4 ms·

That argument was used against a lot of things that turned out to be a good thing, like the 40 hour work week. What’s your suggesting other than naysaying this

That argument was used against a lot of things that turned out to be a good thing, like the 40 hour work week. What’s your suggesting other than naysaying this trial?

bpodgursky 5y ago
I'm suggesting we have 0 data, and this study is nothing more than an opportunity for people to advocate for the policies they wanted anyway. Which is fine, you can say that 4-day weeks is better b/c it's nicer! That's ok! Just don't try to dress this fluff up as science.
- soganess 5y ago
  That just seems like moving the goal post. Without a trial to explore efficacy, it is a pie-in-the-sky idea that shouldn't be taken seriously. When a trial happens...well this trial isn't really indicative of how people will truly behave when not in trial... we should just discount the results. I guess there really are no true Scotsman in Iceland.
- npunt 5y ago
  This was a four year study involving 2500 participants. You may feel the evidence is insufficient to make the policy changes they did as a result, but if you feel this is fluff dressed up as science it might be nice to understand what you found problematic about this study's methods for it to not qualify as adding to the body of scientific evidence we have on this topic.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  > I'm suggesting we have 0 data But you’d be wrong, because we now have some data. You can argue the quality of the data is insufficient to draw a conclusion, but it seems… extreme to argue that the data that was collected has 0 value.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    One gets the feeling that the issue is less “we don’t have any data” and more “I disagree with what the data is saying”.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
SilverRed 5y ago
They raise a good point. I would expect a huge boost in productivity during a trial period as workers are hyped about the change and want to prove it works. But that they may eventually wear out and return to normal but with less hours now. I don't think OP is suggesting that the findings are outright wrong, but that long term studies are required to know exactly how things play out. We have so many short term trial results but none that I have seen which show the effects after multiple years.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
  I can attest to a pattern of management introducing a change and realizing substantial benefits that don’t hold up over time. For whatever reason, the initial boost isn’t sustained and some other change is introduced in order to boost numbers and the process repeats. Now I personally would love a shorter work week. I actually think much of the 8-hour workday is chock full of non productive time that can be cut safely. But I see what the other user is getting at. Just because this study produced great results it doesn’t mean that this change produces sustainable effects.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    The trial ran for years. That’s well outside the range of “finicky management trialed something and we got a short term boost” effects.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Why would you expect a huge productivity boost when reducing working hours? Isn’t this setting the bar unreasonably high? Heck, isn’t cutting hours and maintaining output actually a net increase in per hour productivity? Also, why is productivity even the golden standard here? Why can’t we consider the well being of actual people in this discussion?

That argument was used against a lot of things that turned out to be a good thing, like the 40 hour work week. What’s your suggesting other than naysaying this trial?

bpodgursky 5y ago

I'm suggesting we have 0 data, and this study is nothing more than an opportunity for people to advocate for the policies they wanted anyway. Which is fine, you can say that 4-day weeks is better b/c it's nicer! That's ok! Just don't try to dress this fluff up as science.

soganess 5y ago
That just seems like moving the goal post. Without a trial to explore efficacy, it is a pie-in-the-sky idea that shouldn't be taken seriously. When a trial happens...well this trial isn't really indicative of how people will truly behave when not in trial... we should just discount the results. I guess there really are no true Scotsman in Iceland.
npunt 5y ago
This was a four year study involving 2500 participants. You may feel the evidence is insufficient to make the policy changes they did as a result, but if you feel this is fluff dressed up as science it might be nice to understand what you found problematic about this study's methods for it to not qualify as adding to the body of scientific evidence we have on this topic.
ncallaway 5y ago
> I'm suggesting we have 0 data But you’d be wrong, because we now have some data. You can argue the quality of the data is insufficient to draw a conclusion, but it seems… extreme to argue that the data that was collected has 0 value.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  One gets the feeling that the issue is less “we don’t have any data” and more “I disagree with what the data is saying”.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

SilverRed 5y ago

They raise a good point. I would expect a huge boost in productivity during a trial period as workers are hyped about the change and want to prove it works. But that they may eventually wear out and return to normal but with less hours now. I don't think OP is suggesting that the findings are outright wrong, but that long term studies are required to know exactly how things play out. We have so many short term trial results but none that I have seen which show the effects after multiple years.

BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
I can attest to a pattern of management introducing a change and realizing substantial benefits that don’t hold up over time. For whatever reason, the initial boost isn’t sustained and some other change is introduced in order to boost numbers and the process repeats. Now I personally would love a shorter work week. I actually think much of the 8-hour workday is chock full of non productive time that can be cut safely. But I see what the other user is getting at. Just because this study produced great results it doesn’t mean that this change produces sustainable effects.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  The trial ran for years. That’s well outside the range of “finicky management trialed something and we got a short term boost” effects.
ashtonkem 5y ago
Why would you expect a huge productivity boost when reducing working hours? Isn’t this setting the bar unreasonably high? Heck, isn’t cutting hours and maintaining output actually a net increase in per hour productivity? Also, why is productivity even the golden standard here? Why can’t we consider the well being of actual people in this discussion?