5 ms·

Why not a one day weekend? How is three days any less absurd and arbitrary than two? Frankly, given where we are at as a society in terms of labor and producti

by n8cpdx 4y ago

Why not a one day weekend? How is three days any less absurd and arbitrary than two? Frankly, given where we are at as a society in terms of labor and productivity relative to demand, it seems like now isn’t the time to be pumping the brakes. The basis of fully automated luxury communism has not yet been delivered and won’t be for a while; Europeans will likely freeze this winter and even in the US, if I call 911 I’m lucky if the wait time is less than 10 minutes. We still need humans working, as much as it pains me to say it. Maybe a better approach than specifying an arbitrary number would be to have full flexibility. Example: I work hourly at a software company. Some days I work 12 hours. Some days I work 3.5. If I’m not going to be productive that day, I just don’t work (this is to my employer’s benefit, because I’m paid by the hour). If I’m on a roll, I keep on rolling. Some days I plan for 9 hours then leave at 6 because my focus is shot. Others I think it will be 5, then leave after 10. I get to use my time as I see fit, the employer doesn’t deal with me wasting time in the office unproductively, and on net I think I’m as productive if not more than my coworkers. In jobs where you need time-based coverage, an Lyft-like bidding system to get a wage premium would probably make sense and let people self-sort based on desire to work and schedule preferences. Why replace one arbitrary system with another?

pwinnski 4y ago
In the US, we had a 1-day weekend until 1926, and in 1939 the force of law was added to make anything over 40 hours of work "overtime." Henry Ford thought his workers could be just as productive, if not more so, in 40 hours as 48, and would be happier at the second day off to boot, and he was correct.[0] You call it arbitrary, and it was, except it's based on what has been collectively deemed obvious: one gets dramatically diminishing returns when requiring an employee to work more than eight hours in a day, or more than (now) five days a week. It could be that we are also seeing diminishing returns from five days a week, and would be just as productive in four[1], but it will take CEOs acting on that theory to move the established norm. 0. https://www.truthorfiction.com/henry-ford-invented-the-5-day-work-week/ https://www.truthorfiction.com/henry-ford-invented-the-5-day... 1. https://www.4dayweek.com https://www.4dayweek.com
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  Is a burger flipper or barista serving the same number of customers in four days as five? No? Then where are the diminishing returns there? Pretty much any reasonable white collar job already lets you work however many hours you want as long as you get the job done and you show up to meetings.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    Interesting. In your answer, you focused on the stream of customers walking in the door, rather than on the welfare of the burger flipper or barista. Do I expect a burger flipper working at a hot grill to be just as safe in hour ten as hour eight or hour six of a given workday? No, I expect that burns, for example, are more likely at the end of long shifts than the beginning. In addition, since humans are not machines, I expect that an extra day off might make workers more prompt and less likely to take six days at the beginning or end of a workweek. At the time the trade unionists were fighting for our rights, the question wasn't burger-flipping, but generally factory work. The speed and accuracy at which a person working in a factory could produce goods safely diminishes beyond a certain point, and while it's probably closer to five or six hours for peak efficiency, employers were demanding ten- or twelve-hour days at the time, so a 50% reduction was a bridge too far. Still, through a combination of many different kinds of protest and some documentation that safety incidents climbed dramatically as workers grew more tired, they managed to get hours pushed down to no more than eight as "normal," with anything beyond that requiring overtime pay. Henry Ford took the reasoning of the trade unionists, who had successfully pushed him into eight-hour days already, and took it farther. He reasoned that giving workers two days off instead of just one would enable him to push them harder, and get just as much work done while making happier employees, more loyal to him. Which worked out well for him, and 13 years later became the norm by law. If you're talking about work which requires workers to be physically present for a set schedule, then yes, clearly capping each worker at 80% of hours would mean needing to increase staff by 20% to achieve the same result. But most businesses in which physical presence for given hours is important already have flexible scheduling to handle days of the week and times of the day at which business is busier. If you're instead talking about, as you say, "any reasonable white collar job," then rather than letting only bold or clever people to get their work done in 32 hours while attending meetings to avoid raising eyebrows, it seems more reasonable to make that the norm, so that everybody can do the same. Then the receptionist can also work four days a week, with someone else filling in, rather than only those less visible.
x86x87 4y ago
Why rest at all? I mean we are all machines and our goal in life is to work!
- n8cpdx 4y ago
  I encourage you to read the rest of the comment, where I lay out alternatives to arbitrary day-based systems that allow _more_ rest for people who want that and _more_ flexibility for everyone.
  - x86x87 4y ago
    Read the comment. The point was not flexibility. The point was that we could be a post scarcity society where we don't have to work. At all.

by n8cpdx 4y ago

pwinnski 4y ago

In the US, we had a 1-day weekend until 1926, and in 1939 the force of law was added to make anything over 40 hours of work "overtime." Henry Ford thought his workers could be just as productive, if not more so, in 40 hours as 48, and would be happier at the second day off to boot, and he was correct.[0] You call it arbitrary, and it was, except it's based on what has been collectively deemed obvious: one gets dramatically diminishing returns when requiring an employee to work more than eight hours in a day, or more than (now) five days a week. It could be that we are also seeing diminishing returns from five days a week, and would be just as productive in four[1], but it will take CEOs acting on that theory to move the established norm. 0. https://www.truthorfiction.com/henry-ford-invented-the-5-day-work-week/ https://www.truthorfiction.com/henry-ford-invented-the-5-day... 1. https://www.4dayweek.com https://www.4dayweek.com

ceeplusplus 4y ago
Is a burger flipper or barista serving the same number of customers in four days as five? No? Then where are the diminishing returns there? Pretty much any reasonable white collar job already lets you work however many hours you want as long as you get the job done and you show up to meetings.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  Interesting. In your answer, you focused on the stream of customers walking in the door, rather than on the welfare of the burger flipper or barista. Do I expect a burger flipper working at a hot grill to be just as safe in hour ten as hour eight or hour six of a given workday? No, I expect that burns, for example, are more likely at the end of long shifts than the beginning. In addition, since humans are not machines, I expect that an extra day off might make workers more prompt and less likely to take six days at the beginning or end of a workweek. At the time the trade unionists were fighting for our rights, the question wasn't burger-flipping, but generally factory work. The speed and accuracy at which a person working in a factory could produce goods safely diminishes beyond a certain point, and while it's probably closer to five or six hours for peak efficiency, employers were demanding ten- or twelve-hour days at the time, so a 50% reduction was a bridge too far. Still, through a combination of many different kinds of protest and some documentation that safety incidents climbed dramatically as workers grew more tired, they managed to get hours pushed down to no more than eight as "normal," with anything beyond that requiring overtime pay. Henry Ford took the reasoning of the trade unionists, who had successfully pushed him into eight-hour days already, and took it farther. He reasoned that giving workers two days off instead of just one would enable him to push them harder, and get just as much work done while making happier employees, more loyal to him. Which worked out well for him, and 13 years later became the norm by law. If you're talking about work which requires workers to be physically present for a set schedule, then yes, clearly capping each worker at 80% of hours would mean needing to increase staff by 20% to achieve the same result. But most businesses in which physical presence for given hours is important already have flexible scheduling to handle days of the week and times of the day at which business is busier. If you're instead talking about, as you say, "any reasonable white collar job," then rather than letting only bold or clever people to get their work done in 32 hours while attending meetings to avoid raising eyebrows, it seems more reasonable to make that the norm, so that everybody can do the same. Then the receptionist can also work four days a week, with someone else filling in, rather than only those less visible.

x86x87 4y ago

Why rest at all? I mean we are all machines and our goal in life is to work!

n8cpdx 4y ago
I encourage you to read the rest of the comment, where I lay out alternatives to arbitrary day-based systems that allow _more_ rest for people who want that and _more_ flexibility for everyone.
- x86x87 4y ago
  Read the comment. The point was not flexibility. The point was that we could be a post scarcity society where we don't have to work. At all.