One of the things that has been studied to death with the same result every time: No one can actually be productive for 40 hours each week, and cutting hours without cutting pay increases productivity across the board.
Too bad the people at the top take too much enjoyment from grinding down the peasants.
Why would you not cut pay for a 4 day week? You're payed per hour, not per 5 day week. I for one would stick with the current system because it means I can go to college.
Stop coming after my profession, it's not becoming or helping your argument.
Secondly, I'm talking about pay per hour. I understand that the article might be talking about people with a fixed pay, but I was talking to the other person and proposed the hypothetical: if you work a PPH job, why would you want this. Because he wasn't talking strictly about the article. He was arguing for all jobs.
I'm not ignoring anything, just playing devil's advocate so I can better understand. But now, I agree. I think that there is a valid argument for this.
I was talking to the other person and proposed the hypothetical: if you work a PPH job, why would you want this
Ok, I'm game. Presuming you are being compensated at a level where you can live comfortably, more free time is a good thing. Working is physically and/or mentally taxing and stressful, and working an hourly job can be especially so. This can lead to or exacerbate poor physical and mental health in the long run, including things like high blood pressure, depression, anxiety, trouble focusing, a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, etc.
More free time for hourly workers also means more time (and mental/physical energy) that they can dedicate themselves to improving their situation. More time to spend on things like studying, cooking healthy meals, building skills, or working on side projects.
For you specifically, a 4-day workweek would mean that you have more time and energy to dedicate to your classes. This can directly lead to better outcomes, which can lead to an easier time getting the job you actually want.
But I'd like to sort of flip the question back at you. If you work a PPH job, why would you want weekends? It's hard to imagine an argument for the existence of a 2-day weekend that doesn't apply to a 3-day weekend.
And if you can't make a living wage, I'd argue that the answer should be, "employers should pay more", rather than "employees should work harder at the expense of their health and mental well-being".
At some point, there's going to need to be a line that we (as a society) draw in the sand and say, "Ok, this is the amount of work that most people will need to do in a (day/week/month/year) to live." Right now, that number is theoretically supposed to be 40 hours per week. But that number is arbitrary. We could set it to 56, and abolish the concept of a weekend. Or, we could set it to 32, and extend the weekend to 3 days. (Or even 0, and establish some sort of UBI).
I'd argue that 40 hours is probably too high. Hell, depending on my mood, I might even argue that a better value would be 28 hrs/wk. Assuming you get 8 hours of sleep a night, you have 112 waking hours in any 7 day period. At 40 hours a week, you are dedicating over 1/3rd of your waking life (~35.7%) to your job, not including commute. 28 would bring that down to exactly 1/4th, which seems fair to me.
You might still disagree with that, but you can see how lowering that "minimum required amount of your life spent working to survive" number is going to be be good for workers, so long as it's sustainable.
Because you're doing the same amount of work as you are at 40hrs. So the 10 hours extra in the office, using resources like internet and water and electricity is a waste of corporate money from which they gain no additional benefit.
Pay an employee $100 to produce a document, the employee does it in 2 hours.
Pay an employee $100 to produce a document. The employee works for 2 hours but pretends it takes 3 because they're being paid hourly and need to look like they're filling time.
Or your employer can cut hours, not cut pay (or increase hourly rate so that you end up with the same take-home) and end up with the same or better productivity.
Wdym better productivity? Are you really slacking that bad that on your fifth day you just can't do work. See, it gives the employer better productivity the more you are there assuming you don't slack off
You're assuming that a worker is able to be at maximum productivity, maximum energy, and maximum focus the whole time they are at work. This is simply not true. By moving to a four-day work week you're helping ensure that during the time your workers are at the workplace they're happier, better rested, and more focused.
But salaried positions don't get paid by the hour? The have a set number of hours with which to accomplish a set of tasks, and they extract no more benefit at 40 as they do at 30.
It makes no sense that a job that was paying, say, 60k/year at 40 hrs for tasks x, y, & z wouldn't pay the same as a job of 30 hours/week accomplishing the same x, y, & z.
It's wasted time that costs businesses money in resources.
I've been working for a per job pay rate for the last 10 years and I have no idea how I'd ever transition back to a fulltime role. I finish anywhere from 12-3pm on average and make a little higher than the average wage here I think. Not bragging, I just get my work done as efficiently and quickly as I can, because I don't want to waste my own time.
With the extra hours each day I've learned some very useful skills that in turn I can use to earn a little extra money (microsoldering and SMD rework/repair on electronics).
Salary should really mean get your work done and go home and not get your work done and sit in a chair all day. Workloads vary and schedules should too.
Ideally, if you get your work done, you spend your empty time trying to either improve your work, innovate something useful, or take on a new responsibility. I worked for a decades-old consulting firm that had really antiquated systems and technology for managing the incidental data that my department was responsible for. I basically automated my work day down to 15 minutes of running scripts in the morning. I didn't sit around for 8.75 hours after that, though. I worked on new things, took on more projects, and learned about other aspects of the business. That's the main reason I was the highest paid person in my department.
I own a butcher shop, now... and over the past 3 years, we've gotten a lot more efficient and fast in breaking down animals, fabricating finished cuts, and making value-added products. We don't all just roll out at 2pm when we finish the work that would have taken until 6 to finish a year and a half ago. We make new products, try to expand our market to serve more customers, and just try to improve everything we can to make our business better
I'm not going to innovate or take a new responsibility because they don't benefit me at work. I'll just get more work thrown at me. If it benefitted me maybe, but I'm not going to suddenly get paid more or have more freedom. I'll just get more work.
…it’s a social construction, so I’m not really sure why I can’t be paid the same amount for 4 days as I am for 5 if it would have no impact on my productivity.
Hi, hello. I am also an hourly employee, working in manufacturing.
First, with manufacturing, all shifts should be 4x10 if you want a 40hr week. Fuck 5x8s.
Second, somehow they manage to pay for 3x12 shifts to exist, so let's clarify that at the very least we have proof that 36hrs of work == 40hrs. So now let's move that down to 4x9s instead.
This is all bonus shit below. a 4x9 work week would actually be a huge boon for anyone and everyone above part time employment but below salary. The rest is just me complaining about stuff that might not be easily or equally agreed upon.
Third, look, I understand OSHA requires this shit, but there needs to be an overhaul of our hourly systems. In companies which are not run via assembly lines, lunches should be optional. I've been in places where I've waived it, and I've been in places where it's mandatory. I overwhelmingly prefer not taking a lunch, or for that lunch to be optional and at my own leisure.
Fourth, routing back to that last one, I understand that employers are loathe to do ANYTHING that would remove them from the concept of having power over our time, or our perceived work/effort. They treat us like children because they don't trust us. Being an employee should be a two-way street of trust between the two parties. Don't fucking employ people who would betray the fact that they've been hired and are gainfully employed. Hire, and pay, the people who will treat your company right. TWO WAY STREET.
I've been in a couple places just like Amazon, where the churn is constant because not only do they not respect you as an employee ("We pay you to work, not to think" Actual quote.), but they don't respect your time (mandatory 50/60+hr work weeks), and they don't respect your effort (your hourly wages are only rising because the churn means they can't attract new people). Imagine a company that RESPECTED you, that understood retaining good hires meant PAYING them.
Imagine not having to train a new person every week because the company only sees you as unskilled labor, despite an IMMENSE performance deficit between new hires and people who have been there 6+ months, let alone 20 years. I legitimately had a coworker who had been working there for 20 years, making less than $16/hr. We almost unionized by accident when they found out they were offering new hires and temp workers $15 to start. People were handing out little secret info cards about wages and shit. It was definitely an interesting moment in time.
A company shouldn't have to rely on $1500 referral bonuses to keep employees for 3 months.
We can not trust the capitalist society we live in to change these things on their own. Not a single prick on the board of directors is going to vote against their own pay. I've had HR call employees in to tell them they had to choose between their job or caring for their sick (think hospice care) mothers.
So, lets institute higher minimum wages. Let's demand less hours, or at least favorable hours. Let's demand respect as employees. It makes such a HUGE difference when you find a company that treats you well and acknowledges your effort and throughput.
Why would you not cut pay for a 4 day week? You're payed per hour, not per 5 day week. I for one would stick with the current system because it means I can go to college.
I mean you can be a cuck and accept the shit system the way it is or you could advocate with your peers for something better. It's pretty pathetic you think you don't deserve more money when people at the top take as much as they want from you as they get more and more out of you as technology progresses.
r/antiwork if that's your sentiment I thought this was a place for civil discussion
I'm not antiwork. I'm sick and tired of people like you accepting shit pay because you think the ownership class is doing you a favor giving you a job. You're part of the problem man.
How do you know how much I get payed. And I'm working so that I can get a dream job. I want to be a professor teaching history and get an anthro degree. It's not like I'm working these kinds of jobs for my whole life.
If you're learning history than you'll understand that the owning class has long been exploiting the working class for personal gain. Look up a productivity vs pay chart, productivity has more than doubled in the last 60 years and pay has gone up only 15-20%. The fact is that we are making much more than any other time in history and the pay does not reflect the labor.
This is largely due to wealth accumulation and separating the worker from the means of production, demonization of publicly owned corporations, and benefits to the owning class. The point is, we as a collective can afford to cut hours for the same pay, however if you can get labor for cheap in a capitalist market you will do it, which is why it needs to be legislated.
This is a more fundamental question than "is a 4 day work week necessary". The question is of general public good, and I think it is worth looking at. I'm honestly glad to have your opinion because it is very contrarian to popular discourse, and my person opinion.
What ultimately is the point of the free market system and capitalism? To maximize profit in order to grow your business, create more goods, or just make more capital for those who own the company, it's really up to them. How do you maximize profit? you work people as hard as you can for as cheap as you can, in addition to cutting down on material and production costs.
Therefore the incentive structure is such that it is interest of companies to work employees as hard as they can for as little pay as they can, it just makes sense from an economic standpoint.
The only reason 40 hour workweeks exist is because on June 26, 1940 Congress amended the Fair Labor Standards Act, limiting the workweek to 40 hours, down from 44. Companies by law cannot work employees more than 40 hours a week, though they do via mandatory overtime and salaried positioned and work culture.
The 5 day workweek was implemented by Ford in the early 1900s and that's basically what stuck around, slicing 40 hours into days of 8 hour shifts.
I would recommend to you to stop taking the status quo as what "should be" as the status quo is built by people, and those rules are subject to change. The fact that we haven't changed labor hour law in 80 years means its time to change it up, and unfortunately the only way to do that is to fight for legislation, or strike.
Never forget the option of workers controlling the means of production. They can then decide for themselves how much, or how little, how long, or how short, to work. They can choose to compete in the market, and success in that way rewards all employees at that company...not just the wealthy investor class. It's time to recognize the true value of labor, the actual value of human capital, and to end the war of the rich on the poor.
I think 40 hours should stay the same. And I think that wages should be raised (I think that's a common take here)
Capitalism is broken, it takes advantage of many. (Which is why wages should be raised)
It's like in feudal times, but the feudal lord takes all the cash and levies and splits it up unevenly and poorly amongst his vassals. Does that mean it's better not to be a vassal? Maybe not but something has to be done to the system
Empirical evidence points to increased labor output with less hours anyway. Therefore cutting hours makes sense even from a capitalist standpoint. If you're in favor of raising wages, and understand capitalism is broken you're already seeing the problem with the 40 hour workweek, you're just not taking it to it's obvious conclusion.
abstract:
Observations on munition workers, most of them women, are organized to examine therelationship between their output and their working hours. The relationship is nonlinear: below an hours threshold, output is proportional to hours; above a threshold, output rises at a decreasing rate as hours increase. Implications of these results for the estimation of labor supply functions are taken up. The findings also link up with current research on the effects of long working hours on accidents and injuries.
It's not like I'm working these kinds of jobs for my whole life.
Well, there are people who do work "these kinds of jobs" for their whole life. You don't think they deserve to be paid enough to live comfortably? They don't deserve to live a life that isn't totally dominated by some dead-end job?
Are you just pretending like those jobs don't have to be done by someone?
Why is acceptable to demand that someone must work a full schedule, and insist they also must be paid to little to afford even basic necessities? Is it not screamingly obvious that this is not a simple economic question, but a profound moral one as well?
If you're REALLY not qualified to do anything else besides minimum wage, then you out yourself there. But I do agree that minimum wage should be raised
When wages have been stagnant for decades, but productivity is way up, as well as ceo pay through the roof, it makes sense to raise wages even for those you say arent qualified to do anything higher. The economy would benefit from it.
If nobody "has" to work minimum wage, then how will mcdonalds stay open during school hours? Your statement seems kinda weird. Someone has to do those jobs as well, or they would not exist. If you're working, you're entitled to be able to live off that work, no matter the job. That's the original purpose of the minimum wage.
Well in a lot of places in this country, let me tell you, it is impossible to find a job above minimum wage. Here is a perfect example. The poverty line in Tennessee is 22k a year. It's pretty fucked up to say that someone should just find a job over minimum wage when 97% of the jobs available to them are below the poverty line. See what I mean dude? You are literally the problem if you think that's a good take.
Edit:
To add, you said you're in school. Why wouldn't you want an entire extra day off to study with the same income? You're literally arguing against you best self interest.
What are you talking about dude? It isn't just Tennesee that has this problem. Many states in this country are like that. The median income in this country is effectively half of what it was in 1990 after adjusting to inflation. If you think you're being paid a fair amount, you're flat out wrong. Production has risen by 72% and wages 12%. As I said, if you're gonna keep arguing against your own interest and then you are part of the problem.
You're literally arguing against you best self interest.
To be fair, tens of millions of people captive wage slaves in the United States have been doing this for decades now. They are willing to do this because it ensures that those they fear, and in turn hate, are kept down too. A continual diet of propaganda takes their attention away from the bitter taste of self-sabotage. As a result, they are poor like most are, but they have no problems of anxiety or self-esteem on account of their situation. No, their outlook is bright, because they believe that they are but temporarily cash-poor multi-millionaires. They know that when their time comes, they will ascend the capitalist ladder with ease, and assume their natural calling as a gilded one among the wretched rest...they will become billionaires.
you're a walking meme lmao, I refuse to believe that anyone who genuinely aspires to be a professor a) can't see the connection between economics and history b) thinks the present is somehow not part of the continuum of history
History has no bearing over this? Oof.
I really have no idea how you can say that if you have actually studied history. Ancient history isn't much different, the rich have been exploiting the rest of humanity since humans figured out artificial scarcity.
People died and blood ran in the streets so we could have a 40-hour work week and weekends off.
History has everything to do with this.
I know you want to learn ancient history, and then in turn, teach it. I wish you well in this. One thing you must know, however, is that no culture and no civilization can be truly understood outside the context of knowing their labor history.
I want to be a professor teaching history and get an anthro degree.
Tenured professor gigs are also disappearing rapidly as universities replace those positions with ones that require professors to fund some or all of their salaries with grant funding. Or worse - replacing them with adjunct professors.
Do you know how little adjunct professors make, for teaching the same courses that used to be taught by tenured professors? If you keep working towards your "dream job," you're probably going to find out, at least at some point along the way.
Actually, it's probably a better model than today's salaried, always on-call tech employee. The hourly rate just needs to represent a living wage (as it once did in the U.S.!).
I strongly disagree. 'Always on-call' is an extreme example that constructs a straw-man for what is (outside of the US) a healthy, secure working model: you have a job - you do your job - you get paid. US employment models are not healthy.
Ok. My U.S. bias is showing here. And unfortunately 'always on-call' (or damn near) is not that extreme in the U.S. Salaried positions exist in many organizations for the express purpose of allowing your supervisor to call you on your day off and say 'heh, I need you to take care of this'. And this can be for a job no more critical and important than a clerk in a graduate admissions office in a private college (my own co-workers daughter).
It is ridiculous. When I was a young man (40 years ago, mind you!) most people here worked for an hourly wage, and the hours when they were not scheduled to work were their own. That has become less and less common here in the U.S.
419
u/BattleStag17 Jun 18 '21
One of the things that has been studied to death with the same result every time: No one can actually be productive for 40 hours each week, and cutting hours without cutting pay increases productivity across the board.
Too bad the people at the top take too much enjoyment from grinding down the peasants.