He's missing the point. This isn't really about how productive you are after N hours. It's about how many hours are expected of you. It's a little disgusting

He's missing the point. This isn't really about how productive you are after N hours. It's about how many hours are expected of you. It's a little disgusting that the only way workers can make a case that reduced demands be placed on them, is by arguing that this would support their employers' interests. The 40 hour workweek was not instituted solely for shareholders' benefit. It was instituted because that's what workers wanted, and they fought for what they wanted, the end. Their interests. There is work and there is play. If I am "accountable" -- if somebody can smack me for failing, if I need to do it to pay the rent or to fund a retirement -- then it's work. Work demands are pure liabilities. Every rational person seeks to reduce their liabilities. Once you've met those obligations, that doesn't mean you stop learning or stop accomplishing things. But now you can focus on the things that really seem to matter, that you are really interested in. This is why people want to reduce their work obligations. Sure, part of it is laziness. Part of the time will be frittered away on YouTube. But some of it will be spent on other, valuable, pursuits. When I was a kid, I taught myself to program, during summer vacation. Why? Because I didn't have homework. This is about reducing the amount of time during which you have to do what you're told. This is about human freedom. Whether productivity, narrowly conceived, goes up or down, does not matter, so long as enough still gets done. Without "enough", the demand will always be for "more, more, more".