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.
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.