4 ms·

I don't like the Four Day Work Week because most of the people who are allowed to experiment with it are working on bullshit. I'm not a big Graeber fan, but I e

I don't like the Four Day Work Week because most of the people who are allowed to experiment with it are working on bullshit. I'm not a big Graeber fan, but I emphatically agree with his idea that the majority of actual hours worked inside the continental US are largely useless make-work in order to justify the existence of a monied consumer class. Such a huge amount of the actual work that needs to be done so that we live in first-world comfort--textiles, agriculture, fuel chemicals, etc.--is so outsourced to developing countries that use serf-equivalent labor working 6 or 7 day weeks (in the same way that Americans did 150 years ago), or foreign migrant workers, that I don't actually have a sense of how much work is really needed to make the modern world function. If I get a four day workweek to make PowerPoints and write requirements documents for video calling software, is that actually a fair amount of work? If you divided the amount of non-bullshit work that went into sustaining America by the number of workers here, would we have a one-day workweek? A seven-day workweek? Perhaps it's less accurate to say "I don't like the four day work week" than it is to say "I am suspicious that I deserve a four day work week given my consumption of resources". I of course would like to work as little as possible and would immediately accept a 4-day if it were offered.

aantix 4y ago
Thought-work is work. Logistical planning is work. Having conversations where everyone makes sure that the others are on the same page, is work.
- quacked 4y ago
  Whether or not something is 'work' has no bearing on whether or not it's bullshit. I am in perfect agreement that one hour of useful work requires many hours of equally useful thought-work.
  - aantix 4y ago
    You have the advantage of calling something bullshit after the fact. Track your BS Meyer before the initiatives take place. Before you can see the outcomes whether something was impactful or not. Feel free to unleash your predictive capacity on the world.
    - quacked 4y ago
      Okay, here's one: every single fast-food restaurant that uses unhealthy derivatives to create its "food", and all the work that goes into it, is bullshit, and if the entire industry was wiped off the face of the earth tomorrow society would immediately, measurably improve.
      - presentation 4y ago
        At least, it would decline for me since I don’t have an obesity problem but I like me a good french fry.
jimmygrapes 4y ago
Fully agreed, but please don't discount the domestic workforce keeping things going alongside those other categories of workers. Some of us work long hours and extra days not because we are abused by a parody of a capitalist boss/system, but because the work needs to be done and we take pride in supporting the progress of humanity (for better or worse). That plumbing issue, that damaging weather event, that medical emergency, that slip, trip or fall, that electricity outage, that vandalism repair, that train derailment, that earthquake, that dirty diaper, that messy suicide, that produce delivery, that firebreak, that water break, that pitbull attack, that abscess bust, that gas leak, that sandwich you ordered online; someone is around to handle these emergent events. Some of us need to be around to take care of the rest of those who are spending 12 to 72 hours (or more) contributing to or experiencing these events. Please don't forget us.
- quacked 4y ago
  You're right. When I deliver the rant in the future I'll add that caveat. There are tons of domestic builders, drivers, operators, officers, longshoremen, etc. that work long, long nights and days to make society happen, who are part of the first-world. You are who I believe deserves a four- or three-day work week. However, there are so many lower-middle and upper-low class people working these jobs that there's just no incentive to do so, and instead layoffs are focused on making you work harder, for more, with less. All the while I and my ilk get comparatively large bonuses for comparatively lackadaisical work weeks.
the_gipsy 4y ago
That is whataboutism. Yes, al that stuff is really bad and should be fixed on a global level - but meanwhile pushing for less work hours where possible does not take away from improving, on the contrary, it paves the way.
- quacked 4y ago
  "Whataboutism" is a made-up word to decry analogies. "You get ten years for dealing marijuana." "Well what about that rich kid that did the same thing as me that got no prison time?" "That's whataboutism!" What I said is relevant. The idea of the four-day work week is predicated on the fact that most people participating in the experiment can reduce their working hours to four days with no real effect on society. The fact that people discuss the 4DWW without constantly pointing this out further obscures what exactly it is about "work" that's useful.
  - the_gipsy 4y ago
    What do you expect by "without constantly pointing this out"? There is no need, if you don't understand that part, then you research it. Here is my take on that issue: For "manual"-like blue collar work, where the value is directly proportional to the hours put in, reducing work hours is just and simply like it always has been done repeatedly in history: everybody works a bit less. There is no shortage of workers in capitalism, since be design there is always a 5-25% (!) of unemployment. So the company pays more. Some companies will inevitably cry that they can't sustain their business and will close. Let them close, just like any other company that only sustains itself by exploiting workers. I repeat, this has been done historically many many times, for less time and more salary. Since the industrial revolution pushing workers to death, without legal bounds for max work hours or minimum salaries. For "creative"-like white collar work, e.g. software development, the value output should be roughly the same with less hours worked. It could be a little less, but others say that the value is actually higher, since resting more prevents burnout. Whatever, but some companies (workers) have been able to test it out right now. Nobody is saying that it can be applied with the same strategy to blue-collar work, but it does set a precedent and gets the ball rolling there too.
TrackerFF 4y ago
Ok so let's look at this from the economical side of things A, let's say, assembly worker has a maximum production output. In a perfect system, their workload is uniform, and so is their production output. So a 20% increase in work would yield 20% increase in output, and vise versa. That is obviously not true for a wide range of work that involves thinking - like creative work, many white collar jobs, academia, etc. Your output may not be a linear function of time, and your workload is probably not uniformly distributed across your workday. If you provide value, employers will keep paying you - even though you might only do what seems like bullshit work to others. And it does not matter that you have periods where you do nothing, because in the end - you're producing something, and that's all that maters. With that said, yes - less hours do simply not translate well into certain jobs, unless you start setting up specific shift rotations. This is just one variable. What about sick leave? Is that a problem, and how to reduce it? If a 20% decrease in work yields a 60% improvement in sick leaves, that's another important metric to consider.

aantix 4y ago

Thought-work is work. Logistical planning is work. Having conversations where everyone makes sure that the others are on the same page, is work.

quacked 4y ago
Whether or not something is 'work' has no bearing on whether or not it's bullshit. I am in perfect agreement that one hour of useful work requires many hours of equally useful thought-work.
- aantix 4y ago
  You have the advantage of calling something bullshit after the fact. Track your BS Meyer before the initiatives take place. Before you can see the outcomes whether something was impactful or not. Feel free to unleash your predictive capacity on the world.
  - quacked 4y ago
    Okay, here's one: every single fast-food restaurant that uses unhealthy derivatives to create its "food", and all the work that goes into it, is bullshit, and if the entire industry was wiped off the face of the earth tomorrow society would immediately, measurably improve.
    - presentation 4y ago
      At least, it would decline for me since I don’t have an obesity problem but I like me a good french fry.

jimmygrapes 4y ago

Fully agreed, but please don't discount the domestic workforce keeping things going alongside those other categories of workers. Some of us work long hours and extra days not because we are abused by a parody of a capitalist boss/system, but because the work needs to be done and we take pride in supporting the progress of humanity (for better or worse). That plumbing issue, that damaging weather event, that medical emergency, that slip, trip or fall, that electricity outage, that vandalism repair, that train derailment, that earthquake, that dirty diaper, that messy suicide, that produce delivery, that firebreak, that water break, that pitbull attack, that abscess bust, that gas leak, that sandwich you ordered online; someone is around to handle these emergent events. Some of us need to be around to take care of the rest of those who are spending 12 to 72 hours (or more) contributing to or experiencing these events. Please don't forget us.

quacked 4y ago
You're right. When I deliver the rant in the future I'll add that caveat. There are tons of domestic builders, drivers, operators, officers, longshoremen, etc. that work long, long nights and days to make society happen, who are part of the first-world. You are who I believe deserves a four- or three-day work week. However, there are so many lower-middle and upper-low class people working these jobs that there's just no incentive to do so, and instead layoffs are focused on making you work harder, for more, with less. All the while I and my ilk get comparatively large bonuses for comparatively lackadaisical work weeks.

the_gipsy 4y ago

That is whataboutism. Yes, al that stuff is really bad and should be fixed on a global level - but meanwhile pushing for less work hours where possible does not take away from improving, on the contrary, it paves the way.

quacked 4y ago
"Whataboutism" is a made-up word to decry analogies. "You get ten years for dealing marijuana." "Well what about that rich kid that did the same thing as me that got no prison time?" "That's whataboutism!" What I said is relevant. The idea of the four-day work week is predicated on the fact that most people participating in the experiment can reduce their working hours to four days with no real effect on society. The fact that people discuss the 4DWW without constantly pointing this out further obscures what exactly it is about "work" that's useful.
- the_gipsy 4y ago
  What do you expect by "without constantly pointing this out"? There is no need, if you don't understand that part, then you research it. Here is my take on that issue: For "manual"-like blue collar work, where the value is directly proportional to the hours put in, reducing work hours is just and simply like it always has been done repeatedly in history: everybody works a bit less. There is no shortage of workers in capitalism, since be design there is always a 5-25% (!) of unemployment. So the company pays more. Some companies will inevitably cry that they can't sustain their business and will close. Let them close, just like any other company that only sustains itself by exploiting workers. I repeat, this has been done historically many many times, for less time and more salary. Since the industrial revolution pushing workers to death, without legal bounds for max work hours or minimum salaries. For "creative"-like white collar work, e.g. software development, the value output should be roughly the same with less hours worked. It could be a little less, but others say that the value is actually higher, since resting more prevents burnout. Whatever, but some companies (workers) have been able to test it out right now. Nobody is saying that it can be applied with the same strategy to blue-collar work, but it does set a precedent and gets the ball rolling there too.

TrackerFF 4y ago

Ok so let's look at this from the economical side of things A, let's say, assembly worker has a maximum production output. In a perfect system, their workload is uniform, and so is their production output. So a 20% increase in work would yield 20% increase in output, and vise versa. That is obviously not true for a wide range of work that involves thinking - like creative work, many white collar jobs, academia, etc. Your output may not be a linear function of time, and your workload is probably not uniformly distributed across your workday. If you provide value, employers will keep paying you - even though you might only do what seems like bullshit work to others. And it does not matter that you have periods where you do nothing, because in the end - you're producing something, and that's all that maters. With that said, yes - less hours do simply not translate well into certain jobs, unless you start setting up specific shift rotations. This is just one variable. What about sick leave? Is that a problem, and how to reduce it? If a 20% decrease in work yields a 60% improvement in sick leaves, that's another important metric to consider.