3 ms·

The problem with the idea of “everyone working less” is that some people won’t work less. Even now, there are people who work more than 40 hours / week. Someon

The problem with the idea of “everyone working less” is that some people won’t work less. Even now, there are people who work more than 40 hours / week. Someone who works 25% more than you will make 25% more wages and will afford a 25% more expensive apartment, etc. So long as you’re comfortable living in a suburb with lower desirability, you’ll be fine. But you might get priced out of places where people work more… In fact, it doesn’t take a law for you to decide to start working less. Plenty of people work part time… You just need to balance how much you work with the affordability of the lifestyle you want to live.

welshwelsh 3y ago
You're assuming less hours = less pay, which is unwarranted. Someone who is at work for 40 hours is not necessarily "working more" than someone who is at work for 30 hours, it just means they are less efficient. If both workers produce the same output, they should be paid the same. In many cases, it's easy to make a 40 hour job into a 5 hour job with proper planning and automation. But since workers are required to be at the office for 40 hours a week anyway, the work "expands" to fill the time with useless meetings and time-consuming manual processes.
Wowfunhappy 3y ago
Just to be clear, I wasn't proposing a law. Here's the thing. Right now, it's difficult to work 25% less for only a 25% pay cut, especially when you include other benefits. And that's because people who work less than 40 hours are considered more temporary and less dedicated—because the market of "part-time" job seekers usually is more temporary and less dedicated, as of today. But I think that's cultural. I'd like to encourage more people to re-evaluate how they're spending their time. If a certain mass of workers decided they'd prefer to work 30 hours, it would become easier for others to work 30 hours as well. Not entirely unlike how normalizing remote work allows more people to do it.

welshwelsh 3y ago

You're assuming less hours = less pay, which is unwarranted. Someone who is at work for 40 hours is not necessarily "working more" than someone who is at work for 30 hours, it just means they are less efficient. If both workers produce the same output, they should be paid the same. In many cases, it's easy to make a 40 hour job into a 5 hour job with proper planning and automation. But since workers are required to be at the office for 40 hours a week anyway, the work "expands" to fill the time with useless meetings and time-consuming manual processes.

Wowfunhappy 3y ago

Just to be clear, I wasn't proposing a law. Here's the thing. Right now, it's difficult to work 25% less for only a 25% pay cut, especially when you include other benefits. And that's because people who work less than 40 hours are considered more temporary and less dedicated—because the market of "part-time" job seekers usually is more temporary and less dedicated, as of today. But I think that's cultural. I'd like to encourage more people to re-evaluate how they're spending their time. If a certain mass of workers decided they'd prefer to work 30 hours, it would become easier for others to work 30 hours as well. Not entirely unlike how normalizing remote work allows more people to do it.