> This is only possible with generous social benefits given to those who aren't working. No; for example, as discussed, retirees are in the set. If supply of

> This is only possible with generous social benefits given to those who aren't working. No; for example, as discussed, retirees are in the set. If supply of labor falls, a greater proportion of people able to be retired will work due to economic incentives. > I understand, but aggregate production will go down, would it not? Yes, but it contradicts your "10% less". Fighting the 10% less is: - For each worker, their least productive hours will be cut rather than their most productive - For some of hours lost, additional workers will be employed in higher value jobs. - Some types of output will not be affected at all; others it will be worth paying overtime. - For some of hours lost, automation will be employed. - Lowering commute use of roads and transport will increase productivity. All in all, I'd guess lowering the work week by 10%, and the nominal days-per-week to 4, might lower aggregate output by a couple percent. I would also expect wages to increase, arresting trends where wages have stagnated as productivity has increased.