The article actually boils down to (quote): > I think not. Another note the author makes: > a productivity drive without shorter work hours might increase ou

The article actually boils down to (quote): > I think not. Another note the author makes: > a productivity drive without shorter work hours might increase output, so there would still be a trade-off. This could also be interpreted as an incentive to go to a 6 day work week. The article is obviously written mostly from an employer's point of view. But in all reality productivity has gone up in the past 4 decades with no meaningful increase in pay [0]. Given the current productivity levels maybe it no longer makes sense to look at the work week only as a measure of employer happiness but also think of employee happiness. The current work week is designed almost exclusively around maximizing the employer's benefit in the quest for ever increasing profits. Something that's often overlooked because employers have far greater bargaining power than employees. Any decrease in productivity could be easily offset by increasing the workforce with benefits across the board (unemployment/economy/etc.). Except for the employer. Which is why nobody touches the work week and pay is linked to time worked instead of productivity. Also another relevant discussion on HN [1]. [0] https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Ftimworstall%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F10%2Fwagescompensation-1200x1093.jpg https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19253364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19253364