7 ms·

I hope this is the start of a nation wide trend towards better work life balance. Production output has gone up over the past few decades and we’re expected to

I hope this is the start of a nation wide trend towards better work life balance. Production output has gone up over the past few decades and we’re expected to work the same amount of hours. I think the future probably looks something like 4 6-hour work days each week. Life is way too short and precious to be spending so much of it working for somebody else, even if you mostly do love your job.

apexalpha 5y ago
While I agree with the general sentiment I'd prefer an extra full day off in stead of working 4-6 hours a day for 5 days.
GianFabien 5y ago
Managements will have to learn to embrace results instead of mere attendance at their meetings.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  My concern with this is that we'll get result inflation. I'm not sure which is better - enforced butt in seat for 40+ hours or forcing productivity that whole time. Working in consulting I know that it's kind of a unspoken truth that even though you're billing and "working" on something, you're not always 100% working at it.
harryf 5y ago
Will be interesting to see the impact this has on children growing up in the next 10-15 years and I'd guess it's largely positive. Parents with jobs that required business travel have found they can do their job and be present for their children. And yes while it's not all positive e.g. domestic abuse stats have gone up, I would suspect the overall impact has been generally positive for families.
- giantg2 5y ago
  I would hope it's a net positive. My basic theory is that abuse stats have gone up because exposure to the parent has gone up. I would hope that abusers make up a small percentage of parents. If so, I would hope that means exposure to all the 'good' parents will yield positive results.
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  Maybe it will also change the nature of spousal relationships, as well. We can no longer collectively escape to work to avoid our problems; we must confront them and hopefully grow in the process.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
smitty1e 5y ago
> I hope this is the start of a nation wide trend towards better work life balance. Key to this is understanding the difference between capitalism and materialism. The former drives innovation and improvememt. The latter breeds envy, poorly sorted priorities, and, ultimately, misery.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "The latter breeds envy, poorly sorted priorities, and, ultimately, misery." But is not exclusive to materialism. It can be a part of capitalism. I am miserable. I have to work for food, shelter, medical care, etc. I do get some othe material items, but usually they are very cheap things for hobbies. I just never have enough time to do the things I want to do because working for my necessities takes up too much of my time.
  - smitty1e 5y ago
    You can define capitalism that way, but I would not.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      How would you define it?
      - smitty1e 5y ago
        Capitalism is buyer, seller, and marketplace with enough regulation to keep the trifecta stable. Capitalism is abstract and plural; the avarice of materialism is concrete and singular. The minimal regulation that stanilizes the sustem offers competitive feedback to mininize the tyranny of oligarchy that sets in when sellers get materialistic and buy the marketplace.
        giantg2 5y ago
        Capitalism is really about the means of production, capital, being private and for-profit. You can have buyers, sellers, and markets in other types of economies, like communism or socialism. Capitalism and materialism aren't necessarily one or the other (plural/singular concrete/abstract). They can be applied both ways since they are adjectives. You could be describing an individual act or society as a whole. The predisposition of capital ownership and control (a materialistic view) can take place in socialist or communist marketplaces too. Sure, technically the ownership is either owned by the state or the people, but really the oligarchy ruling the state are the ones with power anyways.
llampx 5y ago
To me that sounds like wishful thinking. In my experience, even talking to friends and coworkers, hours have gone up and the expectation is that you are available on IM all the time. Maybe not 24/7, but definitely more flexible than the old 9-5 expectation. On top of that, sick days are much less frequent now I daresay.
- OJFord 5y ago
  > On top of that, sick days are much less frequent now I daresay. But to be honest, that's fine/expected? There's a quite large range where I might not feel up to the commute/office (or not want to cough and sneeze at people - aside, I bet that's going to be more stigmatised in the near future) but up to doing what I can from the comfort of home where it doesn't matter that I'm curled up unshowered or whatever. I did that a couple of times even when I went in to the office five days a week - gives me something to do other than lying in bed feeling sorry for myself or doing something and feeling guilty that it's not work, and gives my employer a bit of output even if it is less than 100% (which isn't the alternative, 0 is).
- cwilkes 5y ago
  Also could be less frequent as you are exposed to less germs from people forced to go into the office when they are feeling a little under the weather. Sort of like how flu cases went down during the pandemic — with less interaction from abroad less germs are transmitted.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- andrewzah 5y ago
  "the expectation is that you are available on IM all the time. Maybe not 24/7, but definitely more flexible than the old 9-5 expectation" So talk to them about those expectations. Let them know that you won't respond outside of X hours, etc.
- hinkley 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure my coworkers have been using this to accomplish the reverse, and I have dabbled. There are times when your most important work is being available. Maybe less than some managers seem to think, but it does happen. I can go make myself a complicated snack or step outside to do some yard maintenance for half an hour here and there and still be back to my desk in 5 minutes if someone actually needs me for something. At lunch time you can usually stretch that to 15 minutes, which opens up a lot of options for errands.
hrishi 5y ago
I really don't see that happening except in the very upper echelons of work. When there's more competition, the guy willing to work longer will always win, especially if the work is such that he can work longer without a decrease in quality. We're automating more things, there's more of us around, and we're connecting job markets better every day. There's more competition.
- sgift 5y ago
  > especially if the work is such that he can work longer without a decrease in quality. So, nowhere in reality.
Aunche 5y ago
>Production output has gone up over the past few decades and we’re expected to work the same amount of hours My hypothesis is that Americans cashed in on their increased productivity by socializing at work or browsing the internet at work. In Germany, it's extremely frowned upon to talk about non-work stuff at work, so they could cash in on this increased productivity by shortening working hours.
- an_opabinia 5y ago
  > My hypothesis is that Americans cashed in on their increased productivity by socializing at work or browsing the internet at work. Many people, yes. But the beneficiaries of an increase of minimum and hourly wages, which would affect like 60+ million US workers - they show up and they just work all day, they're not socializing, they didn't cash in anything. What you're saying may be factual to some degree, but it almost universally talked about in bad faith.
  - drewmate 5y ago
    The divide between 'hourly' workers (even if paid a salary) and white-collar knowledge workers is likely the largest obstacle to changing the 40-hour workweek in the US. Many jobs, and often the highest-paid, could be nearly as productive working 4x6 instead of 5x8. However, there are lots of jobs where output really does scale linearly with input time. The obvious ones are hourly service workers in retail or restaurants, but even some 'high status' jobs really require the hours (healthcare, airlines, union manufacturing, etc...) It would really upset societal order if suddenly two once comparable jobs suddenly required drastically different time commitments. People will find all sorts of reasons to fight against a shorter workweek, but I think this is the main reason why. We like the stability of believing that everyone (or at least working people) are 'equally yoked' at least in terms of time commitment.
    - mschuster91 5y ago
      > However, there are lots of jobs where output really does scale linearly with input time. The obvious ones are hourly service workers in retail or restaurants, but even some 'high status' jobs really require the hours (healthcare, airlines, union manufacturing, etc...) With manufacturing, I disagree due to the impact of automation - especially when analyzed over a long time frame, productivity has exploded whereas the number of employees has shrunk drastically and their inflation-adjusted wages barely growing. In retail, restaurants, even in some parts of healthcare (think lab work) the situation is similar. Automation, mass manufacturing and containers (the physical things, not Docker...) have slashed costs on the input side, menial tasks like stacking shelves or cleaning got cost-cut (by outsourcing and by exploitation of undocumented workers), some places like IKEA and Amazon even eliminate the cashiers by having the customer do that themselves. The owner class has reaped all the productivity gains and given back little to the workers who made it possible, and now they are asking "why is the American/Western market for cars shrinking and the only growth in China"... well easy, too many people don't have the cash on hand to splurge on a dozens of thousands worth new car!
perfunctory 5y ago
I took a (quasi) sabbatical recently. I worked 1.5 days a week for one year. I dialed down my expenses so it was enough to pay the bills. It gave me the opportunity to work on some hobby projects, spend more time with my family and just enjoy life. It was fantastic. Now I am planning to repeat this every 5 years at least. I only wish my overworked friends did the same so I could spend more time with them as well.
- philangist 5y ago
  How were you able to set this up? It seems like a rare employer that would be open to a role like this.
  - perfunctory 5y ago
    It was indeed a rather rare situation. I guess I got a bit lucky. On the other hand, in the current job market, it doesn't seem too extraordinary.
    - mac01021 5y ago
      You did this as an employee rather than a freelancer?
  - zdbrandon 5y ago
    I did almost the exact same thing in the last year. (2 days a week) For me it came from handing in my 2 weeks notice to take some time off from a company I worked for for over 5 years at the time, and then being offered a schedule of my choosing instead. I didn’t even know it was an option, else I would have just asked instead of quitting. So if you’ve been there a while, and can afford it, I’d suggest you ask your current employer.
- wing-_-nuts 5y ago
  How on earth did you sell that to your employer?
AYBABTME 5y ago
I'm doubtful the US would be comfy becoming less productive, when competition abroad is heating up and challenging the US empire. On the contrary, I think Americans will feel challenged and a renewed sense of purpose, versus the last 30y of having no contender to measure itself with. I'm already seeing a bunch of people annectdata-ly getting into covid-inspired ventures, and all the "buy made in USA" people being vindicated by political pressure to develop advanced manufacturing within the US (and aligned countries). So I think the decrease in daily overhead from the remote-revolution will actually serve an increase in productivity, and not be budgeted toward work-life balance. I'm saying this and I've been remote for years, and promoting WLB aplenty. But my coldhearted crystal ball hints me that larger forces at play will not primarily favor WLB.
dfxm12 5y ago
Production output has gone up over the past few decades and we’re expected to work the same amount of hours. and for the same pay! https://cepr.net/this-is-what-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-kept-pace-with-productivity/ https://cepr.net/this-is-what-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-ke...
ashtonkem 5y ago
My wife works for a company that was fully remote before the pandemic, and they certainly were self-aware that being remote was a competitive advantage when it came to hiring and retaining talent. Unfortunately for them, that competitive advantage is now gone, given that they now have to compete with companies that are now remote and have deeper pockets. Our personal theory is that the next equivalent to remote work will be the four day work week. We work way too hard as a society; the 40hr work week is based off the point of diminishing returns for factory workers. There’s not a lot of reason to believe that continuing this pattern for knowledge work is desirable for the company or the employees.
- philmcp 5y ago
  Couldn't agree more! I actually just launched 4dayweek.io - Software jobs with a better work / life balance
hedora 5y ago
I’d greatly prefer 5 day weeks and 52 extra vacation days to a 4 day week.
zanderz 5y ago
People have been saying this for more than 100 years - see the old popular mechanics articles predicting a 10 hour work week due to automation's production gains, quotes from Buckminster Fuller, references to Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano", etc., but instead of coordinating these gains with one another we have left them up for grabs for whoever scrambles harder, and the baseline creeps upward. Just like the economics analogy where some people in a seated audience stand for a better view, requiring everyone to stand for more or less the same view as before but with more effort, only with some American Horatio Alger pull-yourself-up-by your-bootstraps mythology mixed in. This is not inevitable, it is policy we choose, as opposed to some European countries where workweeks have actually shrunk and retail hours are much more restricted. We have decided much of the gains from automation and better average human health and lifespan should go elsewhere.
- 1270018080 5y ago
  Corporations naturally compete in race to the bottom on labor rights, because labor rights are in direct conflict with productivity. The only way we're getting a 6 hour 4 day workweek is through legislation setting that race to the bottom at a higher threshold. That's what the minimum wage does (and also why it should be raised).
MichaelMoser123 5y ago
i think this will be an epic battle of interests inside many companies, now most companies will know that WFH just works, but: - Part of management will be against WFH, as they want to have their workers under direct control, politics is much easier this way. - Finances will like the idea of having to rent less office space. I am getting popcorn for this fight.

apexalpha 5y ago

While I agree with the general sentiment I'd prefer an extra full day off in stead of working 4-6 hours a day for 5 days.

GianFabien 5y ago

Managements will have to learn to embrace results instead of mere attendance at their meetings.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
My concern with this is that we'll get result inflation. I'm not sure which is better - enforced butt in seat for 40+ hours or forcing productivity that whole time. Working in consulting I know that it's kind of a unspoken truth that even though you're billing and "working" on something, you're not always 100% working at it.

harryf 5y ago

Will be interesting to see the impact this has on children growing up in the next 10-15 years and I'd guess it's largely positive. Parents with jobs that required business travel have found they can do their job and be present for their children. And yes while it's not all positive e.g. domestic abuse stats have gone up, I would suspect the overall impact has been generally positive for families.

giantg2 5y ago
I would hope it's a net positive. My basic theory is that abuse stats have gone up because exposure to the parent has gone up. I would hope that abusers make up a small percentage of parents. If so, I would hope that means exposure to all the 'good' parents will yield positive results.
nathanaldensr 5y ago
Maybe it will also change the nature of spousal relationships, as well. We can no longer collectively escape to work to avoid our problems; we must confront them and hopefully grow in the process.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

smitty1e 5y ago

> I hope this is the start of a nation wide trend towards better work life balance. Key to this is understanding the difference between capitalism and materialism. The former drives innovation and improvememt. The latter breeds envy, poorly sorted priorities, and, ultimately, misery.

giantg2 5y ago
"The latter breeds envy, poorly sorted priorities, and, ultimately, misery." But is not exclusive to materialism. It can be a part of capitalism. I am miserable. I have to work for food, shelter, medical care, etc. I do get some othe material items, but usually they are very cheap things for hobbies. I just never have enough time to do the things I want to do because working for my necessities takes up too much of my time.
- smitty1e 5y ago
  You can define capitalism that way, but I would not.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    How would you define it?
    - smitty1e 5y ago
      Capitalism is buyer, seller, and marketplace with enough regulation to keep the trifecta stable. Capitalism is abstract and plural; the avarice of materialism is concrete and singular. The minimal regulation that stanilizes the sustem offers competitive feedback to mininize the tyranny of oligarchy that sets in when sellers get materialistic and buy the marketplace.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Capitalism is really about the means of production, capital, being private and for-profit. You can have buyers, sellers, and markets in other types of economies, like communism or socialism. Capitalism and materialism aren't necessarily one or the other (plural/singular concrete/abstract). They can be applied both ways since they are adjectives. You could be describing an individual act or society as a whole. The predisposition of capital ownership and control (a materialistic view) can take place in socialist or communist marketplaces too. Sure, technically the ownership is either owned by the state or the people, but really the oligarchy ruling the state are the ones with power anyways.

llampx 5y ago

To me that sounds like wishful thinking. In my experience, even talking to friends and coworkers, hours have gone up and the expectation is that you are available on IM all the time. Maybe not 24/7, but definitely more flexible than the old 9-5 expectation. On top of that, sick days are much less frequent now I daresay.

OJFord 5y ago
> On top of that, sick days are much less frequent now I daresay. But to be honest, that's fine/expected? There's a quite large range where I might not feel up to the commute/office (or not want to cough and sneeze at people - aside, I bet that's going to be more stigmatised in the near future) but up to doing what I can from the comfort of home where it doesn't matter that I'm curled up unshowered or whatever. I did that a couple of times even when I went in to the office five days a week - gives me something to do other than lying in bed feeling sorry for myself or doing something and feeling guilty that it's not work, and gives my employer a bit of output even if it is less than 100% (which isn't the alternative, 0 is).
cwilkes 5y ago
Also could be less frequent as you are exposed to less germs from people forced to go into the office when they are feeling a little under the weather. Sort of like how flu cases went down during the pandemic — with less interaction from abroad less germs are transmitted.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
andrewzah 5y ago
"the expectation is that you are available on IM all the time. Maybe not 24/7, but definitely more flexible than the old 9-5 expectation" So talk to them about those expectations. Let them know that you won't respond outside of X hours, etc.
hinkley 5y ago
I'm pretty sure my coworkers have been using this to accomplish the reverse, and I have dabbled. There are times when your most important work is being available. Maybe less than some managers seem to think, but it does happen. I can go make myself a complicated snack or step outside to do some yard maintenance for half an hour here and there and still be back to my desk in 5 minutes if someone actually needs me for something. At lunch time you can usually stretch that to 15 minutes, which opens up a lot of options for errands.

hrishi 5y ago

I really don't see that happening except in the very upper echelons of work. When there's more competition, the guy willing to work longer will always win, especially if the work is such that he can work longer without a decrease in quality. We're automating more things, there's more of us around, and we're connecting job markets better every day. There's more competition.

sgift 5y ago
> especially if the work is such that he can work longer without a decrease in quality. So, nowhere in reality.

Aunche 5y ago

>Production output has gone up over the past few decades and we’re expected to work the same amount of hours My hypothesis is that Americans cashed in on their increased productivity by socializing at work or browsing the internet at work. In Germany, it's extremely frowned upon to talk about non-work stuff at work, so they could cash in on this increased productivity by shortening working hours.

an_opabinia 5y ago
> My hypothesis is that Americans cashed in on their increased productivity by socializing at work or browsing the internet at work. Many people, yes. But the beneficiaries of an increase of minimum and hourly wages, which would affect like 60+ million US workers - they show up and they just work all day, they're not socializing, they didn't cash in anything. What you're saying may be factual to some degree, but it almost universally talked about in bad faith.
- drewmate 5y ago
  The divide between 'hourly' workers (even if paid a salary) and white-collar knowledge workers is likely the largest obstacle to changing the 40-hour workweek in the US. Many jobs, and often the highest-paid, could be nearly as productive working 4x6 instead of 5x8. However, there are lots of jobs where output really does scale linearly with input time. The obvious ones are hourly service workers in retail or restaurants, but even some 'high status' jobs really require the hours (healthcare, airlines, union manufacturing, etc...) It would really upset societal order if suddenly two once comparable jobs suddenly required drastically different time commitments. People will find all sorts of reasons to fight against a shorter workweek, but I think this is the main reason why. We like the stability of believing that everyone (or at least working people) are 'equally yoked' at least in terms of time commitment.
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    > However, there are lots of jobs where output really does scale linearly with input time. The obvious ones are hourly service workers in retail or restaurants, but even some 'high status' jobs really require the hours (healthcare, airlines, union manufacturing, etc...) With manufacturing, I disagree due to the impact of automation - especially when analyzed over a long time frame, productivity has exploded whereas the number of employees has shrunk drastically and their inflation-adjusted wages barely growing. In retail, restaurants, even in some parts of healthcare (think lab work) the situation is similar. Automation, mass manufacturing and containers (the physical things, not Docker...) have slashed costs on the input side, menial tasks like stacking shelves or cleaning got cost-cut (by outsourcing and by exploitation of undocumented workers), some places like IKEA and Amazon even eliminate the cashiers by having the customer do that themselves. The owner class has reaped all the productivity gains and given back little to the workers who made it possible, and now they are asking "why is the American/Western market for cars shrinking and the only growth in China"... well easy, too many people don't have the cash on hand to splurge on a dozens of thousands worth new car!

perfunctory 5y ago

I took a (quasi) sabbatical recently. I worked 1.5 days a week for one year. I dialed down my expenses so it was enough to pay the bills. It gave me the opportunity to work on some hobby projects, spend more time with my family and just enjoy life. It was fantastic. Now I am planning to repeat this every 5 years at least. I only wish my overworked friends did the same so I could spend more time with them as well.

philangist 5y ago
How were you able to set this up? It seems like a rare employer that would be open to a role like this.
- perfunctory 5y ago
  It was indeed a rather rare situation. I guess I got a bit lucky. On the other hand, in the current job market, it doesn't seem too extraordinary.
  - mac01021 5y ago
    You did this as an employee rather than a freelancer?
- zdbrandon 5y ago
  I did almost the exact same thing in the last year. (2 days a week) For me it came from handing in my 2 weeks notice to take some time off from a company I worked for for over 5 years at the time, and then being offered a schedule of my choosing instead. I didn’t even know it was an option, else I would have just asked instead of quitting. So if you’ve been there a while, and can afford it, I’d suggest you ask your current employer.
wing-_-nuts 5y ago
How on earth did you sell that to your employer?

AYBABTME 5y ago

I'm doubtful the US would be comfy becoming less productive, when competition abroad is heating up and challenging the US empire. On the contrary, I think Americans will feel challenged and a renewed sense of purpose, versus the last 30y of having no contender to measure itself with. I'm already seeing a bunch of people annectdata-ly getting into covid-inspired ventures, and all the "buy made in USA" people being vindicated by political pressure to develop advanced manufacturing within the US (and aligned countries). So I think the decrease in daily overhead from the remote-revolution will actually serve an increase in productivity, and not be budgeted toward work-life balance. I'm saying this and I've been remote for years, and promoting WLB aplenty. But my coldhearted crystal ball hints me that larger forces at play will not primarily favor WLB.

dfxm12 5y ago

Production output has gone up over the past few decades and we’re expected to work the same amount of hours. and for the same pay! https://cepr.net/this-is-what-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-kept-pace-with-productivity/ https://cepr.net/this-is-what-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-ke...

ashtonkem 5y ago

My wife works for a company that was fully remote before the pandemic, and they certainly were self-aware that being remote was a competitive advantage when it came to hiring and retaining talent. Unfortunately for them, that competitive advantage is now gone, given that they now have to compete with companies that are now remote and have deeper pockets. Our personal theory is that the next equivalent to remote work will be the four day work week. We work way too hard as a society; the 40hr work week is based off the point of diminishing returns for factory workers. There’s not a lot of reason to believe that continuing this pattern for knowledge work is desirable for the company or the employees.

philmcp 5y ago
Couldn't agree more! I actually just launched 4dayweek.io - Software jobs with a better work / life balance

hedora 5y ago

I’d greatly prefer 5 day weeks and 52 extra vacation days to a 4 day week.

zanderz 5y ago

People have been saying this for more than 100 years - see the old popular mechanics articles predicting a 10 hour work week due to automation's production gains, quotes from Buckminster Fuller, references to Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano", etc., but instead of coordinating these gains with one another we have left them up for grabs for whoever scrambles harder, and the baseline creeps upward. Just like the economics analogy where some people in a seated audience stand for a better view, requiring everyone to stand for more or less the same view as before but with more effort, only with some American Horatio Alger pull-yourself-up-by your-bootstraps mythology mixed in. This is not inevitable, it is policy we choose, as opposed to some European countries where workweeks have actually shrunk and retail hours are much more restricted. We have decided much of the gains from automation and better average human health and lifespan should go elsewhere.

1270018080 5y ago
Corporations naturally compete in race to the bottom on labor rights, because labor rights are in direct conflict with productivity. The only way we're getting a 6 hour 4 day workweek is through legislation setting that race to the bottom at a higher threshold. That's what the minimum wage does (and also why it should be raised).

MichaelMoser123 5y ago

i think this will be an epic battle of interests inside many companies, now most companies will know that WFH just works, but: - Part of management will be against WFH, as they want to have their workers under direct control, politics is much easier this way. - Finances will like the idea of having to rent less office space. I am getting popcorn for this fight.