3 ms·

A good chunk of employers will let you work a 4 day workweek in return for a 20% pay cut. For most people here on HN, you could probably survive on a 20% pay c

A good chunk of employers will let you work a 4 day workweek in return for a 20% pay cut. For most people here on HN, you could probably survive on a 20% pay cut - you'd just have to have the kids share a bedroom rather than having one each and a guest room. Downside: Those on a 4 day workweek really struggle to get promoted to senior positions.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
The 4 Day Week movement is to not take a pay cut, as workers are already productive enough (and that productivity can be maintained in a shorter work week, proven by several pilot/trials [1]). It's incredibly disingenuous for folks opposed to a 4 day week to say workers need to be even more productive [2] to obtain a shorter work week to maintain existing pay (at least in the US, where pay has been stagnant for almost half a century [3]). If a 4 day week is codified into labor law and regulation, there is no game theory consideration vs some orgs with 4 day weeks competing with those with 5. Would you work 6 days a week today (for example)? Probably not, unless you're an outlier of some sort, and you don't see many orgs with a mandatory 6 day work week (because they wouldn't be able to retain talent). This is about pulling a policy ratchet to reduce the work week at scale for everyone, because the productivity already exists (it's just been funneled to the top wealthiest population, traditionally). "It always seems impossible until it's done." [1] https://www.4dayweek.com/ https://www.4dayweek.com/ | https://www.4dayweek.com/research https://www.4dayweek.com/research [2] https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-affects-wage-growth-in-america.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-aff...
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  Does a nurse working a 32 hour week monitor as many patients as one who works a 40 hour week? Does a grocery store worker who stocks shelves stock as many cans of food and boxes of slop in 32 hours as he does in 40? It is absurd, disingenuous, and even sinister to suggest that their productivity is equal with a reduced week. There are hundreds, probably even thousands, of distinct jobs where this is the truth. There are relatively few jobs where equal productivity continues with the reduced work week. They are all office jobs. It is impossible that even if companies were forced to go with a reduced work week and were unable to cheat this regulation to any meaningful degree, that they would continue to pay the same for 20% less productivity. Worst case scenario for them is that they simply allow inflation to erode pay more than it does already. Given that even many menial workers earn above minimum wage, there are very few jobs where this isn't possible (and those few jobs are likely part-time anyway, where this reform is irrelevant). If one truly wanted to help those who are hurting the worst, this is completely ass-backwards. It seems designed to make those who are already comfortable a little more so.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    For sure, we're going to have differing opinions based on life experiences, data consumption, and the resulting mental models. Outcomes are going to be driven by voting (politically) and unions. With union support being at the highest in history in the US, along with rapid electorate turnover (4M 18 year olds aging into voting each year, ~2M 55+ annual age out rate of voters), I'm hopeful workers will be able to secure a greater piece of the value they generate (through a combination of wages continuing to be pushed up and a shorter work week) at the cost of those currently holding substantial assets and wealth. There will be some inflation, that is inevitable due to the US freeloading on substantially underpaid labor for so long it has become accustomed to it (the federal minimum wage is laughably at $7.25/hr for example [1]) as well as structural demographic compression of the working age cohort. Lots of macro unwinding that is going to be painful due to the poor economic choices made over the last half century. Importantly, most people under 30 didn't have a hand in shaping these poor choices. > If one truly wanted to help those who are hurting the worst, this is completely ass-backwards. It seems designed to make those who are already comfortable a little more so. Very broadly speaking, the very wealthy have enough [2], and can make due with less. Tax them more if necessary [3]. Those hurting the worst are hurting because of greed and selfishness of a minority, not workers who have been taking it on the chin for decades. But, most unfortunately, the mental model that gets you wealthy heavily discounts luck and overemphasizes individual exceptionalism [4] [5], so these folks aren't self aware enough to come to the conclusion on their own, leaving collective action and the legal/political system as the most likely path to success. Again, the productivity already exists. Where do you think all of this accumulated wealth is coming from? [1] https://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-tracker/ https://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-tracker/ ("The federal minimum wage has not been raised since 2009. In the absence of action at the national level, many states and localities have raised their own minimum wages. Explore the map to see how these rapidly changing laws differ across the country. Values as of July 1, 2023") [2] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-two-years https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly... ("2023: Richest 1% bag nearly twice as much wealth as the rest of the world put together over the past two years") [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ijiLqfXP0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ijiLqfXP0 ("Rutger Bregman tells Davos to talk about tax: 'This is not rocket science'") [4] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-role-of-luck-in-life-success-is-far-greater-than-we-realized/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-rol... ("The Role of Luck in Life Success Is Far Greater Than We Realized") [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37419334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37419334
avgcorrection 3y ago
Maybe some unions will let the shareholders get a 20% profit-cut[1] and the workers a four-day workweek in return for not starting a strike. [1] In reality less than that; see the autoworker strike in the US where they are demanding (among other things) a 40% pay increase, meanwhile those companies could really afford to pay the union members 100% more.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> A good chunk of employers will let you work a 4 day workweek in return for a 20% pay cut. Where?? This has not been my experience, especially in tech. I've seen that work for "shift work" type jobs, even highly paid ones like doctors, but for "product work" type jobs like most tech, where there is essentially an infinite amount of possibile future work to do, companies are, generally, much less amenable to having people less than full time.
mitthrowaway2 3y ago
For a sense of scale, the difference in pay for the same hours and same role (and same individual), just for moving 200 km between Seattle and Vancouver, is something like a 40-60% cut in total comp before tax. 20% is small potatoes.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

The 4 Day Week movement is to not take a pay cut, as workers are already productive enough (and that productivity can be maintained in a shorter work week, proven by several pilot/trials [1]). It's incredibly disingenuous for folks opposed to a 4 day week to say workers need to be even more productive [2] to obtain a shorter work week to maintain existing pay (at least in the US, where pay has been stagnant for almost half a century [3]). If a 4 day week is codified into labor law and regulation, there is no game theory consideration vs some orgs with 4 day weeks competing with those with 5. Would you work 6 days a week today (for example)? Probably not, unless you're an outlier of some sort, and you don't see many orgs with a mandatory 6 day work week (because they wouldn't be able to retain talent). This is about pulling a policy ratchet to reduce the work week at scale for everyone, because the productivity already exists (it's just been funneled to the top wealthiest population, traditionally). "It always seems impossible until it's done." [1] https://www.4dayweek.com/ https://www.4dayweek.com/ | https://www.4dayweek.com/research https://www.4dayweek.com/research [2] https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-affects-wage-growth-in-america.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-aff...

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
Does a nurse working a 32 hour week monitor as many patients as one who works a 40 hour week? Does a grocery store worker who stocks shelves stock as many cans of food and boxes of slop in 32 hours as he does in 40? It is absurd, disingenuous, and even sinister to suggest that their productivity is equal with a reduced week. There are hundreds, probably even thousands, of distinct jobs where this is the truth. There are relatively few jobs where equal productivity continues with the reduced work week. They are all office jobs. It is impossible that even if companies were forced to go with a reduced work week and were unable to cheat this regulation to any meaningful degree, that they would continue to pay the same for 20% less productivity. Worst case scenario for them is that they simply allow inflation to erode pay more than it does already. Given that even many menial workers earn above minimum wage, there are very few jobs where this isn't possible (and those few jobs are likely part-time anyway, where this reform is irrelevant). If one truly wanted to help those who are hurting the worst, this is completely ass-backwards. It seems designed to make those who are already comfortable a little more so.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  For sure, we're going to have differing opinions based on life experiences, data consumption, and the resulting mental models. Outcomes are going to be driven by voting (politically) and unions. With union support being at the highest in history in the US, along with rapid electorate turnover (4M 18 year olds aging into voting each year, ~2M 55+ annual age out rate of voters), I'm hopeful workers will be able to secure a greater piece of the value they generate (through a combination of wages continuing to be pushed up and a shorter work week) at the cost of those currently holding substantial assets and wealth. There will be some inflation, that is inevitable due to the US freeloading on substantially underpaid labor for so long it has become accustomed to it (the federal minimum wage is laughably at $7.25/hr for example [1]) as well as structural demographic compression of the working age cohort. Lots of macro unwinding that is going to be painful due to the poor economic choices made over the last half century. Importantly, most people under 30 didn't have a hand in shaping these poor choices. > If one truly wanted to help those who are hurting the worst, this is completely ass-backwards. It seems designed to make those who are already comfortable a little more so. Very broadly speaking, the very wealthy have enough [2], and can make due with less. Tax them more if necessary [3]. Those hurting the worst are hurting because of greed and selfishness of a minority, not workers who have been taking it on the chin for decades. But, most unfortunately, the mental model that gets you wealthy heavily discounts luck and overemphasizes individual exceptionalism [4] [5], so these folks aren't self aware enough to come to the conclusion on their own, leaving collective action and the legal/political system as the most likely path to success. Again, the productivity already exists. Where do you think all of this accumulated wealth is coming from? [1] https://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-tracker/ https://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-tracker/ ("The federal minimum wage has not been raised since 2009. In the absence of action at the national level, many states and localities have raised their own minimum wages. Explore the map to see how these rapidly changing laws differ across the country. Values as of July 1, 2023") [2] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-two-years https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly... ("2023: Richest 1% bag nearly twice as much wealth as the rest of the world put together over the past two years") [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ijiLqfXP0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ijiLqfXP0 ("Rutger Bregman tells Davos to talk about tax: 'This is not rocket science'") [4] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-role-of-luck-in-life-success-is-far-greater-than-we-realized/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-rol... ("The Role of Luck in Life Success Is Far Greater Than We Realized") [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37419334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37419334

avgcorrection 3y ago

Maybe some unions will let the shareholders get a 20% profit-cut[1] and the workers a four-day workweek in return for not starting a strike. [1] In reality less than that; see the autoworker strike in the US where they are demanding (among other things) a 40% pay increase, meanwhile those companies could really afford to pay the union members 100% more.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

> A good chunk of employers will let you work a 4 day workweek in return for a 20% pay cut. Where?? This has not been my experience, especially in tech. I've seen that work for "shift work" type jobs, even highly paid ones like doctors, but for "product work" type jobs like most tech, where there is essentially an infinite amount of possibile future work to do, companies are, generally, much less amenable to having people less than full time.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago

For a sense of scale, the difference in pay for the same hours and same role (and same individual), just for moving 200 km between Seattle and Vancouver, is something like a 40-60% cut in total comp before tax. 20% is small potatoes.