Well, i made a few leaps. I will try to explain. In economics there are no free lunches. That's a pretty basic economic dogma (it might sound extreme to an outs

Well, i made a few leaps. I will try to explain. In economics there are no free lunches. That's a pretty basic economic dogma (it might sound extreme to an outsider, but take a 101 class and it's what they will tell you). So you don't really get to have your cake and eat it too. The article's 'proposal' therefore doesn't really make sense. My reaction kind of assumes people already sort of know this, perhaps intuitively. my apologies for not explaining. What pm Medvedev (as mentioned in the article) is proposing is, to me, the only interesting thing to talk about, a reduction of the lawful workweek to 32 hours. Even if he requires (as you propose) the salaries in existing contracts to stay the same countrywide, salaries for new positions will be affected as they can be set by the employer. As for those already employed, well the country is likely to be producing less because of less input (labor productivity being mainly a function of technological progress, ie, it doesnt change in the short term) and thus their trade balance will suffer, because more needs to be imported and less is available for expot. So in the end the rubble will get cheaper to make up for it and the employees get their salary deduction anyways. Whether that is the exact way the price will be paid is not certain, but what is certain is there are no free lunches in economics. Because of the reduction in salary, employees will have reduced spending power. Which is particularly relevant if you are without a partner and/or don't own a house yet. In that case, your best (and only) option to stay competitive might be to take two jobs and work 7 days a week to make up for it. I hope I made my argument more clear now.