I think it helps to start with the assertion that benefits from economic/productivity growth have accrued to owners, not workers, and that a correction is overd

I think it helps to start with the assertion that benefits from economic/productivity growth have accrued to owners, not workers, and that a correction is overdue - if you don't agree with that, discussion over working fewer hours feels moot. Going forward with the idea that workers deserve a bit of a break: > sounds like it's entirely wishful thinking and in a few years will be having the same amount of wasted hours in those days I can see that to some extent, but if expectations stay the same I think "trimming the fat" would be a more likely outcome - i.e. more push-back on pointless meetings and other inefficiency. I'd expect it to take a longer time than just a few years for apathy to set in - at which point we would have more data about the effectiveness of the plan over time. > Are there any actual evidence that that optimum middle ground is 4 days and not 3, or 5? I think lots of us have anecdata that "meaningful work done" does not drop by 20% (if at all) in a 4-day week, and satisfaction increases substantially. I can imagine a future push to reduce further to 3 days - but isn't that a realistic expectation given further productivity-boosting technology will arrive?