4 ms·

I think a three day weekend should be a societal goal we strive for, as productivity per worker goes up. Let's use our extra wealth to give people some more lei

I think a three day weekend should be a societal goal we strive for, as productivity per worker goes up. Let's use our extra wealth to give people some more leisure time. Besides there's a good chance people will probably get the same amount of work done with four days as five.

eyelidlessness 10y ago
What is the productivity threshold? How will workers hold anyone accountable for this? These questions arise from the fact that profits and productivity have soared, while employment and most people's incomes have stagnated or dropped.
TaylorAlexander 10y ago
I agree wholeheartedly, but I wanted to provide an alternative choice of language that I think better describes what we must do: Rather than: "Let's use our extra wealth to give people some more leisure time." We could say: "Let's use our extra wealth to take more leisure time for ourselves." My life goal is to help end the necessity of human work for our survival, and I think it's critically important that we understand that this will only happen if we take the time. John Maynard Keynes famously predicted in 1930 that as productivity rose, working hours would drop and at some point we would all be working 15 hour work weeks. That didn't happen though, and it seems in a huge part related to the fact that, as productivity rose business owners turned that in to profit for themselves rather than sharing the profits with workers. So suggesting business owners "give" us that time seems unlikely, and I think we need to take it for ourselves. We can do that by becoming business owners ourselves, either by joining a cooperative[1] or by starting our own business, or we can do that by earning a high enough salary that working 4/5 as much would still pay the bills, and then negotiating hard with prospective employers until you find one that needs you enough to accept a 32 hour a week schedule. Anyway, I'm completely agreeing with you, I've just spent a lot of time thinking (and writing) about this and I think the language of suggesting we "give" this to workers critically misses out on the workers' agency and ability to take what they want for themselves. Certainly, achieving this will not be easy and there are many problems, but I think it's a goal so worth achieving that we ought to work hard to figure that out. [1] For more information on the benefits of a cooperative-business based economy, see the excellent book "Democracy at Work" By Richard Wolff: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13591849-democracy-at-work http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13591849-democracy-at-wor...
- cmurf 10y ago
  OK I'm lost on "We could say: "Let's use our extra wealth to take more leisure time for ourselves."" and how you square that with the gap between median wage and median housing cost. What extra wealth are you talking about? I suppose if you say everyone who wants a bit bit more leisure time should leave cities for cheaper places it works out monetarily, but then people have to move.
  - TaylorAlexander 10y ago
    I think I explicitly answered your question in my comment - it involves taking more wealth for ourselves by refusing to work for bosses who take it all from us, or by becoming so valuable to those bosses that you command a high enough salary to take more time for yourself. The median income is low because a small fraction of people take a large fraction of the wealth. But workers could leave wage jobs and become co-owners in a cooperative business, where wealth gains would be shared by all. Does that make sense?
    - shostack 10y ago
      Where are all of these co-ops then? If people in in-demand fields struggle to find places with good work life balance, it seems that owners don't find it beneficial to themselves to adopt such a model or more would have done so, no? Almost a chicken and egg problem.
- jhoechtl 10y ago
  > as productivity rose business owners turned that in to profit for themselves rather than sharing the profits with workers. You hit the nail. This is exactly the reason why the 15 hour workweek did't arrive. And unless systemic changes happen it is also the reason why a market requires regulation.
CuriouslyC 10y ago
The problem is, most Americans don't know what to do with leisure time. It actually causes them distress. We need to figure out how to get people engaged in other pursuits before we disengage them from work.
- ux-app 10y ago
  this is the most depressing thing I'v read in a long time.
- MollyR 10y ago
  Is this really true ? Most of the distress I've seen in my friends is due to bills and student debt, when they have leisure time, their legitimate worries consume them.
- zebraflask 10y ago
  There is definitely a grain of truth to that statement. After 40+ hours of work every week, when a day or two hits with nothing to do, it can be difficult to know what to do with yourself. The mindset of needing to be constantly working starts to become embedded.
  - ashark 10y ago
    IMO it's tough to do anything with yourself on the weekends with only two days off. There's not enough time to start to do things of consequence, as the two days are mostly spent recovering from the previous 5. 5 days of work. Get up, get self ready, get kids ready, get kids to school, work, get home, feed kids, get kids to bed. Too mentally tired to do anything now, and if it's not summer then the Sun's either down or going down. Hope you didn't need to mow the damn lawn again, or your evening's really shot. Day 6, spend actually quality time with kids (finally!), begin to recover from the work week. Day 7, starting to feel like a real human again, maybe do just a little stuff for one's self, get the house in order after 6 days of chaos, do other necessary stuff that was deferred during the work week. Day 8: five days of work starts over.
  - ionised 10y ago
    > The mindset of needing to be constantly working starts to become embedded. Can't say I agree. On the contrary, 2 days off and I would have nowhere near the time I would like to do all the things I want to do.
jnordwick 10y ago
Let everybody decide their own amount of leisure to work levels. We don't need a nation-wide policy to push for some standardized level. Depending on age, career advancement, family responsibilities, and a number of other factors that can be a very different calculation for people. Some people might be more willing to trade future leisure for current work more than others.
- surfmike 10y ago
  Perhaps. Our current two-day weekend doesn't prevent people from working weekends either. But most jobs stick to a 5 days/week norm. Hard to do less than that unless the norm changes.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  How do you propose we get to that sort of environment without some laws to push it? I mean, theoretically folks can do that now, but not realistically. A great number of people can't afford to take time off after having a baby, take unpaid vacations, work 32 hours instead of 40. Many employers wouldn't allow such things. Policy is how we get to the point there is choice. A short workweek, vacation time, and policies that allow for family or self-care means one can choose overtime: Choose a second job: Choose to work a seasonal job during their vacation. Choose to take time off of their job to take care of family obligations, choose to stay home from work when sick. Sure, theoretically you can choose some of these things, but you might not be able to afford housing or food or ensure you still have a job if your 2 children get sick a few times in a year. Some folks won't hire someone that isn't willing to put in the time, etc. The whole point is that you have to have an environment where you have that sort of choice. And I can't see us getting there without legislation.
grecy 10y ago
> Let's use our extra wealth to give people some more leisure time. I agree wholeheartedly, though unfortunately increased productivity is just being used to increase profit margins. I didn't want to sit around and "wait for it to happen" so I just started doing this myself - taking tons of unpaid leave every year, and even completely quitting so my average days worked in the last ~10 years is something below 50%. I'm much happier for it.

eyelidlessness 10y ago

What is the productivity threshold? How will workers hold anyone accountable for this? These questions arise from the fact that profits and productivity have soared, while employment and most people's incomes have stagnated or dropped.

TaylorAlexander 10y ago

I agree wholeheartedly, but I wanted to provide an alternative choice of language that I think better describes what we must do: Rather than: "Let's use our extra wealth to give people some more leisure time." We could say: "Let's use our extra wealth to take more leisure time for ourselves." My life goal is to help end the necessity of human work for our survival, and I think it's critically important that we understand that this will only happen if we take the time. John Maynard Keynes famously predicted in 1930 that as productivity rose, working hours would drop and at some point we would all be working 15 hour work weeks. That didn't happen though, and it seems in a huge part related to the fact that, as productivity rose business owners turned that in to profit for themselves rather than sharing the profits with workers. So suggesting business owners "give" us that time seems unlikely, and I think we need to take it for ourselves. We can do that by becoming business owners ourselves, either by joining a cooperative[1] or by starting our own business, or we can do that by earning a high enough salary that working 4/5 as much would still pay the bills, and then negotiating hard with prospective employers until you find one that needs you enough to accept a 32 hour a week schedule. Anyway, I'm completely agreeing with you, I've just spent a lot of time thinking (and writing) about this and I think the language of suggesting we "give" this to workers critically misses out on the workers' agency and ability to take what they want for themselves. Certainly, achieving this will not be easy and there are many problems, but I think it's a goal so worth achieving that we ought to work hard to figure that out. [1] For more information on the benefits of a cooperative-business based economy, see the excellent book "Democracy at Work" By Richard Wolff: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13591849-democracy-at-work http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13591849-democracy-at-wor...

cmurf 10y ago
OK I'm lost on "We could say: "Let's use our extra wealth to take more leisure time for ourselves."" and how you square that with the gap between median wage and median housing cost. What extra wealth are you talking about? I suppose if you say everyone who wants a bit bit more leisure time should leave cities for cheaper places it works out monetarily, but then people have to move.
- TaylorAlexander 10y ago
  I think I explicitly answered your question in my comment - it involves taking more wealth for ourselves by refusing to work for bosses who take it all from us, or by becoming so valuable to those bosses that you command a high enough salary to take more time for yourself. The median income is low because a small fraction of people take a large fraction of the wealth. But workers could leave wage jobs and become co-owners in a cooperative business, where wealth gains would be shared by all. Does that make sense?
  - shostack 10y ago
    Where are all of these co-ops then? If people in in-demand fields struggle to find places with good work life balance, it seems that owners don't find it beneficial to themselves to adopt such a model or more would have done so, no? Almost a chicken and egg problem.
jhoechtl 10y ago
> as productivity rose business owners turned that in to profit for themselves rather than sharing the profits with workers. You hit the nail. This is exactly the reason why the 15 hour workweek did't arrive. And unless systemic changes happen it is also the reason why a market requires regulation.

CuriouslyC 10y ago

The problem is, most Americans don't know what to do with leisure time. It actually causes them distress. We need to figure out how to get people engaged in other pursuits before we disengage them from work.

ux-app 10y ago
this is the most depressing thing I'v read in a long time.
MollyR 10y ago
Is this really true ? Most of the distress I've seen in my friends is due to bills and student debt, when they have leisure time, their legitimate worries consume them.
zebraflask 10y ago
There is definitely a grain of truth to that statement. After 40+ hours of work every week, when a day or two hits with nothing to do, it can be difficult to know what to do with yourself. The mindset of needing to be constantly working starts to become embedded.
- ashark 10y ago
  IMO it's tough to do anything with yourself on the weekends with only two days off. There's not enough time to start to do things of consequence, as the two days are mostly spent recovering from the previous 5. 5 days of work. Get up, get self ready, get kids ready, get kids to school, work, get home, feed kids, get kids to bed. Too mentally tired to do anything now, and if it's not summer then the Sun's either down or going down. Hope you didn't need to mow the damn lawn again, or your evening's really shot. Day 6, spend actually quality time with kids (finally!), begin to recover from the work week. Day 7, starting to feel like a real human again, maybe do just a little stuff for one's self, get the house in order after 6 days of chaos, do other necessary stuff that was deferred during the work week. Day 8: five days of work starts over.
- ionised 10y ago
  > The mindset of needing to be constantly working starts to become embedded. Can't say I agree. On the contrary, 2 days off and I would have nowhere near the time I would like to do all the things I want to do.

jnordwick 10y ago

Let everybody decide their own amount of leisure to work levels. We don't need a nation-wide policy to push for some standardized level. Depending on age, career advancement, family responsibilities, and a number of other factors that can be a very different calculation for people. Some people might be more willing to trade future leisure for current work more than others.

surfmike 10y ago
Perhaps. Our current two-day weekend doesn't prevent people from working weekends either. But most jobs stick to a 5 days/week norm. Hard to do less than that unless the norm changes.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
How do you propose we get to that sort of environment without some laws to push it? I mean, theoretically folks can do that now, but not realistically. A great number of people can't afford to take time off after having a baby, take unpaid vacations, work 32 hours instead of 40. Many employers wouldn't allow such things. Policy is how we get to the point there is choice. A short workweek, vacation time, and policies that allow for family or self-care means one can choose overtime: Choose a second job: Choose to work a seasonal job during their vacation. Choose to take time off of their job to take care of family obligations, choose to stay home from work when sick. Sure, theoretically you can choose some of these things, but you might not be able to afford housing or food or ensure you still have a job if your 2 children get sick a few times in a year. Some folks won't hire someone that isn't willing to put in the time, etc. The whole point is that you have to have an environment where you have that sort of choice. And I can't see us getting there without legislation.

grecy 10y ago

> Let's use our extra wealth to give people some more leisure time. I agree wholeheartedly, though unfortunately increased productivity is just being used to increase profit margins. I didn't want to sit around and "wait for it to happen" so I just started doing this myself - taking tons of unpaid leave every year, and even completely quitting so my average days worked in the last ~10 years is something below 50%. I'm much happier for it.