3 ms·

10 years later... mkaic I am a firm believer that I would get more work done with a 3-day workweek than I currently do with my 4-day workweek. I already spend

10 years later... mkaic I am a firm believer that I would get more work done with a 3-day workweek than I currently do with my 4-day workweek. I already spend an embarrassing amount of time slacking off daily, it's not like I'm pressed for time to get stuff done in the office. I could easily meet my weekly objectives in 24 hours rather than 32, and having 4-day weekends every weekend I think would be incredible for my mental health and mood. And when I'm in a better mood, I get more work done! One thing I feel like a lot of people don't realize is just how big a difference it is to go from a 4-day week to a 3-day week. Sure, it's "just one day" but when you think about the ratio between time-on and time-off, the shift becomes a lot more dramatic. 4-on, 3-off means you spend over twice as many days working as not working. 3-on, 4-off means you spend a nearly equal number of days on each. It's just one day of difference, but it feels like a major, major shift.

jonahrd 3y ago
You copied and pasted, and edited 5->4 and 4->3 in an attempt to make a point about a slippery slope. But you didn't edit this sentence: > 4-on, 3-off means you spend over twice as many days working as not working. Which now doesn't make sense. Proving that it's _not_ as simple as a slippery slope.
- saulpw 3y ago
  Yes. I was quite productive and happy at 4 days/week, and felt a strong part of the team that was still working 5 days/week. But when I tried a more "part-time" schedule of 3 days/week, I was less satisfied and less productive and felt less a part of the team. 4 days/week is still full-time, 3 days/week is part-time.
standardUser 3y ago
Continual advances in technology can and should result in people working less for the same productive output.
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  Vote for it! That "should" is a government creature; to the market, on the other hand, advances in technology "should" only increase productivity when (preferably now less) people are working the same amount of time (and maybe how about even more time?).

jonahrd 3y ago

You copied and pasted, and edited 5->4 and 4->3 in an attempt to make a point about a slippery slope. But you didn't edit this sentence: > 4-on, 3-off means you spend over twice as many days working as not working. Which now doesn't make sense. Proving that it's _not_ as simple as a slippery slope.

saulpw 3y ago
Yes. I was quite productive and happy at 4 days/week, and felt a strong part of the team that was still working 5 days/week. But when I tried a more "part-time" schedule of 3 days/week, I was less satisfied and less productive and felt less a part of the team. 4 days/week is still full-time, 3 days/week is part-time.

standardUser 3y ago

Continual advances in technology can and should result in people working less for the same productive output.

shrimp_emoji 3y ago
Vote for it! That "should" is a government creature; to the market, on the other hand, advances in technology "should" only increase productivity when (preferably now less) people are working the same amount of time (and maybe how about even more time?).