3 ms·
In theory, this would allow you to keep more people employed since you're paying less per head. It's a form of "labor redistribution" if you will.
by fny 2y ago
In theory, this would allow you to keep more people employed since you're paying less per head. It's a form of "labor redistribution" if you will.
- warkdarrior 2y agoIt's funny, people make the same argument in favor of 4-day workweeks. So, according to this argument, bot 4-day and 6-day workweeks will lead to more employment! Anything but 5 days, it seems.
- 6510 2y agoWhen calculating employment I wondered if half a day per week should count as employed. My conclusion was that it should count, but as 1/10 employed. If the normal work week is defined as 4 days and people work 6 anyway we could count them as 6/4 employed. If people work 6 days while 5 is considered normal in the rest of the world they would work 6/5. With 5 days nothing really changes, it is hard to argue something improved without changing anything. I do imagine that managers are a major source of counterproductivity, giving them extra shifts would create more work, perhaps even jobs.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoI have yet to read any formal literature that 6 day work weeks lead to better anything. You get a short term (3-4 week) production boost that very quickly tapers off. But business seem to be stuck with "butt in seat" age mentality, so they aren't responding rationally to this
- supertrope 2y agoThis is the lump of labor fallacy. That the total amount of positions or worked hours is fixed.
- justin_oaks 2y agoThanks for introducing this concept to me. For those, like me, who have not previously heard of this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy