6 ms·
Giving the constant, if not exponential, growth in productivity, this have to happen eventually. Think it would have a better chance if they started with 36 hou
by transfire 5y ago
Giving the constant, if not exponential, growth in productivity, this have to happen eventually. Think it would have a better chance if they started with 36 hours however.
- jmcgough 5y agoI don't see it ever happening, capitalists are too powerful and this goes directly against their wishes.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoThey would probably be against it for a different reason. The instinctual reaction would be that 32 hours of labor means businesses need to hire 1 new person for every 4 people currently employed, growing their business's headcount by 25%, to compensate. That's cheaper than paying more overtime. In today's current labor shortage, that would be a disaster. If it was a world with enormous unemployment, then maybe there'd be an argument.
- saila 5y ago5 x 7 would be a good start. For many jobs, that would probably boost productivity, since a lot of people don't work anywhere near 8 hours a day anyway.
- 6510 5y agoI thought about that one quite often. There are also a lot of jobs where the 7th and 8th hour take 10 times the effort. My experience is that anything over 5h requires budgeting my energy or otherwise holding back.
- igetspam 5y agoIt tapers from 40 to 38 to 36 to 34 to 32. The rollout is slow.