> It's not clear where you'd just "find 10% more people" As another commenter noted, maybe from all those people that are no longer making enough to make ends

> It's not clear where you'd just "find 10% more people" As another commenter noted, maybe from all those people that are no longer making enough to make ends meet. Now you have someone working two jobs, maybe at like 16-24 hours each, and if one of those needs more hours, well, now you're working more than 40 hours a week overall but less than 32 per job and not getting overtime for any of it. I could easily see something like this being one of those well intentioned policies with major negative outcomes. > 36/40 = 90%, My mistake, I missed where you defined it as just dropping four hours off, and "shorter work week" sounds like cutting a day off to me, so I assumed the wrong thing. Even so, 10% is not an amount a lot of people can sustain. You posit that there's a lot more people getting 30-35 hours, but I'm not so sure of that, so would definitely want to see some numbers before endorsing anything like this. Additionally, I think a lot of people that are working less hours are doing so because in some cases employers can get around some laws about sick time and paid time off if employees aren't "full time". The bottom line is that if people have more money, they can choose to work less. Just make sure people are paid more and they'll choose to work less if that's actually important to them, and they'll seek out jobs that offer things they care about (such as less work hours) if that's important to them. Reducing the expected working hours is nice, but I doubt most the people that would actually need it (those working demanding or demeaning jobs) would trade that for less pay given the realities. The only people that can really make use of that are the middle and upper class, and they can already choose to prioritize that and look for work that allows it given their financial stability.