My initial thought was: 'Why does this need to be top-down mandated by the law?' but it turns out the article addresses this: > Critics argue that it’s fine if

My initial thought was: 'Why does this need to be top-down mandated by the law?' but it turns out the article addresses this: > Critics argue that it’s fine if technological advances deliver the shorter workweek without government intervention, but that “top-down” interference in the free market is a bad idea. This idea doesn’t stand up to even cursory scrutiny. If the reduction in hours was going to happen without being mandated, it would have happened long ago. But that doesn't actually answer the question of whether people want this. It could be that we would rather put increasing gains towards more money, rather than towards reducing working hours. The second reason I am skeptical is that higher income people apparently work more than the average. Presumably, those with high incomes have the negotiating power to reduce their hours. So we would expect this change to start at the top and trickle down, if that is what people wanted. I also came across a bunch of people arguing that reducing work hours will lead to more inequality, if that's a thing you care about. Ofcourse, I realise a lot of this libertarian work week is an ideal, and most people don't feel like they have a choice.