4 ms·

I don't know ANYONE who would be happier if they got a 25% pay cut except for, maybe, single hippies who want to smoke dope all day and have no responsibilities

I don't know ANYONE who would be happier if they got a 25% pay cut except for, maybe, single hippies who want to smoke dope all day and have no responsibilities. The average person, on the other hand, and particularly those with kids, would be devastated by a 25% cut in pay. While a 25% pay cut sounds extreme, my wife took a 20% pay cut to work a 4 day week and she's never been happier. She has more time to do the things she wants to do. Since I spend so much time working after hours, I'm not sure it would be such a good deal for me -- I'd still tend to work even on my "day off". Good thing I enjoy my job.

vacri 10y ago
There's definitely a difference in the pay packets between skilled workers and minimum wagers. Folks on a decent salary can definitely afford to trade some money for time. The flip side of the coin is that the better-paying jobs tend to also be more enjoyable than the scrub jobs. I love my current job as a sysadmin, and am happy to work a full week, but back when I was on phone support, I would have loved to have carved a day off if I could have lived on the remainder...
squozzer 10y ago
Which I think leads us to a reasonable question, perhaps appropriate for a phase 2 implementation -- did anyone ASK the nurses if they would take a 25% pay cut? Not wanting to play Masters Of The Universe with Swedish nurses or anything, but wouldn't it be possible for Gothenburg to have two nursing homes, one with 6-hour shifts and the other with 8? Set pay on an hourly scale. Then see who goes where. But getting to the 25% pay cut point, we should at least acknowledge that tinkering with work weeks will have repercussions, some predictable (e.g. will teachers benefit?) and some not.
rebootthesystem 10y ago
Yours isn't a valid example. Did your household income go down by 25%. In other words, if a law was passed that nobody could work more than 6 hours a day, five days a week your family would be severely affected. At that point it is almost guaranteed your wife (and you) would not be happy because your life would change accordingly. That's my point. Sure, in a case where a spouse can make-up the loss or there's an income surplus a change in income might not be traumatic. My wife could stop working entirely and we would probably not even notice. Yet that's not typical at all, is it?
- Johnny555 10y ago
  You said "I don't know ANYONE...", and I gave a counter example of how SOMEONE might choose to take a pay cut in return for fewer hours. While our household income didn't go down by 20%, her own disposable income did go down by 20% (actually more than that since she kept her 401k contribution the same, she pays a fixed amount for health care so that ended up being a higher percentage of her income, and her transit pass was not any cheaper even though she only needed it 4 days a week instead of 5). Our needs are pretty modest compared to our income, we try to live below our means... if a law were passed that no one could work more than 6 hours/day, we'd get along just fine. I took a 15% pay cut just to move to a job closer to home - I gave up a 60 - 90 minute commute in exchange for a 10 minute bike commute.
tuwtuwtuw 10y ago
I'm being at-home-dad one day a week, so I have also reduced my working hours with 20%. In Sweden, salary over a certain amount is taxed with somewhere around 60% (not the full salary, only the part over a certain threshold). I haven't bothered looking up the exact figures but a reduction of working hours with 20% had led to an actual salary decrease around 10% due to these taxing rules. In my view this is a damn good deal. I get a full day of and only pay 10% of my salary for it. (I too enjoy my job a lot and work after hours but the extra day of still means I get much more relaxing weekends).
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
laughfactory 10y ago
I'd happily take this trade-off: work less (in a professional, salaried position) and get paid proportionally less. I'd love to work a 24 or 32 hour work week at 20-40% less salary. I value my time more than I value money.

vacri 10y ago

There's definitely a difference in the pay packets between skilled workers and minimum wagers. Folks on a decent salary can definitely afford to trade some money for time. The flip side of the coin is that the better-paying jobs tend to also be more enjoyable than the scrub jobs. I love my current job as a sysadmin, and am happy to work a full week, but back when I was on phone support, I would have loved to have carved a day off if I could have lived on the remainder...

squozzer 10y ago

Which I think leads us to a reasonable question, perhaps appropriate for a phase 2 implementation -- did anyone ASK the nurses if they would take a 25% pay cut? Not wanting to play Masters Of The Universe with Swedish nurses or anything, but wouldn't it be possible for Gothenburg to have two nursing homes, one with 6-hour shifts and the other with 8? Set pay on an hourly scale. Then see who goes where. But getting to the 25% pay cut point, we should at least acknowledge that tinkering with work weeks will have repercussions, some predictable (e.g. will teachers benefit?) and some not.

rebootthesystem 10y ago

Yours isn't a valid example. Did your household income go down by 25%. In other words, if a law was passed that nobody could work more than 6 hours a day, five days a week your family would be severely affected. At that point it is almost guaranteed your wife (and you) would not be happy because your life would change accordingly. That's my point. Sure, in a case where a spouse can make-up the loss or there's an income surplus a change in income might not be traumatic. My wife could stop working entirely and we would probably not even notice. Yet that's not typical at all, is it?

Johnny555 10y ago
You said "I don't know ANYONE...", and I gave a counter example of how SOMEONE might choose to take a pay cut in return for fewer hours. While our household income didn't go down by 20%, her own disposable income did go down by 20% (actually more than that since she kept her 401k contribution the same, she pays a fixed amount for health care so that ended up being a higher percentage of her income, and her transit pass was not any cheaper even though she only needed it 4 days a week instead of 5). Our needs are pretty modest compared to our income, we try to live below our means... if a law were passed that no one could work more than 6 hours/day, we'd get along just fine. I took a 15% pay cut just to move to a job closer to home - I gave up a 60 - 90 minute commute in exchange for a 10 minute bike commute.

tuwtuwtuw 10y ago

I'm being at-home-dad one day a week, so I have also reduced my working hours with 20%. In Sweden, salary over a certain amount is taxed with somewhere around 60% (not the full salary, only the part over a certain threshold). I haven't bothered looking up the exact figures but a reduction of working hours with 20% had led to an actual salary decrease around 10% due to these taxing rules. In my view this is a damn good deal. I get a full day of and only pay 10% of my salary for it. (I too enjoy my job a lot and work after hours but the extra day of still means I get much more relaxing weekends).

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

laughfactory 10y ago

I'd happily take this trade-off: work less (in a professional, salaried position) and get paid proportionally less. I'd love to work a 24 or 32 hour work week at 20-40% less salary. I value my time more than I value money.