prices cannot... raise? Did you mean rise? Raise? Cannot raise to cancel out the increase in employment or buying power? How would reducing unemployment from 3% to whatever you think it'll get reduced to, offset the cost increase of having to hire entire employees, complete with benefits, and train them, at every business employing full-time staff?

Yes, I do: how do you think we got the forty hour work week in the first place.

I also don't think "benefits" in the American sense of it meaning retirement and healthcare should be the employer's responsibility either.

This means nothing, very nearly less than nothing. Selling PS4's at a loss because you know you'll make it up in the long run has nothing at all to do with paying more people to do the same amount of work. Is an argument going to be presented here at some point or are you just going to ramble?

Hahaha, wow. Wow. You just described the first half of inflation

Exactly.

The process I am describing, the one that y'all freak out about every time the words 'minimum wage' are mentioned, is literally just inflation - a phenomenon that is bad because wages are downward sticky and do not independently keep pace with the rate of inflation, as we're currently seeing in the US and other countries without strong legal or union protections.

and then pretended the second half, the part where in response to consumers having more buying power, companies simply charge more for the same shit. I love this, It's like I'm talking to all the most gullible Bernie Sanders supporters at once.

Don't worry everyone, everything is going to work out because when people have more to spend, they will just have more to spend, the end. Nothing else will change, that'll be it. The end of low-income America. We solved it gang, we did it! Can you please present an argument that observable reality doesn't instantly shit all over please?

No one is claiming that higher wages will end poverty.

Mind actually addressing the point rather than attacking a strawman?

How does working less hours for the same money increase ones "liquidity"? This is fun! I mean, I'm working less, but my income hasn't gone up, it's stayed the same. Or do you mean that the extra what, 1% in the workforce because of this, will justify all of full-time America suddenly working 8 less hours? Holy fuck Will Hunting, clearly your math truly is superior.

I was talking about consumers as a class, not consumers as individuals.

Capability means nothing, I never asked if they could, I asked if they would billy; and the world around us very clearly shows they would not. Jeff Bezos is capable of of employing workers that love their jobs, but he doesn't, because hes a sociopath. Sorry for the length, you just said so many things that were wrong and illogical that it took time to really wade through it all. Best part for me was the increased liquidity, I got really excited thinking about all that additional exactly-the-same-amount-of-money I'd earn working four days instead of five.

So your position is not that any of the points presented lack merit, it's that you don't think they will ever be implemented because billionaires are dickheads.

That's probably the wordiest non-argument I've heard in a while, but go off I guess.

[Applenazi]

Which represent a fraction of the total market. We're not talking about haute couture here, we're talking about basic things like manufacturing.

lol yeah, electricians, plumbers, builders, landscapers, the entire food service and customer service industries. Labor, people, people working totally represent only a "fraction" of the cost of business. The salary of your staff is only a "fraction" of the cost involved with running a dental or medical office. Totally. You're joking right? This is a joke? Why are you making yourself look so dumb just to desperately defend your flawed original statement?

Your usage of "haute couture" makes no sense here, it's very clear you don't know what the phrase actually means. Cringy as fuck when people use words and phrases they don't actually know the meaning of.

Even in the most labor heavy industries the cost rarely exceeds the realm of 70%, so...No.

You forgot to post the actual data backing up this claim, what an embarrassing mistake on your part. Please correct it. Also, I love how you tried to phrase that like it wasn't a huge majority, honestly adorable.

Yes, I do: how do you think we got the forty-hour work week in the first place.

… Legislation? Was that a real question? Did you not know that? Also, that statement has absolutely nothing to do with the quoted text you responded to with it. First, you still didn’t clear up the whole raise/rise thing, I want to know. And second, what does a 40-hour workweek have to do with reducing unemployment by zero to three percent offsetting the cost of reducing every full-time employees workweek by 8 hours? (hint: nothing, you’re fucking horrible at this)

I also don't think "benefits" in the American sense of it meaning retirement and healthcare should be the employer's responsibility either.

Oh, well because you personally don't think so, I guess they just won't be now. So, we'll just pretend they aren't for the sake of this argument now, okay? Jesus Christ.

Exactly.

The process I am describing, the one that y'all freak out about every time the words 'minimum wage' are mentioned, is literally just inflation - a phenomenon that is bad because wages are downward sticky and do not independently keep pace with the rate of inflation, as we're currently seeing in the US and other countries without strong legal or union protections.

Who is “y’all”?

No one is claiming that higher wages will end poverty.

Mind actually addressing the point rather than attacking a strawman?

I did address the point, you just chose not to acknowledge it, whoops. You also chose to pretend your statement about selling things at a loss never happened, so funny how people fuckup and then just move on, too cowardly to acknowledge their own failures. Anyways, let’s try again. You said:

“The increase in employment means more liquidity for consumers, meaning more aggregate demand that companies benefit from, and”
Then I pointed out all you did was describe the first half of inflation, where people have more money, and pretended the second half, where things now cost more, never happens. And do you know what you said in reply? This gem:

“Mind actually addressing the point rather than attacking a strawman?”

So, for the second time… All you did was describe the first half of inflation, where people have more money, and pretended the second half, where things now cost more, never happens. Let’s see if you can stick the landing this go-around.

I was talking about consumers as a class, not consumers as individuals.

Ohhhhh! So, customer’s as a class will have more buying power, got it. Oh wait… why? Why will they have more buying power? That’s kind of the whole argument here Will, you’re pulling this additional buying power out of nowhere. You’re saying inflation won’t happen, based on nothing, and that consumers will have more money to spend by being paid the same amount to do less work? And in what scenario does an individual buying power not move, but somehow the “classes” moves? In your mind, are those 3% of unemployed people all going to be multi-billionaires? Is that what I’m missing?

So your position is not that any of the points presented lack merit, it's that you don't think they will ever be implemented because billionaires are dickheads.

That's probably the wordiest non-argument I've heard in a while, but go off I guess.

You realize your original statement I replied to with this was also, by your definition, a “non-argument” right? Starting to get bored. The problem with this last point is our entire society as it currently exists supports my assumption, and opposes yours. You think companies will say “Oh hey, let’s pay our employees the same to do less work, and just eat the cost, the board and our shareholders will be fine with that”, and I say the opposite. Both of us can’t know the future and are just speculating, however I can reference, oh I don’t know, thousands of real-life instances where companies could have eaten the cost but instead, they put it on their employees and/or their customers. Like, do you really not understand that simple concept? You’re sitting here, arguing that companies aren’t driven by greed, and don’t think you look like a fucking fool? Okay.

haute couture... what a dipshit.
[Infraction]

Hmm four posts, honestly you held out longer than most people do before running to teacher.

[Donatello Trumpi]

- - - Updated - - -



And these opportunities are almost universally in high skill sectors - they generally do not provide replacement employment for people lower down on the ladder, a problem only increasing as automation takes place in more and more fields.



Ah yes, the West's fertility rate that is currently below replacement to such an extent that "skilled immigration" will never make up for it.

The majority of the population also used to be employed, too. Unemployment is a feature of industrial societies, not a bug.

You can predict all the new jobs in 20 years? I doubt it

Also, why do we need more people/higher fertility rate if according to you there will be fewer jobs?

[Monster Hunter]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/04/tech/...ity/index.html



What are your thoughts on the 4-day work week? Do you see this as something more and more companies will adopt? Or maybe a 6-hour work day instead? What would you prefer?

Are they gonna pay people the same wages, including those who get paid hourly and need those 5 days of work to make ends meet like the cleaners, janitors, secretary's?

If so then fine 1 days free holiday a week.

If not they can stick there offer up there arse and whistle.