Wharton Professor Says America Should Shorten the Work Day By 2 Hours (cnbc.com)

Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist, New York Times best-selling author, and The Wharton School's top professor, says Americans should work two hours less. Instead of the typical 9-to-5, people "should finish at 3pm," says Grant in a recent LinkedIn post. "We can be as productive and creative in 6 focused hours as in 8 unfocused hours." CNBC reports: In the LinkedIn post, Grant was weighing in on an Atlantic article about the time gap between when school and work days end, a bane for many parents. But it's not the first time Grant has given his stamp of approval to less work with more productivity. "Productivity is less about time management and more about attention management," Grant tweeted in July, highlighting an article about a successful four-day work week study. For the study, a New Zealand company adopted a four-day work week (at five-day pay) with positive results; the company saw benefits ranging from lower stress levels in employees to increased performance. In a recent blog post, billionaire Richard Branson also touted the success of a three-day or four-day work week. "It's easier to attract top talent when you are open and flexible," Branson said in the post. "It's not effective or productive to force them to behave in a conventional way."

"Many people out there would love three-day or even four-day weekends," said Branson. "Everyone would welcome more time to spend with their loved ones, more time to get fit and healthy, more time to explore the world."

Comments

What typical 9-5?

[b0s0z0ku]

More like 8-6 in much of the US, if not worse.

I envy people in places like France and Quebec who take their free-time seriously -- closing time is 6 pm for many business that would stay open until 8 or even 10 pm in the US.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[b0s0z0ku]

What's wrong with laziness? Why does your country need to have the next fart-app company for its citizens to be happy? Being "first" and "best" is over-rated -- living a happy life in mediocrity is also OK.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[ShanghaiBill]

We are moving to self-checkout and cashierless stores. So why close at all? My local grocery store is open 24/7. The lights are on motion sensors, so no electricity is being used unless someone is walking down that aisle. There is a skeleton crew doing restocking, but I just self-checkout so I don't bother them.

Have you ever been to a 3rd world country? You will notice many many people selling a small collection of goods spread out on blankets or tables on the side of the road. This is WHY they are poor. Retail is unproductive and an economic dead end. It is a transaction cost, not a cost of producing goods or services. The larger the retail workforce, the poorer the country.

The purpose of jobs is to produce goods and services, not "keeping people busy", and retail doesn't produce anything. The sooner we can eliminate most retail jobs, the better. This will free up labor for actual productive activities.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[ShanghaiBill]

What's wrong with laziness?

Laziness has consequences. If you are willing to bear those consequences yourself, then feel free to be lazy.

The problem is that in a democracy, the lazy can vote, and they vote for bread and circuses paid for with OPM* and deficit spending.

They don't make the effort to understand the long term consequences of that because they are ... lazy.

*OPM= Other People's Money

Re:What typical 9-5?

[b0s0z0ku]

"Work ethic" is just another word for "self flagellation." They have a lower willingness to abuse themselves because of some stupid Protestant ideal that hard work makes good people.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[PopeRatzo]

You idiot, lots of people work weird hours and you are complaining about how you should work less but expect the world to provide convenience to you.

Do you believe that stores that are open 24 hours a day have employees that work 24 hours a day?

Sit down, and let me explain the concept of "work shifts" to you. If you'd ever had a job, you'd know what those are. Further, let me clue you in that 3 people working 8 hour shifts equal 24 hours, but 4 people working 6 hour shifts also equal 24 hours.

If you need me to walk you through the math on this, let me know. I'm happy to help.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[b0s0z0ku]

"Cashier" is another term for "security guard" in a 24-hour cashierless store.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[Shikaku]

There's a thing called a rotating schedule. 8 hours on a set number of days. Hospitals and factories use this so that when a service needed is that important e.g hospitals, or that cannot actually shut down e.g nuclear reactors, power plants, hospitals, T.V, they can have 3 sets of 8 hours or 2 sets of 12 for people to go to work so that service can continue. The problem is solved, and you can hire more people if you really need to. The reason for 8 hours is so that the day is divisible into 3 clean divisions or 2 for 12 hours. This problem that you think you're trying to create is already solved, and is just logistical.

Also rotating shift workplaces give vacation time around 1 week per month, by design. So you can spend that whole week doing things in advance like buying stuff for a month. Pick a time most convenient during that week.

https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswer...

Re: What typical 9-5?

[ShanghaiBill]

If you need me to walk you through the math on this, let me know. I'm happy to help.

You need to go talk to the French. Their shops close early so people can have "time off", yet they have 9% unemployment.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[FunkSoulBrother]

yes. Jesus christ I'll pay more. It's fine if a McDonalds meal is $15, I'd be a lot healthier if it was.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to be able to do that. I'm not an idiot who wants nuclear safety inspectors to be running at half staff and sixteen hour shifts every week, and skipping inspections completely at all two days a week.

Maybe some idiots want taxi drivers to drive twenty four hour shifts every other day, and wants to take a second taxi to the emergency room after the first one crashes, where a surgeon will be on his 47th continuous hour with his hand in someone else's guts to get the shattered windshield glass out of their eyes.

But as for me, I prefer to live in a civilization with some basic rules that make the employer criminally liable for those types of conditions, so as to deter that sort of reckless third party danger.

To the non insane, non RW snowflake , easily triggered folks reading the article, it is clear the writer means for backend/non retail type "thought" industry workers. A brick layer can't lay bricks 33% faster as skillfully in six hours to match 8 hours of output etc.

If your job is at a keyboard typing as fast as you can, with no interruptions, it doesn't apply to you either.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[fafalone]

You're right, that certainly would be a major issue, because there's just no way 24 hours could be divided into 6 hour shifts smoothly. Just look at this wacky decimal my calculator told me it was... 4.00000000000. Such an odd number.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[Scarletdown]

And to top it off, when one reduces their work day by 2 hours, that means in a typical 5 day work week, they are also losing 10 hours of pay; unless they get a raise to compensate for the lower hours.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[rtb61]

I am nothing, I am nobody and I am at peace, yeah most people have no idea what it means. You tell them the real opposite and they understand, well some of them. The actual opposite, 'I must be something, I must be somebody, I am always in conflict' (it has no finale it is a continuous demand). There is no balance between the two, choose one or the other, be at peace with yourself or be in conflict with everyone else.

Don't listen to the psyshos, they are driven by shit genes, no autonomic empathic responses (it's a social learning tool from birth) and hence disconnected from the rest of us and a reduced range of human emotions, most often incapable of our happiness but certainly and most definitely, insanely jealous of it and as a result always striving to destroy it. Attack us, attack our children and attack our 'humane' societies, creating psychopathic capitalism instead to serve the ego, greed and destructive lusts of psychopaths.

There is no happy and content for psychopaths, there is for the rest of us, either we reject them or they will strive to take away our happiness and contentment, to be content is to not need to be anything, to not need to be anyone and to be at peace (being content with who you are), bliss is being able to share that with other sane people.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[mikael]

In France, some areas take 2 hour lunch breaks, but they work 9am to 12pm and then 2pm to 7pm.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[phantomfive]

I would argue that French unemployment is not high because there are no jobs, but rather because French people enjoy talking long breaks between jobs. The latter is certainly true whether or not it causes the former.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[q_e_t]

If you need me to walk you through the math on this, let me know. I'm happy to help.

You need to go talk to the French. Their shops close early so people can have "time off", yet they have 9% unemployment.

Is that figure computed on the same basis as in the USA? Are people in France who are only marginally able to work not working, but doing OK on welfare, whereas they might be working in the USA, without being better off?

Re:What typical 9-5?

[q_e_t]

People who actually get things done work long hours.

People who work inefficiently need to work long hours. People who have got things done have potentially gone home.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[q_e_t]

Quick, name all the big tech companies of today, that originated in France.

Right. That's what I thought.

Thomson. Still one of the huge tech companies, like Philips, just not really a household name. You use French products pretty much every day if you drive a car.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[Anonymous Coward]

And to top it off, when one reduces their work day by 2 hours, that means in a typical 5 day work week, they are also losing 10 hours of pay; unless they get a raise to compensate for the lower hours.

In general workers have not realised productivity gains in their wages for around 40 years.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[q_e_t]

If you ended up producing the same amount in 6 hours as 8, why would you be paid less?

Re: What typical 9-5?

[terrycarlino]

I work in such a 24/7 industry. For such a rotation you need three people fro each position plus an additional person to cover days off. If you want a schedule that actually allows workers to consistently get weekends off you need 6 workers for each position.

That assumes at least a 40 hour work week. If you only have workers work 30 hours you would need at least 2 additional workers. Unlike other types of work productivity is not linked to worker hours, because workers are monitoring equipment that has a fix productivity. So there is no way fro workers to increase productivity. By definition productivity per worker would decrease.

In the real world you can't just hire more people. Businesses (even non-profits like hospitals) have fixed budgets they must meet. If they hire more people the cost of production goes up and the charge for services must be increased. The same work for more money means lower productivity.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[terrycarlino]

Yes 3 people working 8 hour shifts equals 24 hours and 4 people working 6 hour shifts equal 24 hours.

If I have a labor budget of $24 a day/hour I can pay 3 people $8 and hour to work for their 8 hour shifts and I can pay 4 people $6 an hour to work for their 6 hour shift. However if I pay each 6 hour worker $8 an Hour my budget has increased to $32 a day/hour. To maintain my overhead at the same level I'll have to increase my prices to make up the difference, because in a fractional profit business like retail I'm sure not going to eat the cost.

Of course each 8 hour worker makes $320 a week while even if I pay each 6 hour worker $8 an hour they'll still only makes $240 a week, for them to make $320 I'd have to pay them $10.60 an hour. This raises my employ budget to $42.40 a day/hour.

Of course in the real world employee cost is more than just salary. Even if a company has no individual benefits cost there is Social Security, Unemployment insurance ,etc. This scales so that the more employees and the more you pay them the more this additional cost will be.

And none of it is linked to productivity.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[VMaN]

No, not "work related" emails. Just "work emails". And why in the world should you work on your free time?

Re: What typical 9-5?

[stealth_finger]

In the real world you can't just hire more people. Businesses (even non-profits like hospitals) have fixed budgets they must meet. If they hire more people the cost of production goes up and the charge for services must be increased. The same work for more money means lower productivity.

If your business isn't making enough money to pay enough people to do the job properly then you don't have a viable business and making up for it by having as few staff paid as little as possible doesn't do you any favours in the long run.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[stealth_finger]

If I have a labor budget of $24 a day/hour I can pay 3 people $8 and hour to work for their 8 hour shifts and I can pay 4 people $6 an hour to work for their 6 hour shift. However if I pay each 6 hour worker $8 an Hour my budget has increased to $32 a day/hour.

So it works if you pay a flat hourly rate but it doesn't if you somehow decide to pay 8 hours for 6 hours work? It seems obvious to have people work less and make the same you have to pay more but why are you like 'my worker has to have $320 a week'?

Re:What typical 9-5?

[Luckyo]

How long of a list of reasons do you want? Because I can go on for quite a while, starting with "career advancement" to "taking your work responsibility seriously" to "wanting to keep your job in globalized environment".

Re: What typical 9-5?

[Luckyo]

"Average" is meaningless in this context, because explosion of part time low paid work in Germany is dragging the number down without actually having relevance on jobs I'm talking about.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[Anonymous Coward]

the extra profits made in the last few decades due to increased productivity went to the upper 0.1 % (the guillotineable people) anyway.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[Anonymous Coward]

People need to understand the old clock in at 08:00 and clock out at 17:00 system is finished. Thing are much more flexible now with part time working and hours to suit personal requirements. If that means reading and possibly acting on emails outside the "normal" working day then so be it.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[Luckyo]

It has very little to do with "personal requirements", unless you're talking the tiny portion of elite workers that actually have negotiating leverage with their employer.

It has to do mostly with competition which has been hyperdriven by globalisation. You're not longer just in competition with your neighbourhood workers, or even the workers in your city, or even your country. You're now in competition even with workers who work on a different continent.

And so, if there's a person somewhere in the world who can do your job more flexibly and for less than you, you either man up and adjust or you lose your job.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[Win0ver]

Not sure where you get the idea that Quebec is anything like France. In France, workers are entitled to 5 weeks of vacations per year. In Quebec it's 2. Stores in Quebec also typically close at 9pm on weekdays.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[yes-but-no]

Agree 100% except minor edit; s/WHY/BECAUSE

This is WHY they are poor. Retail is unproductive and an economic dead end. .

This is BECAUSE they are poor.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[OwP_Fabricated]

Yes actually, you brain-damaged libertarian dipshit.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[skovnymfe]

It's both. They are poor because they sit on the street selling trinkets (instead of doing real work), and they sit on the street selling trinkets because they are poor (and there's no real work to be had).

Re:What typical 9-5?

[skovnymfe]

Everyone runs in a circle around the concept of "unique", trying to be "unique" along with everyone else. Only they never realise the only way to be unique is to give up trying to be unique. Only then are you different from everyone else, and only then are you unique. There are many people who reach this step, but then they forget how they got there, and they immediately try to be unique again, or reinvent themselves, or whatever the fuck, only to find themselves back where they started, trying to be unique. It's ironic, but that's the human condition. Just let them do their thing, there's really nothing you can do about it either way.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[nine-times]

Yeah, it's... almost baffling how this happened. I remember having a 9-5 job a few decades ago. One day, I interviewed for a new job which I'd been told was a "standard 8 hour work day." When I started the job, I was told the hours were 9-6. I said, "I thought you said this was a standard 8 hour work day. If I work 9-6, that's 9 hours." I was told no, that's still 8 hours. I got a 1 hour lunch break, and that didn't count.

But the lunch hour always counted before. For decades of people working 9-5, the lunch break counted. And then, after working there for a few days, I realized that I didn't, in fact, get a 1 hour lunch break anyway. I could leave my desk for maybe 20 minutes before my boss got upset that I'd just disappeared in the middle of the day.

And I thought, "Wow, this boss is being abusive." I started talking to friends about it, and they told me, no, that's normal now. Nobody counts the lunch hour, and a "standard 8 hour work day" is 9am to 6pm. Also, in spite of the 1 hour lunch break not counting towards the "8 hours", it was also normal that you didn't actually get that lunch break, and worked through lunch at your desk. Nobody could account for how or why or even when this happened. It was as though all the companies got together and just decided to pretend that things have always been that way.

And yeah, I've started hearing places that will say they have a "normal 40 hour work week" where people are expected to work 8-6 or 9-7. They've dropped the excuse that the lunch hour doesn't count. They just act like you're stupid if you expected a 40 hour work week to be literally 40 hours.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[gander666]

Shit, and me without mod points.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[jbengt]

Of course, if you're paying the same per week per employee, you'll be paying more for more employees. But otherwise, your math is way off. If you pay the same wage per man-hour, you pay the same wage per day for the same 24 man-hours. Unless you're paying a benefit that's not based on hours (like fully paying for each worker's health insurance), the same goes for most benefits.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[Oligonicella]

They should be open ...

No. To be fair, they should be open exactly the same hours as you go to work. They're people too. What gives your desire for convenience priority over their desires to have the same free time as you?

Re:What typical 9-5?

[jbengt]

No, I need my time to walk around the park at lunch. Sitting all day is what makes me sucky.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[mpercy]

So the people who work in groceries should work extra hours so that they can be "open an hour or two past normal hours?"

Re:What typical 9-5?

[jbengt]

I'd love to have those hours
I did once have a job for 8:30 to 4:50, but currently work from a little before 8:00 until around 5:15 - 5:30, depending on what's going on. That does include a mandatory 1 hour lunch break, which I occasionally have to work through, anyway.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[Oligonicella]

To the non insane, non RW snowflake , easily triggered folks reading the article, it is clear the writer means for backend/non retail type "thought" industry workers

First, after reading your post, I'd say you have no leg to stand on with your "non insane" remark. Almost everything was straw and comes across very 'triggered'.

Second, it was written by an academic (and a guy with a book to sell). You have no idea if what you wrote is true. Me? I go by what people say/write, not any imagined telepathic powers I'd like to have.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[jbengt]

Anyway, working 25% fewer hours means getting paid 25% fewer dollars. Who the fuck can afford to do that?!

Me. As long as they still pay my insurance.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[mpercy]

They probably live in a country where some populist government (people's republic of ...) run by a charismatic strongman promising them salvation has seized farms (perhaps murdering the farmers in the process) and industries to be run by favored cronies. The farms stop producing food and the industries stop producing goods and the people live in fear of the government and/or the government supported gangs, the poor people will pile up.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[jbengt]

French can't even receive work related emails in off-hours.

I just got chastised yesterday for not making sure the client got an e-mail I had sent. My boss e-mailed me after hours about the client not receiving it. I told him I'm not going to get e-mail while I'm on the train, and if he really needs me, he should text or call. I'll do what I have to do to get the job done, but no chance that I'll be checking work e-mails without being on the clock.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[jbengt]

I do take my work responsibility seriously. That's why I won't check work e-mails while I'm not working.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[Oligonicella]

Cite some statistics.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[mpercy]

There are headcount taxes and overhead, like unemployment insurance or ADP paycheck processing. Any benefits that you pay you are now paying to more employees, e.g. if you give each employee two weeks paid leave, going from 3 to 4 employees (3 * 8 = 24, 4 * 6 = 24) you have additional overhead of two weeks of pay per extra employee. Wages+benefits usually runs 1.25 to 1.4 times the wage rate. It costs money to hire employees, "Not every new hire will demand the entire process, but even an $8/hour employee can end up costing a company around $3,500 in turnover costs, both direct and indirect. [Investopedia]" due to things like training, recruiting, workplace integration (a new desk&chair, or extra uniforms for the additional people).

Also, the people who had been working 8 hour shifts at $8/hour will probably actually be unhappy about getting their hours cut to 6, as they face a 25% decrease in take-home pay. Unless you want us to increase their pay so that they still make the same in 6 hours as they were making in 8...by which time you've raised the cost of each employee by 25% so that you can pay the new 4th employee.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[jbengt]

But the lunch hour always counted before.

Then you should consider that you've been lucky in you career choices. In my 38 year career, lunch hour (or lunch 1/2 hour, as at my first job) has never been counted towards hours worked.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[Luckyo]

Good on you. Hope you're not planning on getting any raises or promotions, and don't mind being the first to be made redundant when next depression occurs unless you're in the tiny minority of the people who have a clear negotiating advantage over their employees.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[Luckyo]

However at the same time working people would still be tilling the fields if there wasn't a hyper productive minority among the same rich that elevated our entire species.

And the problem is, it's impossible to separate the two.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[Luckyo]

I'm going to guess that you're both?

Re:What typical 9-5?

[Luckyo]

I can understand your view completely. Hence the way I ended the post you're answering to. The problem remains that globalisation has already progressed well beyond "factory workers", and there are now a lot of well educated engineers in places like China, who would love to do the work you would rather not do because you want to spend time with your family.

And while they're at it, they would also love to do the rest of your work. For less money than you are getting.

Do you see the problem?

Re: What typical 9-5?

[GoJays]

You do realize that 24 is divisable by 6 right? So now there could be 4 different shifts. Morning Shift, Afternoon Shift, Evening Shift, Overnight shift.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[b0s0z0ku]

Open them 1-2 hours later or have morning/afternoon hours, or have two shifts.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[jellomizer]

Most of the people I know who work the 8-6 hours are not taking extended breaks. They are just in the office trying to be productive and often failing.
Because American Guilt is "Hard work is the key to success" If you are not available during the business hours then you are not working hard, thus you are one of those slackers we universally hate.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[DigressivePoser]

I partially agree. If you've been a grocery store bag-boy for 40 years then your wages really don't go up except for inflation. But nearly all of us graduate high school and many from college and get jobs that offer more and more value to their employer and hence get better wages over time.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[jellomizer]

The neat thing is 24 could be divided a lot of ways.
1 24 hour shifts
2 12 hour shifts
3 8 hour shifts
4 6 hour shifts
6 4 hour shifts
8 3 hour shifts
12 2 hour shifts
24 1 hour shifts

The reason why 12 is a popular number in Mathematics and Time and measurements. Is because it is very dividable.
If for that Nuclear Plant job, I would much rather see 4 6 hour shifts where everyone is more fresh, then having them tired during the end of the shift.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[Mspangler]

Iâ(TM)ve always wondered that too. Iâ(TM)ve done
7:30 to 4:00
7:00 to 3:30
And 8:00 to 5:00, plus occasional rotating shifts.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[Highdude702]

That would be mainly due to McDonald's going out of business if a Big Mac meal costed $15.. Nothing to do with the hours worked by the employees. Or lack there of.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[drinkypoo]

Have you ever been to a 3rd world country? You will notice many many people selling a small collection of goods spread out on blankets or tables on the side of the road. This is WHY they are poor. Retail is unproductive and an economic dead end.

Sure, if you are buying goods at full price to resell at a fair price. But those people are getting damaged goods at reduced prices and selling them over market value to dumb tourists, or getting them at extremely reduced prices and selling them at fair value. I used to go get strawberries from a buy who hung out across from the lower entrance to Seascape (in Aptos, CA) for $5 per half-flat. Only thing wrong with them was they had big seeds, but that was enough to keep them off of store shelves. And of course, they were super ripe, so they wouldn't survive the journey to the store, but that just meant they were perfect for me.

B&M retail is dying because the internet is murdering it due to lower overhead. Guess who has even less overhead than a B&M store? A guy sitting on the side of the road.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[nine-times]

Maybe not if you're being paid hourly, but in the traditional "8 hour work day" for salaried employees, those 8 hours were 9-5. The any breaks you took were included in those 8 hours.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[reanjr]

Management can want what they want, but they're only gonna get what they get.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[reanjr]

That's not really capital, that's labor. Those who spent capital making their labor valuable (software devs, doctors, etc.) don't really have the problem you're talking about.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[reanjr]

I'm not sure you have a solid grasp of what provides "career advencement". I assure you, those with "advanced" careers aren't putting in more hours at work. They work smarter not harder. The quicker you understand the dynamics of labor hours and self-respect, the quicker your career will advance.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[luis_a_espinal]

There's a thing called a rotating schedule. 8 hours on a set number of days. Hospitals and factories use this so that when a service needed is that important e.g hospitals, or that cannot actually shut down e.g nuclear reactors, power plants, hospitals, T.V, they can have 3 sets of 8 hours or 2 sets of 12 for people to go to work so that service can continue. The problem is solved, and you can hire more people if you really need to. The reason for 8 hours is so that the day is divisible into 3 clean divisions or 2 for 12 hours. This problem that you think you're trying to create is already solved, and is just logistical.

Also rotating shift workplaces give vacation time around 1 week per month, by design. So you can spend that whole week doing things in advance like buying stuff for a month. Pick a time most convenient during that week.

https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswer...

Rotating or not, those are not 9-5 (ergo giving a point to the OP replying to ya.)

Re: What typical 9-5?

[reanjr]

Meetings are a symptom of bad management, they are not a critical component to running a business.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[brickhouse98]

Using snowflake? Man, that's just like putting a sign on your forehead that screams "giant douche."

Re: What typical 9-5?

[luis_a_espinal]

We are moving to self-checkout and cashierless stores. So why close at all? My local grocery store is open 24/7. The lights are on motion sensors, so no electricity is being used unless someone is walking down that aisle. There is a skeleton crew doing restocking, but I just self-checkout so I don't bother them.

Have you ever been to a 3rd world country? You will notice many many people selling a small collection of goods spread out on blankets or tables on the side of the road. This is WHY they are poor. Retail is unproductive and an economic dead end. It is a transaction cost, not a cost of producing goods or services. The larger the retail workforce, the poorer the country.

The purpose of jobs is to produce goods and services, not "keeping people busy", and retail doesn't produce anything. The sooner we can eliminate most retail jobs, the better. This will free up labor for actual productive activities.

Provide said activities are created at a rate sufficient to employ people. In a free or mixed-but-mostly-free economies (the only models with an actual success record), private enterprises in general do not create them, nor act in a nation's long term interest without government intervention, either via subsidies or tax breaks, or by force the way Park Chung-hee cajoled private businesses to industrialize South Korea.

Countries need economic mandates and development plans. Development plans never end, even for developed nations. And here in the US, we clearly do not have one (and for decades the country didn't need any when, after WWII, the country was the only industrial hegemony left standing.)

So without a concerted effort from Washington with which to create the necessary synergies with the private sector, I don't see us utilizing that newly freed labor force in any meaningful way (to those people's detriment.)

Now, I am not advocating state capitalism or a command economy or anything like that. I'm simply pointing out an existing challenge that cannot be successfully and humanely addressed merely by extreme, purist notions of capitalism or socialism (or any form of extremism for that matter.)

Re: What typical 9-5?

[wisnoskij]

I don't really go out much, and if groceries closed an hour or two earlier, it wouldn't affect me. They should be open an hour or two past normal working hours, but till 10 pm or 24 hours is stupid.

That is the entire point. If they are open a few hours past "normal working hours", then a series of support industries must remain open. Eventually 50% of jobs are now open 2 hours past, and 40% must remain open even longer to "close up".

Re:What typical 9-5?

[spudnic]

And this is why there needs to be choice. Different work styles work for different people. I'd rather come into the office and get my work done. I am just as productive in four hours as I am in eight hours. If I were just sitting around churning out code or reports that may be different, but the actual intellectual part of what I do doesn't get better because I'm expected to be "at work" for eight hours in a day.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[datavirtue]

I don't know about all that but I do know that my brain is cooked after 6 hours. He means middle class people who work corporate jobs. Academics maybe work 4 hours a day and everyone else needs to service the middle class or they are fucked.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[datavirtue]

Adjust the budget.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[datavirtue]

It produces value by connecting people with the best products. Your reasoning is simplistic and ignores the fact that retailing is a thing.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[ChrisMaple]

Sure there's more, but productivity is tremendously important. Higher productivity allows more results for the same time and effort, or the same results for less time and effort. That's we want, right? More stuff and/or more free time?

Looked at from the negative side, low productivity means wasting human time and effort, wasting human life.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[avandesande]

If you are one in a million there are 6,000 people just like you.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[ChrisMaple]

When I was working I never checked email. Why? I was too busy working to check email.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[ChrisMaple]

"Work smarter not harder" is management jargon designed to make employees feel guilty and inadequate. It has no meaning, and if you ask someone who demands that you "work smarter not harder" what he means that you don't already do, you'll get no intelligible answer.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[Luckyo]

And with this, you underscore that you have no idea of requirements of a "high end career". I was talking about a normal one. High end careers are a completely different beast.

High end career is a career that at least a hundred other people want to have. That's the career where you work all out 24/7. Doesn't matter if the kid is sick. Doesn't matter if it's 3 in the morning. That client in Tokyo wants an workable answer to his complex problem *now*, and if you don't provide him with one, there is a guy in New York, another one in London, and another five in Shanghai and probably another fifty in Shenzhen that will be happy to do so.

Fail to do what is required, and your "high end career" is over, because those people will do it instead, and no one will call you again. Not even during the day.

If you don't know this, you have never been allowed anywhere near people with one. Because if you ever worked with one, you know that these are people who are not just the smartest people alive, they also absolutely excel at time management. These are the people who will get an expensive coffee machine because it gets their coffee ready ten seconds faster. Because those seconds matter to them.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[ChrisMaple]

I was going to say that, but reading your post inspired me to check wikipedia.

Thomson has gone through many changes of form and ownership, including "nationalization" (theft) by the French government. Thomson was formed in the United States, and is now primarily British and no longer named Thomson.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[Luckyo]

If your boss is worth anything, he'll find a way give you more responsibility/harder task. Wasting almost a half of 8 hour work day is just bad time management.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[Luckyo]

I keep forgetting that slashdot is an outlier in terms of people who are on autism spectrum. Social interactions such as checking work email on regular basis even while working is a normal and expected part of social interaction that is part of modern workplace.

If you have your laser focus on single task that makes you forget things like necessary social interactions, you may have a great career as a single issue specialist, provided your manager is good enough to be able to direct you well. But it's not going to be an easy road to travel, as you'll miss a lot of social cues, and that will hinder your advancement in many ways.

I know more than one person like that. When they get a great manager, they are some of the best people in their narrow field of expertise. But their manager basically needs to do the "social interaction" part of work for them.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[dimmthewitted]

Many people would love 9-5. In the IT world in the US, the last 3 highly skilled jobs I have had, I have pretty much been expected to be available to work around the clock and put in 50-60 hr work weeks.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[beer_maker]

Please don't take offense, but the only thing making you work the extra time ... is YOU. The manager is breaking the law to require you to be there during your lunch hour, so use the power of your feet and leave for that time. If they fire you, turn them in and let the state or feds go after them.
Plus, why would any sane person keep working for a company that is willing to lie so blatantly to you? Have you checked to ensure you are getting the other benefits they promised? Have you been able to take the vacation time you supposedly earned? Maybe you should ...

Re:What typical 9-5?

[ole_timer]

trump is anything but lazy...

Re: What typical 9-5?

[demonlapin]

And every handoff is an added risk. This is well known and documented in healthcare, which is why you may find a three-shift nursing system on regular floors, but all ICU’s run two-shift systems. Fewer handoffs, more familiarity with the patient, better outcomes.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[PopeRatzo]

trump is anything but lazy...

President Bonespur? He watches Fox News until 11am and doesn't like to read. He's got a button on his desk that he presses and someone brings him a Diet Coke. He's morbidly obese and eats KFC gravy bowls.

Oh yeah, he's lazy.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[q_e_t]

I was going to say that, but reading your post inspired me to check wikipedia.

Thomson has gone through many changes of form and ownership, including "nationalization" (theft) by the French government. Thomson was formed in the United States, and is now primarily British and no longer named Thomson.

It gets murky, I suppose: "The original company was formed in 1966 with the merger of Compagnie Française Thomson-Houston and Hotchkiss-Brandt, becoming known as Thomson-Brandt SA in 1972." .Hotchkiss is definitely French, and the French part of Thomson-Houston was formed in 1892, so that;s pretty French. And it was a power house from the 60s-2000s, and was a driver behind all sorts of things, big designer of CD systems, etc. with Philips. Thomson-Houston the original parent company was formed in the USA, by an American born in the UK. So it's delightfully messy. Given the length of indepdendence of Thomson from the USA arm, though, I think you can count it as French.

I'm not aware of it being bought by a UK firm though. The main part is called Thales now, with Thomson as a brand name for TVs still, I think. Thales has bought a number of UK firms. Do you have a reference for a UK buy out?

Re:What typical 9-5?

[q_e_t]

From wikipedia: "As of 31 December 2014, Thales Group was owned 26.4% by the Government of France, 25.3% by Dassault Aviation, and 48.3% float, including employee ownership of 2%.[10]"

Re:What typical 9-5?

[q_e_t]

"Technicolor SA, formerly Thomson SARL and Thomson Multimedia, is a French multinational corporation that provides services and products for the communication, media and entertainment industries. Technicolor's headquarters are located in Issy-les-Moulineaux – France.[2] Other main office locations include Rennes (France), Los Angeles (California, USA), Edegem (Belgium), London (England, UK), Bangalore, Chennai (India), Lawrenceville, Georgia (USA) and Carmel, Indiana (USA). On January 27, 2010, the company changed its name to Technicolor SA, re-branding the entire company after its American film technology subsidiary.[3] Thomson's US subsidiary became Technicolor USA, Inc.[2] "

Re:What typical 9-5?

[q_e_t]

"Thomson Broadcast is a French electronics manufacturer which designs, produces, deploys and services television and medium-wave radio transmission systems. " So the Thomson name is in use.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[q_e_t]

It does look like the Thomson Group is no longer in operation, or not in the same form, at least, so I guess Thomson has gone in that sense.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[reanjr]

I know my fair share of billionaires as I've been involved with startups for decades. They do not work the kind of hours you seem to be talking about. They are all early risers, but just as early to jet. They have multiple projects, but none of them are demanding mad amounts of time. They are dillitantes, getting just involved enough to put their signature on something and make the big money. Lots are legit inventors.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[ShanghaiBill]

because French people enjoy talking long breaks between jobs.

No. Most French unemployed are either long term (a year or more) or young people that have never had a job.

French people are rarely "between jobs" because it is difficult to fire people in France, and people rarely quit since it is hard to find new jobs. So they end up with lots of people working at jobs they don't much like, for employers who would rather be rid of them.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[Luckyo]

I do understand that you think this, because you clearly do not understand what "high power career" even means in the first place. Because if your talking points are to be taken seriously, there's literally a chasm of nothingness between "average career" and "billionaires".

Re: What typical 9-5?

[Frankzy]

4 hours is 14.4 kiloseconds

Re: What typical 9-5?

[Billly Gates]

And not to mention God forbid be late as being in a seat at exactly 8 even if there is an accident is more important than work produced. Just seat warmer at right time to look busy

Re: What typical 9-5?

[Billly Gates]

Terrible! Your body has biorythms and a rotating schedule hurts productivity and morale the worst as you are evolved to not work that way

Re: What typical 9-5?

[djinn6]

By that logic the shift should be infinitely long so no handoffs are ever needed.

Reality is, after a certain period of time on the shift, people are no longer able to pay attention, resulting in all sorts of errors being made, including forgetting to mention things during the handoff.

Besides, if the problem are bad handoffs, maybe the ICU should devote a bit more time and effort to training people to do it properly.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[djinn6]

Consequences like inventing all of our modern conveniences?

Go plow the fields by hand and see for yourself how great "hard work" is.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[stinerman]

Surely if I'm a rational utility maximizer (as we're all theorized to be) I'm going to not give a damn about passing on the costs to people after I'm dead.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[nine-times]

Please don't take offense, but the only thing making you work the extra time ... is YOU.... why would any sane person keep working for a company that is willing to lie so blatantly to you?

I don't know why you're making this about me personally. The point of my story is that this has become the norm. Yeah, anyone who objects to this sort of thing can just quit their job and then... not have a job, or get another job that's going to be equally abusive. There's this fiction out there that there's just an endless supply of awesome jobs for anyone, and everyone can just quit their job and find a better one, no problem. For most people, even during a good economy, it's just not that simple.

But actually, this doesn't apply to me specifically. The story I told was from my past. I did quit that job, found another that was worse, and then quit that job. At my current company, I'm high enough up the food chain that I've been able to insist that employees get a lunch break, and that they can leave at the end of the day. I'm fine. But my story isn't going to work for everyone, and I'm pretty sure the "9 to 5" work day is just gone from our cultural consciousness. We seem to have convinced ourselves that it was always 9 to 6.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[imrahilj]

I'm not the previous poster, but you can find a whole bunch of statistics that mostly look like this: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Re:What typical 9-5?

[Cinnamon Beige]

Some of it also depends on the sort of work you're doing. If you're working in labs--especially ones where accidents have a high chance of getting the hazmat team to visit and landing people in the hospital--then if it's a necessary-during-work social interruption, the major signal is somebody physically goes over. Emails are for things that can wait until you're not busy with work at your bench, especially if there's a chance you're in the room where it's sneakernet-only.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[Cinnamon Beige]

I would agree if I'd not gotten to see people demonstrating that working hard does not in fact require they engage their brain--but by the time you get out of school with professional qualifications, you should already have learned to apply proactive laziness and already be working smarter. ("If you put in a bit more effort now in the planning/setup stage, you have lots less work later.")

Of course, it's rude to suggest somebody could improve it even more without giving some idea where you see a spot for improvement--and you certainly shouldn't assume that the process isn't as efficient as it could be if you have no ability to even vaguely indicate what might be done. ("Everything" is an acceptable answer, but shouldn't be heard outside of teaching.)

Re:What typical 9-5?

[Cinnamon Beige]

Somebody had to put in the hard work to invent and develop those modern conveniences. While I usually don't agree very much with Bill, I do understand and agree with his point--if you're not willing to put in the hard work now so you can get away with being (even more) lazy tomorrow, you're screwed.

I mean, agriculture itself is a product of laziness: "If I put in some hard work now, to produce food right here, I don't have to go looking in a vague hope of finding food!"

Re: What typical 9-5?

[Cinnamon Beige]

I don't really go out much, and if groceries closed an hour or two earlier, it wouldn't affect me. They should be open an hour or two past normal working hours, but till 10 pm or 24 hours is stupid.

You're a cis-male. It shows. (If you don't get why, ask a friend who has a uterus about late-night mandatory supply runs. Also acceptable: Your parents. Babies often need things immediately and do not care what time it is.)

I've seen at least one grocery store which actually on occasion was where the 24/7 pharmacy was--and all towns above a certain size WILL have at least one of. (It was kind of interesting because usually they're stand-alones, but this one was in a better spot for the impending severe weather so they were the ones to stay open right through--because medical emergencies care about as much as babies do about what time it is.)

Re: What typical 9-5?

[b0s0z0ku]

It's called planning ahead -- life goes on for women even in areas without 24/7/365 stores.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[Luckyo]

We're talking career advancement here, not basic work safety.

Latter is obviously far more urgent, and is administered through things that are much harder to miss even for the people with significant progression on the autism spectrum, such as fire alarms.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[Cinnamon Beige]

Different environments have different rules, and part of being good at social interaction involves being aware of this--you, over in the cube farm, will not be screwing up basic work safety by being expected to check your work email regularly during work. However, if you expect me to be checking my work email regularly during work despite my being in a lab where basic work safety means my email ain't being checked when I'm in there...there will be problems.

Plus, well, if you're in a field where a failure in basic work safety--especially the higher you get--can easily result in body counts and/or pissed-off government agents and/or mass protests? Blowing off safety to socialize is not likely to be good for your career. It might be good for earning yourself long-term infamy, though.

Re: What typical 9-5?

[Cinnamon Beige]

Aw, no friends with a uterus? Let me help you out a bit here: It isn't fucking reliable. At least, not currently, since 'every 28 days' is very much an oversimplification here. To give you an idea of the scale of how much, since you don't have experience: There are major papers on how to accurately predict the female hormonal cycles that are at most a decade old. (Since I probably am one of the few bio* types here--this isn't a surprise if you are aware that the endocrine system is complex and poorly understood, as we're only starting to have the tools required.)

Those people with a uterus who live in places without 24/7/365 stores tend to be very good at cleaning up body fluids, which is super-helpful when you've gotta murder somebody for being too stupid, as well as improvisation of supplies in emergencies. Odds are they'll generally be very happy to have a 24/7/365 store open up in their area. Note that most carry items that people will need immediately with little to no notice--and which may are liable to spoil unexpectedly or be 'liberated' without asking (or mentioning) by idiots.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[Luckyo]

Why do you think that you have such a large problem understanding distinct difference between simple concepts of "safety" and "career advancement" and conflate them as if they're the same thing?

Re:What typical 9-5?

[lsatenstein]

More like 8-6 in much of the US, if not worse.

I envy people in places like France and Quebec who take their free-time seriously -- closing time is 6 pm for many business that would stay open until 8 or even 10 pm in the US.

The Quebec government takes family time as valuable. They did not want to see kids dropped off to daycares at 6:30am, and picked up at 7:pm. So, it became a provincial law that certain stores close early. Excluded are gasoline stations, some groceries, fast-food outlets. But for these latter types, the employee hours are adjusted to match the offset.

It also benefited the chain stores, as they only needed one shift of employees. For example, some employees arrive at 8am, do some stock organization, and neatness arrangements and then the doors open at 9:30am or 10am. These early arrivals leave by 4pm. Others who arrive for 10am leave at 6pm. Thursdays and Fridays, stores are open to 9pm, and Saturdays to 5pm.
Some younger employees were able to leave for evening-university courses, dental appointments, etc.

Re:What typical 9-5?

[drsquare]

Hard work has consequences. Americans work long hours and have no vacation yet their country is beset by horrible poverty and destitution. Millionaires go to work dodging human shit from homeless people, finance centres have cracked sidewalks and gas explosions, bridges collapse from lack of maintenance, debts are reaching record levels.

Maybe if they took things easier they'd have more time to think about their problems.

Go for it

[SuperKendall]

Such ideas only work when mandated, because when you have one company where people only work four days a week, and another where they work 5+ the results are inevitable when they compete...

If you really believe it results in better work go ahead and try it out in the real world.

I do think there is something to rest and being away from a problem being helpful. However there are absolutely also times when sheer volumes of work applied over a long period of time are very useful as well.

Re:Go for it

[b0s0z0ku]

Good. Then mandate it, or at least mandate overtime for ALL workers who are required to work over 40 hrs per week. If people are taken away from their families and lives, they should be compensated for it appropriately. And having to pay 1.5x or 2x time should encourage employers to hire more workers vs having unreasonable expectations from their existing workforce.

Re:Go for it

[Cmdln Daco]

The ideology that Ford implemented is called Taylorism.

Re:Go for it

[Zaelath]

when you have one company where people only work four days a week, and another where they work 5+ the results are inevitable when they compete...

You've never heard of shifts? How do you think a 24 hour McDonalds works? Teenagers that never leave?

Re:Go for it

[times05]

"when you have one company where people only work four days a week, and another where they work 5+ the results are inevitable when they compete"

Replace "company" with "country" to see bigger picture. Short term, quarterly profits kind of narrow view, you are probably right. Big picture with sustainability you are not.

Company doesn't care how healthy its worker drones are, country does. More free time does make you healthier and less stressed long term.

Company doesn't care about future generations. Country does, or at least should... More free hours for parents, means better parenting.

Re:Go for it

[bluefoxlucid]

A Federal comp time policy to prevent uncompensated overtime for salaried workers (you don't get time-and-a-half--that's part of the deal--but you should get that time back as vacation or 1x your hourly rate) would normalize the work schedule.

We can achieve four seven-hour days, either by natural order or by necessary response to a social insurance policy which brings too much economic prosperity in one shot (there are policies that improve our total productivity and reduce economic strain, with the side-effect of causing negative unemployment around -12%). Shortening working hours reduces the amount of tradeable labor and production, which means you're reducing effective demand and thus jobs; it's one way to take advantage of productivity gains.

This was one of my core issues when I ran for Congress this year.

Re:Go for it

[aaarrrgggh]

My company does a 4-9-4 work week-- half-day Fridays. But in reality Fridays are just a skeleton crew most of the time. We compete for good engineers more than we compete for customers. It isn't perfect, but it works.

Re:Go for it

[luis_a_espinal]

Good. Then mandate it, or at least mandate overtime for ALL workers who are required to work over 40 hrs per week. If people are taken away from their families and lives, they should be compensated for it appropriately. And having to pay 1.5x or 2x time should encourage employers to hire more workers vs having unreasonable expectations from their existing workforce.

Automation.

I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment behind your post. I'm simply pointing out a real hole in parts of your proposed solution.

Re:Go for it

[SuperKendall]

There's no sign any of that is true though. Kids appear to be just as messed up in Europe as the U.S. People don't seem any more more or less stressed in the U.S. compared to elsewhere... what you are overlooking is that REAL stress comes from a bad economy, not working a few extra hours. If you have a decent job you are less stressed than having a worse job that does not pay a lot, even if you are working fewer hours.

A country should be concerned about people, and that's why it's job is to get out of the way of people and let them succeed, not crush them with rules.

Re:Go for it

[Areyoukiddingme]

What?

Proposing MORE regulations when it was just shown that reducing regulations helped get more people off unemployment didn't work to get you elected?

You people crack me up. Not one red state voter voted for a Republican candidate because of some mythical "reducing regulations helped get more people off unemployment" fantasy. They voted for Republicans because "Lock her up!" resonated with them. That's all.

Re:Go for it

[Zaelath]

Kids appear to be just as messed up in Europe as the U.S.

Appear? Lol on what metric?

You've never left the lower 48 states, have you?

Re:Go for it

[drsquare]

Germany has short working hours and they do pretty well. And don't have the debts that hard-working Americans have.

Also, get rid of "exempt" jobs...

[b0s0z0ku]

If you work > 40 hr/wk, you should be entitled to additional compensation, regardless of salary. Fair's fair. Should discourage employers from abusing knowledge workers.

Re:Also, get rid of "exempt" jobs...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most people are compensated for hours worked." Stop talking, you've already demonstrated you're too dumb to involve yourself in this discussion. Dismissed.

Re:Also, get rid of "exempt" jobs...

[b0s0z0ku]

Yep, it would be nice for a government to actually look out for its citizens' interests instead of incarcerating 1% of them or sending them to war.

Re:Also, get rid of "exempt" jobs...

[DogDude]

If you're not working hourly, no matter what you do, you're probably getting screwed. I used to be a software developer, and I only worked for a salary once. That was enough to learn my lesson. After that, I only worked hourly positions.

Re:Also, get rid of "exempt" jobs...

[q_e_t]

I suspect the lack of funding for mental health facilities has a lot more to do with it than the ACLU.

Re:Also, get rid of "exempt" jobs...

[q_e_t]

If you are being paid to produce a specific output, then if you can work efficiently you are better off not working for an hourly wage. An example might be a landscape gardener who charges $1000 for some work.

Re:Also, get rid of "exempt" jobs...

[RobinH]

I've been a programmer for 18 years now. I've had 3 different jobs in that time. All 3 of those paid overtime. The second one pressured me to switch to salary plus bonus, and I left within a year because the bonus was setup as a scam. The jobs that pay overtime are out there - you just have to look for them. You don't resent an occasional crunch time if you're paid for it.

Re:Also, get rid of "exempt" jobs...

[OwP_Fabricated]

Actually yeah big brother should help destroy exploitative employers.

Re:Also, get rid of "exempt" jobs...

[aaarrrgggh]

"Exempt" employees can still be paid overtime. The main incentives for having people be exempt are that you don't need to track their unpaid lunches and some other FLSO burdens.

Re:Also, get rid of "exempt" jobs...

[brickhouse98]

AC comment. Immediately know it's useless. Sign in and put your face to it coward.

Re:Also, get rid of "exempt" jobs...

[Areyoukiddingme]

No, it's illegal to force mentally ill people into treatment. Money has nothing to do with that.

Oh what a lovely fig leaf that is.

It's also fucking bullshit. Mentally ill people are legally incompetent, just like minor children. Children can be forced to go to school. The mentally ill could be forced into treatment. In many states they still can be, but aren't because of money and idiot ideology that has completely and utterly failed. The US prison population is proof of that.

Re:Also, get rid of "exempt" jobs...

[ChrisMaple]

Or are you saying you didn't negotiate a good contact

Management is aware of who negotiates hard. When it comes time for annual review and raises, Mr. Hard Negotiator will be offered less and end up getting no more than what he would have gotten if he weren't an asshole.

Re:Also, get rid of "exempt" jobs...

[ChrisMaple]

It takes a genuine fool to turn a friend into an enemy, yet that's what labor unions try to do every day.

Re:Also, get rid of "exempt" jobs...

[q_e_t]

No, it's illegal to force mentally ill people into treatment. Money has nothing to do with that.

Your first premise is wrong - people can and are committed against their will (I could provide evidence if required). But if the mental health spaces are not available then it's certainly not an option.

Re:Also, get rid of "exempt" jobs...

[q_e_t]

Quite a number of people in prison systems worldwide suffer from various levels of brain development abnormality or brain damage, and mental health treatment may not be effective, but it is a difficult question whether prison is appropriate either. These are people with pre-frontal lobe damage, for example, that can prevent filtering out violent impulses.

Two things that stuck with me...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Working hours vs. productivity

Working hours vs. premature deaths

Re:Two things that stuck with me...

[ShanghaiBill]

Whoa. Both of these are VERY misleading graphs. The are showing data collected over a very long time frame: 20 years in the first graph, and more than 40 years in the 2nd. They are mixing data points that are DECADES APART. Over time, life expectancy and productivity have gone up, while working hours in most OECD countries have fallen. That does not mean there is any causative connection between the trends.

These graphs would be WAY more useful if there was a 3rd axis for "time".

Re:Two things that stuck with me...

[alvinrod]

There are better controlled studies that look at productivity based on how long a person has been working. Like anything, there are people who can go all day, but most people are going to start to taper off after around six hours, and few could do that without breaks.

However, the charts aren't particularly useful. You could also conclude that people who are less productive need to work more hours in order to have a similar standard of living. You see this is cities where prices rise and the people at the bottom of the economic ladder have to pick up extra jobs to make rent or afford groceries in the face of those increasing costs.

Re:Two things that stuck with me...

[aaarrrgggh]

Another factor is people (like myself) that cannot be effective at their primary responsibilities for six consecutive hours (or 3+3 with a break). A have productive sprints in the morning, early afternoon, and evening. The rest of my day is taken up with either random distractions or managerial tasks.

Re:Two things that stuck with me...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I would actually expect changes over time to be important since a comparison static in time might not allow you to make sense of how the productivity and working hours are influenced by peculiarities of different countries. If I'm looking for how changes in working hours translate into changes in productivity, I'd expect other things to be mostly the same for the comparison, for which one country at different times seems more usable than multiple countries at the same time. And even if I cant disambiguate the countries, I'd expect to see at least some trend in it.

We could have had the 4-day workweek years ago

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

But we elected Ronald Reagan instead.

Re:We could have had the 4-day workweek years ago

[b0s0z0ku]

I agree: public insurance is good. Cut out the middlemen for basic insurance like Canada, UK, and Australia did decades ago.

What progressive bigotry? Coal was dying long before Obama came into office.

Re:We could have had the 4-day workweek years ago

[terrycarlino]

Yeah the fact that everything turned around as soon as the country found out the Democrats were no longer in charge is just a coincidence.

The fact that the Atlantic endorsed Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with it's stand crediting Obama with turning around the economy, at a time (2012) when the economy hadn't actually turn around.

Re:We could have had the 4-day workweek years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you taken a look at any economic indicator over the last 20 years? The US was hit really badly by the 2008 financial meltdown and started turning around 2010. It has been a slow recovery since. Trump's tax cuts juiced the economy last year but this added to the economic recovery. It did not turn the economy around.

Yes but America ran with it

[SuperKendall]

You do realize that you can thank one single company for the 8 hour workday, right?

Yes I know, but the results are telling - the U.S. has been pretty much an economic powerhouse ever since, and more R&D seems to get accomplished here.

Other countries could have copied us but so far they all seem to prefer to fall into decline...

Now what DOESN'T make sense is our incredibly rigid school system.

Poor assumption

[viperidaenz]

"We can be as productive and creative in 6 focused hours as in 8 unfocused hours."
Assuming people will focus more if they only work 6 hours a day.

Also assuming when people work has no impact.
A lot of people work the hours they do because they're providing a service to customers over that time period. No matter how hard they work for 6 hours won't let them answer a phone between 3 and 5 when they're not working.

Re:Poor assumption

[Zaelath]

No matter how hard they work for 6 hours won't let them answer a phone between 3 and 5 when they're not working.

So employ more people? No one does anything useful with a call after 3 anyway, unless it's in a 24/7 service industry.

Re:Poor assumption

[AmiMoJo]

People are absent from work all the time for things like holidays, medical appointments, sickness, kid's emergencies etc. If the company can't cope without them then it has a problem anyway.

For something like customer service there just needs to be someone around for the full 8 hour period, e.g. one person starts early and the other starts later and both do 6 hours.

This would also help with traffic and cut down commute times, which will also help people be less tired and more productive during those 6 hours.

Re:Poor assumption

[thegarbz]

Assuming people will focus more if they only work 6 hours a day.

That is a safe assumption. A lot of people are quite mental disasters towards the end of their day.

Re:Poor assumption

[jareth-0205]

No matter how hard they work for 6 hours won't let them answer a phone between 3 and 5 when they're not working.

So employ more people? No one does anything useful with a call after 3 anyway, unless it's in a 24/7 service industry.

Indeed. For a site that is full of apparently thoughtful articulate people, there is a really strong band of "wilfully stupid" here. So many of these posts seem to fail to grasp the concept of 'shifts'.

Re:Poor assumption

[azadrozny]

I am not sure it is that simple. In your example, the company was employing two people to answer calls to respond to their typical daily volume of calls. You can't just make the blanket statement that staggering shifts will solve the problem. It gets worse as you scale up. If a large company has 100 people answering calls from 9-5, you can't just reduce that to 80 people in the first two and last two hours and not expect that to impact the amount of time customers spend waiting in the queue.

Most service industry businesses require some number of employees to be on staff at a specific time to handle their customer volume. Yes, restaurants keep cooks and waiters on call to handle sickness and holidays. But, if you reduce their hours from 8 to 6 per shift the restaurant still needs to employ someone during business hours. So that cook who was making $100 per shift is now making $70 with that $30 being paid to someone else. You can't make a cook more productive. It takes some number of minutes to cook the food, put it on a plate, and make it ready to go out to the table. Perhaps you can gain efficiency through automation, but even there the returns are diminishing. There will come a point where there is one person running the show, and removing them halts your operation.

Re:Poor assumption

[viperidaenz]

Yeah, more shifts at a higher wage.

Re:Superblathering Kendall again

[viperidaenz]

That's one company doing a 2 month trial.
It would be interesting to see the results of making the change permanent, after the employees don't have the incentive of "if this goes well, you can have 3 day weekends for life"

Lunch

[onyxruby]

There is no such thing as a free lunch. I think this must be the most hard to learn lesson in human history. The second must be the law of supply and demand.

People keep trying to come up with ways to get around having to pay for things. Countless millions have been subject to poverty and starvation because some fool somewhere thought they could legislate there way around basic laws of economics (Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Soviet Union etc.).

You can't create something from nothing. Somebody has to pay for it with finite resources.

We humans keep trying to cheat the basic laws of economics, time and again, thinking that surely this time must be the time things will automagically work. How many millions will starve to death before this kind of foolishness is considered a crime against humanity?

Re:Lunch

[b0s0z0ku]

With AI, a lot of basic necessities (food, clothing, transport) can be heavily automated.

Re:Lunch

[CaffeinatedBacon]

Because giving people a little more free time will make everyone starve to death...

Re:Lunch

[hjf]

People used to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, from children to their deaths.
Then we negotiated the 8 hour work day.
Then we negotiated the 5 day work week.

It's actually very simple: if people work all day every day, they have no free time. If they have no free time, they don't buy things. If they don't buy things, there are no jobs.
If people don't work, they have no money. If they have no money, they don't buy things. If they don't buy things, there are no jobs.

There is an equilibrium point that maximize "people working" and "people consuming".

Seriously, Americans surprise me with their "leave it to the market" attitudes. Like for example "no vacations mandated by law". Yeah the free market doesn't solve that: Walmart doesn't give you vacations. Why would it, when it can, you now, ... not?

You guys have no vacations and no holidays. You "work hard" and your living standard is inferior to an european's, who have 1 month vacations and a few holidays sprinkled around the year.

Re:Lunch

[alvinrod]

Is anyone forcing you to work as much as you do? You can take as much additional free time as you would like to have. Maybe an extra two or three hours won't hurt you, but there are plenty of people who don't have jobs that pay as well or who made a lot of poor financial decisions or life choices which have left them with little or no capital.

Not everyone would starve, but you're going to begger some people. The only way this doesn't happen is if there is no loss in production as a result of less work (which could be viewed as an increase in productivity) because when you reduce the available resources, the effects are always going to be felt first by those who are the worst off.

Re:Lunch

[Kokuyo]

You are not wrong but it also wouldn't be the first time that "the way we've always done it" just isn't the most efficient one. Yes, this is counter intuitive. However, I don't think we'll know for certain whether this works unless we try it on a relevant scale.

Re:Lunch

[jafac]

honestly - it wouldn't even take AI. Just a committment to investing more in equipment and infrastructure.

(and the money's out there: hell, we printed trillions since 2008. It's just being hoarded to make the 1% feel less anxious).

Re:Lunch

[CaffeinatedBacon]

There have been increases in productivity going back decades. How come people are still forced to work just as many hours as before?
How much is enough?

Plenty of people have little capital. But which 'millions of people will starve to death' for this 'crime against humanity' was what I replied to. Context.

Re:Lunch

[DNS-and-BIND]

Europeans have 1 month vacations because America grants Europe a massive $150 billion in subsidies in the form of horribly unfair trade deals. Moreover America pays for European defense, saving their countries another ton of cash. Imagine the nice things Americans could have if they didn't have to pay for a continent of ungrateful jerks.

Re:Lunch

[SCVonSteroids]

It won't.

Eventually someone or some group will make it so bad that a very large chunk of the world's population ends up in the same situation as the countries you've used as examples. After this is all done with, those left will either be a part of that group or fail to realize that those reasons were in fact WHY they got there in the first place, because it will be flagged as some other reason, and most people can't care enough to believe otherwise once told. Those who do will likely be silenced. Worse even, they'll likely be under a leader who claims that they are OK because of him, and if they don't want to end up like the rest of the world, should follow his lead without question.

It's bleak, but I don't have much confidence in humanity to begin with. Too many laypeople just accept things the way they are and assume those in power must know what they're doing (or wouldn't dare question those in power in some cases, in fear of their own and their and family's lives). Not to even mention how divided we are.

Re:Lunch

[Uberbah]

Europeans have 1 month vacations because America grants Europe a massive $150 billion in subsidies in the form of horribly unfair trade deals.

America is the richest country in the history of the world. Try telling us again how one month vacations would cost toooo much.

Moreover America occupies Europe

FTFY. Russia has a smaller economy than Spain, and their entire defense budget is a fraction of the last increase to Pentagon pork. All those U.S. military bases across Europe are not for defense.

They're for empire.

Re:Lunch

[jareth-0205]

We humans keep trying to cheat the basic laws of economics, time and again, thinking that surely this time must be the time things will automagically work. How many millions will starve to death before this kind of foolishness is considered a crime against humanity?

Hard to take you seriously with hyperbole like that.

Humans have been easily fulfilling the needs for survival for centuries. We work now for shiny things, or because the deck has been stacked heavily against most so that the 1% can get absurdly, impossibly rich at the expense of everyone else.

Re:Lunch

[jareth-0205]

Europeans have 1 month vacations because America grants Europe a massive $150 billion in subsidies in the form of horribly unfair trade deals. Moreover America pays for European defense, saving their countries another ton of cash. Imagine the nice things Americans could have if they didn't have to pay for a continent of ungrateful jerks.

Are you *fucking* kidding me? European holiday is paid for by America. Yeah. Sure.

American military is several times bigger than it needs to be, it's that big because American *wants* a big military. Politically and socially you *love* your military. No politician can ever reduce it, not because of the rest of the world, but because the American people wouldn't support it.

You're honestly telling me that if European countries upped their military then Trump would cut the US's? Bullshit, you don't believe that, nobody does.

Re:Lunch

[cyberchondriac]

The US absolutely has federal holidays, there are 8 of them:
https://www.opm.gov/policy-dat...

Unless you're in retail. Retail sucks. But not every job is retail. Retail is for people who are just getting into the job market (kids) and/or learning to deal with job responsibilities, or maybe people who lack more specific skills to be a tradesmen or professional, or often, older people who just want to work part time for some extra money, sometimes it's retirees.
Most professionals and tradesmen have the holidays off, though there may be exceptions for small businesses (plumbers, HVAC, etc)

I've never worked anywhere that didn't give provide some vacation time, though that varies wildly from company to company. I get 23 days vacation where I am, and in another year I'll get 28 - over a month if you don't count weekends. It took about 20 years to get there though.

Re:Lunch

[MooseTick]

"The US absolutely has federal holidays, there are 8 of them" ... "Most professionals and tradesmen have the holidays off"

Not exactly true. There are 10 federal holidays. Most professionals and tradesmen have 6 of the holidays off.

Most do NOT get MLK, Washington's Birthday, Columbus Day, or Veterans Day.
Most do get New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas

Re:Lunch

[skaralic]

People used to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, from children to their deaths. Then we negotiated the 8 hour work day. Then we negotiated the 5 day work week.

This probably happened concurrently with production methods improving, thus allowing people to produce the same amount in less time. This would have allowed the reduction in hours without loss in overall productivity.

Re:Lunch

[eth1]

There is no such thing as a free lunch. I think this must be the most hard to learn lesson in human history.

You're right... The more hours you force someone to work, the more unhappy and stressed they'll be, making the employer pay for it via reduced productivity and increased turnover.

We always have a hard time hiring good people for our team in IT. I guarantee if we had a 4-day week (at least now, while everyone else still has 5), they'd be lining up around the block to get in the door.

Re:Lunch

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. Empire. Which is why all of those countries have to do everything we say, right? Except, they don't, and they certainly do not do everything we say. That doesn't even count how many countries actively wanted those bases there, even if publicly they said they didn't. America subsidizes a large part of the world's security. If it was left to them to secure their own shipping routes, ensure their own pipelines, and foot the bill for more than a tiny bit of the UN, the outcome would be quite different. The EU and much of the world does not need to maintain much of their own security because the US does it for them. Whether we SHOULD is another question.

Re:Lunch

[hjf]

Production methods have been VASTLY improved thanks to automation. But people still work the same hours and days as 150 years ago.

Re:Lunch

[hjf]

How can you be so ignorant? You're just a few keystrokes away from finding out everything you just spewed is bullshit.

Re:Lunch

[GrumpySteen]

How much are you paying for the air that you breath and the sunlight that lets you see outside during the day?

Re:Lunch

[DNS-and-BIND]

The US pays 80% of NATO. Pay your fair share, you ungrateful cheapskates.

I'm tired of carrying them on our backs to be quite honest. There is absolutely no reason why the Nations of the EU cannot meet their 2% GDP goals in NATO except they don't feel the need to. Meanwhile we're contributing 3.5%-4.0% to make up for their lack of commitment. World War II ended slightly under 73 years ago. At the time is made sense for us to remain spread across the EU nations to protect them while they rebuilt and recovered. We've been there long enough. It's time that the EU nations actually stand on their own two feet.

Bring our troops home. Close most of our bases across the EU. Reduce our NATO contributions to 2% until every single member of the NATO alliance meets that same 2% threshold.

Re:Lunch

[DNS-and-BIND]

We are required to pay Europe $150 billion every year for the privilege of trading with them. Imagine if it were the other way around and we profited from them instead. Wow, just think of what we could afford. Hell, if it were simply even, we'd be far better off.

Remember Bernie Sanders' free college plan that was widely ridiculed as unaffordable? That was only $60 billion every year. Trump's wall is $25 billion once. And that's just trade, we also pay 80% of NATO while the Europeans laugh all the way to the bank. Then they call us baby-killing monsters because we protect them with our blood and treasure.

We've been there for so long and taken care of everything for you for so long, that you grew to just count on it and you weren't very appreciative. You've lectured us for 70, well, 60 or so, years since it took some time to rebuild after everyone butt fucked the hell out of you for WWII, with no repercussions at all. Now there is a president putting America first and you don't know what to do. America is realizing that maybe we don't want to spend so much of our money protecting an ungrateful Europe and maybe Europe can do it for themselves for a change.

Re:Lunch

[jareth-0205]

Good work ignoring everything I said. I'll say it again - the US has a large military because it wants one, not because the rest of the works wants it to have one.

Re:Lunch

[DNS-and-BIND]

Again, you completely ignored my point that the nations of Europe do not contribute to their own defense. NATO is a military alliance, which means you have to have a military! European nations don't see any need for one, and why not? They have an idiot to pay for them! The money saved is h-u-g-e and they're able to fund generous welfare states as a result. That plus the $150 billion we give them in trade every year.

Re:Lunch

[drsquare]

You mean, Europeans have 1 month vacations because their success in making products that Americans want to buy lets them go on vacation?

Re:Lunch

[Uberbah]

We are required to pay Europe $150 billion every year for the privilege of trading with them.

Pennies in the penny jar of a $21+ trillion economy, of a nation with $100+ in net wealth. At this point in time you could take your $150 out of the assets of a single aristocrat, and Bezos would still be worth $9 billion after the fact. But by all means, explain why the wealthiest nation in the history of the world can't afford nice things. While it throws away over a trillion a year to the military, and conjures $16 trillion out of thin air to bail out banks that crashed the economy in the first place.

We've been there for so long and taken care of everything for you for so long, that you grew to just count on it and you weren't very appreciative.

Against what. I know you know pretending that Russia is a threat is a farce, as I've seen you write about just how hard Russia was fucked over by neoliberal shock capitalism in the 90's. The US should not just pull out of NATO, but disband every branch and intelligence agency save the Guard family: Army, Air and Coast. They would be more than enough for actual defense needs.

Re:Lunch

[DNS-and-BIND]

It's not a penny in the jar. Remember Sanders' free college plan that was widely mocked as unaffordable? A mere $60 billion a year. Trump's wall? $25 billion once.

I actually agree with you on the military part. Close all the bases, and when the world goes to war with itself, fuck'em. We're safe in our home.

Re:Lunch

[Uberbah]

It's not a penny in the jar. Remember Sanders' free college plan that was widely mocked as unaffordable? A mere $60 billion a year. Trump's wall? $25 billion once.

Which are pennies in the penny jar next to what's now (probably) over a trillion and a half a year on war pork:

https://www.motherjones.com/po...

Re:Trump's alma mater!

[Cmdln Daco]

Wharton's top perfesser.

Has he ever worked at an off-campus job?

In other words...

[jtgd]

Work harder, get a 33% hourly raise.

Re:9 to 5?

[Cmdln Daco]

At my new job, I work 8-5 with an hour off for lunch. I learned very fast that working past 5 is not possible. The owner wants to shut things down and lock up at 5.

I work at a small electronic manufacturer these days.

Shift work not a great idea for the salaried

[SuperKendall]

Shifts work great for McDonalds because the work is mindless and easily scalable.

Lots of professional or analytical work is not so easy to hand of between shifts, not to mention when you are talking salaried employees you would have to have benefits for far more employees if you took a shift approach. It would greatly increase your overhead so while you might then be able to keep up with other companies (assuming you could really hand off work so easily), you would still end up losing simply because you never could be as profitable as competitors (or more likely never be able to turn a profit if the competitors are already on a thin margin).

Re: Shift work not a great idea for the salaried

[terrycarlino]

Why would four workers on six hour shifts have massively higher overhead than three on eight hour shifts?

First because there is always a cost levied per employee. Even discounting health insurance there is taxes, unemployment insurance, health and safety training and other particulars that accrue on a per employee basis, independent of the actual work.

Second because the whole point is that employees will be paid the same amount for working fewer hours. So any additional employees will require additional funds to pay their salaries.

Now if the hourly cost is not to change, then discounting the per employee overhead it would cost the same. I suspect you will find few employees willing to cut their hours if lower pay is part of the deal.

Re: Shift work not a great idea for the salaried

[jbengt]

Even discounting health insurance there is taxes, unemployment insurance, health and safety training and other particulars that accrue on a per employee basis, independent of the actual work.

Most of those would seem to be per-hour costs. Training is one that may be per employee, but what company wants to pay for any employee training anymore, anyway?

Re: Shift work not a great idea for the salaried

[ChrisMaple]

There is only one modernized country in the world that does that something stupid [no universal government health care] though, and they are only 4% of the world's population.

They (the US) are the most successful country that has ever existed. Not so stupid.

Workday is not legally mandated

[mi]

people "should finish at 3pm,"

In this free country of ours, no law requires people to stay after 3pm. Companies are free to take the good professor's advice — or ignore it.

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[serviscope_minor]

Yep and you're free to die under a rbridge, bankrupt from a treatable health condition.

So free.

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[mi]

Yep and you're free to die under a rbridge, bankrupt from a treatable health condition.

Totally — you got it. Just as the others can not force you to a) wear helmet; b) not smoke; c) not copulate with strangers; d) maintain health insurance; etcætera etcætera, you can not compel others to treat you in sickness, feed you in hunger, nor even entertain you in boredom.

You could ask for the other's charity but you must not be allowed to force anyone.

Freedom, raw.

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[serviscope_minor]

Totally - you got it. Just as the others can not force you to a) wear helmet; b) not smoke; c) not copulate with strangers; d) maintain health insurance; etcaetera etcaetera, you can not compel others to treat you in sickness,

Huh turns out you can, whaddya know?

You could ask for the other's charity but you must not be allowed to force anyone.

Nope, just taxes not charity. And I can be allowed to force them to pay.

Freedom, raw.

Freedom to make all the right choices and still die destitute and in agony.

Funy thing is actualy freedom, that is not being beholden to others, doesn't exist in your model for may people. You don't want freedom you waht licence and to be king.

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[mi]

Huh turns out you can, whaddya know?

That makes us less free. More so than in some other places, but less than we should be.

Nope, just taxes not charity.

Taxes are — by their very nature — oppressive. Money (or whatever) confiscated against the owners' will under the threat of violence — explicit or implicit. If I don't want to do something — anything, from working your cotton fields to paying for your healthcare — forcing me to do it anyway violates my freedom.

Funny thing is actualy freedom, that is not being beholden to others

That surely must include not being "beholden" to the taxman, mustn't it?

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[serviscope_minor]

Taxes are - by their very nature - oppressive

Then why haven't you moved to a haven of non oppressiveness like the libertarian paradise of the Congo, then?

Oh that's right becase you rely on all those things that "oppressive" taxes pay for and don't want to live in the kind of lawless helhole you get when there's no functional government.

I lookforawrd to hear how they're doing lawlessness "wrong" and if only they did lawlessless right then it would be a paradise.

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[mi]

Then why haven't you moved to a haven of non oppressiveness like the libertarian paradise of the Congo, then?

That's interesting... Usually, your kinds asks that question about Somalia... The same answer applies, though, I will not retype it here.

you rely on all those things that "oppressive" taxes

I rely on taxes paying for a) border protection; b) domestic law-enforcement. Not "charity" — whereby the omniscient and benevolent government bureaucrats confiscate money from Paul to pay Peter's healthcare (and food, and shelter, and education).

I lookforawrd to hear how they're doing lawlessness "wrong" and if only they did lawlessless right

I never said anything about "lawlessness" — your putting words into my fingertips is a sign of a desperation — your world-view is self-inconsistent and thus wrong. You concede (implicitly) that coercion is wrong, but still celebrate tax-funded handouts even after being shown — for the umpteenth time — that it is the same thing.

Remember to logout.

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[squiggleslash]

Taxes are â" by their very nature â" oppressive.

Yet almost every country that has high taxes is democratic and has enormous personal freedom. Dictatorships? Usually taxes aren't what people are complaining about.

If I may, I'd like to suggest that the problem here is you're looking for reasons to denigrate something you feel wrong on some level but can't put your finger on it. You know that governments collect taxes (which you don't like, because you're a libertarian), and you know that taxes are, with the exception of the military and the police, mostly used for social programs, be it public libraries, or saving people from death. And ideologically you feel the latter isn't what government should be doing, so you're trying to break it by breaking the argument for taxes.

But in reality, Sweden is by all accounts a really, really, awesome place to live.

And Sierra Leone, or Pincochet's Chili, or Galtieri's Argentina, or... well, you can think of the other places with low taxes... they all sucked.

Perhaps the problem here is not "governments doing stuff", but with the ideology that forces you to blinker yourself to the notion that governments can, and do, do stuff that makes the vast majority of its citizens more free, and happier over all.

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[serviscope_minor]

I rely on taxes paying for a) border protection; b) domestic law-enforcement.

You said taxes were "oppressive". Now you say you *rely* on them. Make up your mind: you're so inconsistent.

I never said anything about "lawlessness" - your putting words into my fingertips is a sign of a desperation

You said taxes were oppressive. Without oppressive taxes you have no law enforcement. Unfortunately for me, I took you at your word. Naturally of course you backtracked instantly. You *rely* on taxes for various things, such as law enforcement.

So apparently they're not oppressive?

Not "charity" - whereby the omniscient and benevolent government bureaucrats confiscate money from Paul to pay Peter's healthcare (and food, and shelter, and education).

But you're happy to rob from Paul to pay for that slacker Peter's protection. Oh I see, everything you personally like is benevelont, moral and good. Everything other people like that you don't is evil and coercive. Wait! Isn't that black and white thinking just what SJWs are supposed to do?

Turns out you're an SJW as well! Who knew?

You concede (implicitly) that coercion is wrong

Coercion of what, specifically. I'm happy to coerce people trying to kill me into stopping, as apparently are you. And you're happy to coerce people into parting with money (i.e. taxes) to fund things I think are important (as are you).

The only thing we disagree on is what, precisely is important. With your SJW black and white thinking you're incapable of reasoning about that.

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[mi]

Yet almost every country that has high taxes is democratic and has enormous personal freedom

"Enormous", huh? How do you measure it? I'll await your evidence to support your claim, that high taxes advance personal freedom, while low taxes cause dictatorships..

Sweden is by all accounts a really, really, awesome place to live.

Well, if you really think so, why are you stil here? If demanding I move to Congo was fair, could you explain, why you haven't moved to Sweden yet?..

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[mi]

You said taxes were "oppressive". Now you say you *rely* on them.

They are oppressive and I rely on them — there is no inconsistency here. They are unavoidable evil, and that is why it is wrong to use them for anything, that's not essential to the very existence of the country.

And you're happy to coerce people into parting with money (i.e. taxes) to fund things I think are important (as are you).

I'm not happy to do it, that's one. I accept the necessity — with great reluctance — to fund the things, only government can do: a) protection from foreign enemies; b) protection from domestic criminals.

You on the other hand, really are happy — jeering even — to tax some in order to "help" others (and yourself).

You'd be aghast over someone forced to work another's fields, but are perfectly content to see people forced to pay for others' healthcare. The inconsistency is all yours. (Or, maybe, you are consistent, but simply don't have any fields of your own — but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.)

The only thing we disagree on is what, precisely is important.

We both agree, the a) and the b) are important. You just want this other vast list — that can, and therefore should, be done by non-government organizations — to be tax-funded too, and I don't. Because I view coercion as evil (if unavoidable at times), and you are inconsistent.

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[serviscope_minor]

They are oppressive and I rely on them - there is no inconsistency here.

So basically you consider life oppressive. You're oppressed if you pay taxes and you'll be oppressed by someone if you don't. That's an information-free way of looking at the world. It adds nothing ot the discussion because all paths start off equal.

They are unavoidable evil,

If it's evil then you are evil for wanting them, even for your own personal protection.

and that is why it is wrong to use them for anything, that's not essential to the very existence of the country.

That's completely arbitrary. The only reaosn the country is important is because of the people inside it. So why draw a line between borde protection and healthcare?

I'm not happy to do it, that's one. I accept the necessity - with great reluctance

You're so reluctant to steal other people's money but you do it anyway. Don't worry I'm sure they feel your reluctance with every blow of the pig-cop's truncheon.

- to fund the things, only government can do: a) protection from foreign enemies; b) protection from domestic criminals.

Private security can do the latter. You just don't want to fork out for it.

Ot of interest, do you support that taxes go towards the EPA?

You on the other hand, really are happy - jeering even - to tax some in order to "help" others (and yourself).

Jeering is a stupid way of putting it, but yes, I support higher taxes than I'm currently paying. And I vote that way at every election.

You'd be aghast over someone forced to work another's fields, but are perfectly content to see people forced to pay for others' healthcare.

So? Those two are not remotely eqivalent. And i include myself as one of those paying for other's healthcare. I'm pretty lucky in that regard: given my family history I'm likely to have decent health into my old age, and I'm currently decently paid (there's a good market for people who can write C++ right now) so the chances are I'll be a net contributor.

You just want this other vast list - that can, and therefore should, be done by non-government organizations

You say should as if it's some universal truth. You also declare "can" without evidence. There's no evidence that non governmental systems can provide anything approximating a decent transport network for example. Every industrialised country has had massive government investment in that regard.

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[mi]

That's completely arbitrary.

No, it is not. It is a very clear case. Taxes can be — ethically — spent on things crucial to the country's existence .

So why draw a line between borde protection and healthcare?

Because a) individual's healthcare is not essential to the polity's existence, b) he can take care of himself. Whereas maintaining a capable military is of grave importance to the polity's survival and can only be done by the government.

Imagine a town faced by a barbarian horde. However undesirable, it is acceptable — ethical — to confiscate the materiel and the funds necessary to arm and equip the defenders, to feed them while they train, and to build and maintain fortifications. Ethical, because, if these measures, however oppressive, aren't taken, the town will be sacked, its men killed, women and children — raped and/or sold into slavery.

Nothing of the kind justifies forcing people to pay for the others and yet this "benevolence" overwhelmingly trumps the military spending... Because of you and your kind.

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[serviscope_minor]

No, it is not. It is a very clear case. Taxes can be - ethically - spent on things crucial to the country's existence .

That's still completely arbitrary. Stating an arbitrary thing more definitively does not make it les arbitrary.

Because a) individual's healthcare is not essential to the polity's existence

There is no point maintaining a coutry for the sake of the country in the absence of people. The only point is for the benefit of the individuals involves.

b) he can take care of himself

There are many, many cases where that is demonstrably not true.

Imagine a town faced by a barbarian horde. However undesirable, it is acceptable - ethical - to confiscate the materiel

Yes, now keep that in mind.

What if there aren't enough finds and materiel? The town and everyone in it dies /is enslaved etc etc. But what if the government can act to increase the available funds and materiel to the point where there are enough to save the town? Well without the government acting there were't enough in this hypothetical. But if the government can ensure there are enough by levying taxes and supporting things that grow the economy to the point where the town is safe then it is surely is ethical and acceptable to do so.

Because without doing so the town dies.

Your argument justifies much greater taxing and spending than simple law enforcement.

Personally though I think it's unethical to hoard everything (while taking people to keep my hoard protected) while letting others die in the streets due to poverty.

Because of you and your kind.

My kind: the kind that doesn't want people to die en-masse and in pain from easily preventable causes. I'm happy with being of that kind.

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[mi]

Stating an arbitrary thing more definitively does not make it less arbitrary.

I didn't just state it "more definitively" — I provided (repeated) the clear and easily applied test. It is not arbitrary at all.

But if the government can ensure there are enough by levying taxes

That's a giant "if", is not it? Not so clear cut at all — and, indeed, more than likely "No", than "Yes". Government can levy taxes to get a capable military. It can not levy them to make the country "nicer" — because that would be arbitrary (and also ineffective, but that's another thing).

To reiterate:

• Taxation is inherently oppressive, but in some cases necessary.
• Because it is this necessity that makes taxes ethically acceptable despite being oppressive, tax-collected monies can only be spent on things essential to the polity's very survival.

Questions of ethics settled, we have this document called Constitution. And, although your kind have "discovered" things in it, that the original authors would've been shocked to hear about, one thing we know is not there is charity:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

— James Madison

If you really feel for someone unfortunate, help him — either directly or via an established charity of your choice. But you do not have — must not have — means to force others into the same compassion.

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[serviscope_minor]

I didn't just state it "more definitively" - I provided (repeated) the clear and easily applied test. It is not arbitrary at all.

A non arbitrary answer to an arbitrary test is still arbitrary.

That's a giant "if", is not it?

I called it a hypothetical.

and, indeed, more than likely "No", than "Yes".

No, it's more likely Yes than No.

Government can levy taxes to get a capable military.

The government cannot tax what does not exist.

It can not levy them to make the country "nicer" - because that would be arbitrary (and also ineffective, but that's another thing).

It can levy taxes and build an environment where the economy prospers. Giving it a lot more resources to tax for the milirary and so giving it much greater defensive power. Oh and infrastructure to improve the effectivenes of the military. Like th einterstates.

To reiterate:

To reiterate your claims. Not facts.

* Because it is this necessity that makes taxes ethically acceptable despite being oppressive, tax-collected monies can only be spent on things essential to the polity's very survival.

Like having a military big enough to be effective. Which requires a working economy. The bigger the better in fact...

Questions of ethics settled,

You simply restatig the same claims is not the same as settled.

we have this document called Constitution.

So? That's not an argument of ethics. It's a document drawn up by a bunch of guys over 200 years ago.

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[mi]

To reiterate your claims. Not facts.

My "claims" explain my worldview — and its self-consistency.

Your worldview remains inconsistent: forcing someone to pick your cotton is bad, forcing someone to pay for your healthcare is good. Get back to me, when you resolve this with yourself.

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[serviscope_minor]

You're exactly the same. Forcing someone you pick your cousin is bad, forcing converting to pay for your safety is good.

You claim only the government can do that, and that's the definitive factor. I've provided reasons why that doesn't follow which you simply ignored because they're inconvenient. Then you started quoting the constitution at me as if that's some sort of moral guide (or relevant legally to me).

Fundamentally you're ignoring the facts though. You want government protection. That's fine. The problem is you don't really admit that needs money and they had to come from somewhere. Sure you say tax, but tax what? The government can't magic money out of thin air. If you want protecting you therefore need to live in an economy capable of supporting the level of protection you desire. In the modern world with mobile armies, planes and nukes that's really expensive, so you need a big economy.

No economy has ever got that large without a government doing more than providing just border protection and law enforcement. So to get what you claim to want you need song approximation of what you have now.

What you actually want is not and will never be provided by the system you claim you want.

You also flat out ignored an earlier question. Do you support the existence of the EPA paid for by taxes?

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[mi]

Forcing someone you pick your cousin is bad, forcing converting to pay for your safety is good.

Would you kindly do me the favor of not replying while under influence?

I think I understand your meaning, but I'm not sure... My own safety is my own responsibility — the country's continuing existence is what taxes can be ethically spent on assuring.

You claim only the government can do that, and that's the definitive factor.

That and it being essential to the country's continuing existence. This is an important requirement — only the government could get to the Moon in the 1960-ies, but it was not needed for the US to survive — at all — and therefore should not have been done, for example.

I've provided reasons why that doesn't follow which you simply ignored because they're inconvenient

You tried to. Those reasons are bogus and, perhaps more importantly, you do not use them yourself — never have. Your ongoing lamentations over the poor slobs "dying under bridges" appeal to the audience's compassion and charity, even shame and guilt. But you never said, we must all take care of such slobs to improve our military strength. So, trying to change tack now is rather disingenuous of you.

Unless your next post addresses your earlier-mentioned inconsistency, I'm unlikely to reply.

Re:Workday is not legally mandated

[serviscope_minor]

Would you kindly do me the favor of not replying while under influence?

You miss-spelled "on your phone". The autocorrect is adaptive and changes up to 3 words back. Sometimes I don't notice. Was meant to say oh fuck it I don't know.

er

something about you want people to pay for your safety.

I think I understand your meaning, but I'm not sure... My own safety is my own responsibility - the country's continuing existence is what taxes can be ethically spent on assuring.

You have not explained the grounds for your ethics. ou are treating "existence of the counrty" as some sort of axiom. The only reason for having the country is because of it citizens. If you want the country to be protected, the nyou are asking for you to receive some protection.

Which is fine.

What you won't elucidate is how far hte government should to to protect the borders and WHY.

That and it being essential to the country's continuing existence. This is an important requirement - only the government could get to the Moon in the 1960-ies, but it was not needed for the US to survive - at all - and therefore should not have been done, for example.

Was having accurate ICBMs essential to the country's survival? A hostile and massively murderous adversary, the USSR, was busy arming up as well. Many would argue yes. A lot of research came out of the space race. A lot of that has continued to be used ot this day for space launch stuff, including earth observing satellites.

You might very well argue that intelligence is necessary for border protection.

You tried to.

No, I did. You're yet to explain where the government can shake the magic money tree to raises taxes for border protection and law enforcement. That money has to come from a functioning economy. Therefore the functioning economy is part of a country's survival. Therefore according to your ethics the government can raise taxes to that effect.

Your ongoing lamentations over the poor slobs "dying under bridges" appeal to the audience's compassion and charity, even shame and guilt.

Despite your inane hyperbolic language, yes, I am appealing to the audiences sense of humanity. If you have none, then why bother doing anything at all?

But you never said, we must all take care of such slobs to improve our military strength.

That's correct. I have reasons which clearly don't overlap with yours for why the government should do stuff. However if you actually follow your arguments to their logical conclusion it leads to the support of the economy.

But your contention is that the government should only touch border protection and law enforcement becasue those are curcial to the country's survival is simply not correct. There are other things crucial to the country's survival like having enough money to protect those borders.

Unless your next post addresses your earlier-mentioned inconsistency, I'm unlikely to reply.

You're finding excuses now. I adderssed it. I've repeatedly followed your reasoning to its conclusion and keep getting the answer you don't like. Yo're only saying this to excuse disengagement so you don't have to address the fact that your agruments lead to conclusions you dislike.

Re: I have the right to work...

[KingAlanI]

You'd have more of a point in a completely competitive market but with fewer employers than employees the bosses have the advantage and labor regulation is one way to counterbalance that

approved+1

[Joe_Dragon]

Now that all workers are at 29 hours we don't have Health Care any more.

Re:approved+1

[GonzoPhysicist]

If we make companies pay for health insurance of 40hr/week employees, shouldn't they have to pay for 3/4 of a 30hr/week employee's health care? This would put an end to keeping workers part-time so they don't get benefits. Of course this would all be moot if we weren't so dumb as to tie health care to employment.

I have been working 3 days per week for 2 years

[mark_reh]

It's great! I work Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Having Tuesday off right after just one day of work is really nice, as is the 3 day weekend.

Now if I could just get some benefits...

Trendline in second chart is incredibly deceptive

[Solandri]

The distribution of the dots don't appear to form a trend anything like the black line. Looking at the dots, it looks like premature deaths start at an average 4000 years of life lost at 1500 hours worked (6 hours/day @ 5 days/wk, 50 weeks/yr). Rises to an average 6000 years of life lost at 2000 hours worked (8 hours/day). Then drops back down to 4000 years of life lost at 2400 hours worked (9.6 hours/day). Based on the dots, it would appear 1800-2000 hours worked per year is the most dangerous (roughly 7.2-8 hours/day at 5 days/week, 50 weeks/yr). And fewer or more hours worked is healthier.

The huge range in the vertical axis (a difference of 3x to 5x in least/most years of life lost) also suggests the correlation is rather weak. And that other factors matter a lot more than hours worked.

Also, the first graph seems rather obvious. A person working will pick off the lowest-hanging fruit first - complete the tasks first which generate the most productivity for the least effort. Subsequent work is less productive not necessarily because they're tired and less productive, but because the easier tasks have already been done, leaving only the harder tasks which take more time.

Total productivity per worker is actually the product of the two axes (productivity per hour worked times number of hours worked). And that's the figure which matters here. If you're working so many hours that your total productivity actually decreases compared to working fewer hours, then that's incontrovertible proof that you're working too many hours - so many that it's hurting your productivity. That graph would form a nice curve with a peak, which is your optimal number of hours worked for maximum productivity.

The peak for the graph you've presented (productivity per hour worked) would (extending the trendline) be at 0 hours worked. Which does nothing to support the assertion that fewer hours worked is more productive, since no hours worked would result in zero productivity. But it does support my interpretation that workers prioritize tasks to complete the easier most-bang-for-the-buck tasks first.

not at my job pls.

[jafac]

Don't get me wrong: I'm all about work-life balance. But honestly, if my days were 6 hours, my projects would be perpetually unfinished, and my skills would get rusty. 8-10 is really my sweet-spot; with maybe a light friday. You start sending people home, and their effectiveness and cohesiveness as a team also suffers (if they're working as a team).

That said: I don't have any problem with remote work (for those in jobs where that can work, like software engineering). If you have the right tools, team, skills, discipline, and methodology, I think having 1-2 remote days can actually improve productivity in a lot of cases.

Re:not at my job pls.

[AmiMoJo]

The problem with some people working more hours than others is that the ones working longer hours expect more pay. A solution is flexible working time. Minimum 6 hours a day, and if you do more you can take them off on Friday.

I have to say though, if you need to be working regular 10 hour days to finish your projects then you are overworked. They need to hire more people.

Re:not at my job pls.

[Cytotoxic]

He is right about working in blocks. Some jobs are like that - you are more productive if you have long periods of interrupted time working on it with intense focus. There is a startup cost to a lot of work - putting it down and picking it up takes time. Analytic work like data mining, SQL programmer, writer, graphic artist, etc. would probably fit this model.

Other jobs are more intense in a different way, and reducing the consecutive hours actually increases productivity. Things like a factory line inspector or a data entry clerk or call center work might fall into this category.

It is almost as if a top-down, one-size-fits-all mandate isn't such a great idea.

Re:not at my job pls.

[AmiMoJo]

I'm happy with anything as long as people who only want to do 6 hour shifts aren't disadvantaged.

It works where I work

[ResistanceIsIrritati]

All the management come in late an leave early. Seems to work well for them.

9-3?

[The123king]

I work in a secondary school, and praise the ability to be able to wander around and fix issues when the school has yet to be filled with kids. When the kids are in, it's actually much harder to arrange meeting with teachers and solve issues, as they're either busy teaching, or busy eating/having a break. A 9-3 shift pattern would make my job almost impossible.

On the other hand, i left the catering industry 3 years ago. Now if you want awful shift patterns, that's the job to have. I'd work split shift 11-3 and 5-10. Thats 8 hours a day with a gap in between. It gives you very little time to yourself, and the time you do have, you spend fretting away about the fact you have to go back to work.

Ditch the shift work! Keep the 9-5!

Re:9-3?

[Daralantan]

On the other hand, i left the catering industry 3 years ago. Now if you want awful shift patterns, that's the job to have. I'd work split shift 11-3 and 5-10.

Ugh. This reminds me of when I was in college. I worked at a large mall in a retail store. I was complaining about my Black Friday hours of 11:30PM Thursday til 9AM Friday. I soon lost the need to complain as much as my friend (who worked as a supervisor at the Burger King in the food court) was telling me about his shift. It was something like:

9:45PM-1AM (getting there 2+ hours early to start warming up the broiler).
Breakfast rush? 6AM-10AM.
Late dinner and closing. 7PM-10PM.

What about the money?

[Pfhorrest]

I'm free to work fewer hours per day right now if I want to. But I'm scrambling as fast as I possibly can to dig myself out of the hole I was born into before I die, so I don't. Are you going to force me to work less for less pay? Cause I don't want that; I could have that right now if I did. Are you going to somehow make me paid the same for less work? I don't know what magic you think will accomplish that but if you've got something bring it on.

30 minutes

[DeBaas]

I know lots of people at work that reduced the working hours to 30 minutes a day. What I don't get is why they usually stick around for another 7-8 hours....

Work or Slashdot?

[rockmuelle]

For the knowledge workers posting here insisting that they need 8 hours to be productive, how many of those 8 (or 10 or 12) hours that you insist you work are spent on the web, “training”, shopping, or hanging with co-workers?

I’ve worked in software since the beginning of the web as a developer, manager, founder, and executive with highly productive teams developing technical software. You know what’s been constant regardless of the company or team? “Down time” throughout the day, either via the web or smoking breaks or exercise breaks. No one who’s honest with themselves will claim to work a full day every day. Sure, some days you’re heads down in code and bang out 12 hours of solid work, but most days, if you’re honest about the downtime, you did much less.

I had one employee once who worked closer to 6 hour days. He’s the only person I’ve seen not slack off regularly. He came in and got to work. He was more productive than most of the 8 hour employees. N of 1 but I noticed it then and have since paid attention to how much people actually work. It’s closer to 6 hours.

It's all about balance

[Anonymous Coward]

Over the last month I've altered my balance in my daily routine.

I'm doing at least 2hr's on something I want to do that is unpaid, could be learning something new, working on a side project, watching tv, posting on slashdot...

Then the rest of the day is for my clients. What I have found is despite less hours available to the clients, I'm getting the same, if not more work done, so maintaining the same level of income. If I'm getting more work done, I then free up even more time for myself.

If I try work a full day for my clients, it becomes obvious by mid afternoon I'm slowing down and not getting as much done. Jobs then seem to take longer and drag on.

I think finding a balance where you can spend time doing something you want to do during the working day, has certainly improved my daily outlook, and at the same time I'm learning and producing better quality work.

It won't work for everyone, it won't work for every role/industry but certainly an improvement for some.

White collar bias

[ka9dgx]

In the job shop / small manufacturing world I now inhabit, it takes about 1/2 hour or so to get everything going in the morning, and about the same time to shut it all down at the end of the day. So, we'd get about 70% of our current productivity if we took this approach. There are many other types of work, as stated above (ER, Medical care, Service industry), where you'd have hire 33% more workers to get coverage. Where's all that money going to come from to pay all and train all these new hires?

Some old white dude (like me) probably wrote this in a comfy office.

Re:White collar bias

[aaarrrgggh]

Sure... but wouldn't working two crews of (3) 10h days be more effective than one crew (5) 8h days? Your set-up/clean-up time is an even smaller fraction of time, and your infrastructure is more fully utilized.

Re:White collar bias

[Drethon]

Have you never dealt with edge cases in your career? Have you always thrown your hands up and said "ohmygosh, toohardtofigureout"?

One question, is the GP providing the edge cases, or is the article providing the edge cases?

BOOK: How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World

[Futurepower(R)]

How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World: A Handbook for Personal Liberty

Download a PDF file of the book: Entire book, 312 pages (PDF file)

Review of the book.

This can backfire

[Whooty McWhooface]

Somehow, I suspect if this gets support by businesses then everyone will suddenly find themselves to be part-time workers.  Now you don't get any benefits.  Aww, too bad......

Of course, you can now work seven days a week to put you back over 40 hours.  <Insert evil laugh here>

More focused?

[TomGreenhaw]

What makes people think people will be more focused for 6 hours than 8. What about service jobs where customer support has fixed hours and forced focus? I'm already reading there is a labor shortage. If take home pay remains the same, we're talking a 33% increase in hourly rate - that's inflationary.

What dream world do these people live in?

First things first...

[QuietLagoon]

Before we start talking about reducing the 40-hour work week, let's start talking about and acting upon how to get the current work week to 40 hours.

So how does that work?

[ai4px]

So how exactly does this work for , oh I dunno.... companies that run 24/7 such as electric generation facilities? What about service industries which are open from 9am until 9pm (ie best buy and other retailers) ?

Re:So how does that work?

[Wulf2k]

Well, they obviously all catch fire and die.

Re:So how does that work?

[samwichse]

9am to 9pm is two 6 hour shifts?

24/7 moves from 3 shifts to 4?

He's right

[backwardsposter]

We either work over 40 hours because we have to, or comfortable work under 40 hours. Either way we should adjust the hours and not the pay.

Re:Yeah I work for a living too and I manage peopl

[jellomizer]

As a manager you really don't have to work more hours then your employees.
Besides even as a manager or even a boss, there probably is a few hours of downtime, where you just don't have the energy doing any work. So you either goof off in in your office. Or wander the cubes jabbing with your employees telling yourself it is some sort of team building or raising spirits. While all you are doing is distracting them because you don't want to do your work.

However to note, if those other employees who are working less hours, means 2 less hours you need to work managing them.

As you move to management, you should learn to drop much of the fine detail work, that is what the employees are for. You need to focus on the bigger picture and make sure the employees are going in that direction. The further up you go the bigger the picture, and less on the details.

6 hour day

[hardihoot]

This would only work if the pay was increased to compensate for the 2 hours not worked. People who live paycheck to paycheck rely on those two hours of work to pay the electricity bill, or car insurance, or groceries. Some people really cannot afford to lose 2 hours of pay a day.

Not everyone lives in Silicon Valley.

Re:6 hour day

[Cro Magnon]

Those who do live in Silicon Valley need those two hours to pay for their $$$$$ housing costs.

Re:6 hour day

[wisnoskij]

Increased to compensate for the 2 hours is not even the bare minimum. The 2 extra hours off work significantly increases your "consuming time", making you spend significantly more money. If you have 2 hours off every day, this could increase the amount of money many people spend by 1/3. while only reducing their working time less than 20%. In reality, we are looking at wages possibly needed to be doubled to maintain someone's standard of living. Every expense goes through the roof when you are talking about possibly doubling the amount of awake time people have off work. From twice as many toilet flushes, twice as much food, to roads needing to be expanded, and the power infrastructure somehow needs to manage to provide the same amount of power to industry, but concentrated into fewer hours. We don't have giant batteries hooked up, so this is a serious problem.

I already work about 6 hours a day

[reanjr]

Does this mean I got to only work 4 hours a day? Cause I already decided a while back to switch to a 6 hour day.

Re: I envy people in places like France You should

[reanjr]

France has pretty much the most productive labor force in the world. France will be fine.

What Jobs?

[wisnoskij]

I have always wondered what jobs these studies are talking about?

The majority of jobs are Truckers, teachers, nurses.
Sure, a Trucker can deliver their loads faster, in exchange for increased risk. But my understanding of society is that this option is off the table.
Can students really learn just as much in 4 hours of class time as 6? Or is it lunch that you want to cut, or teacher prep time?

For me, I have worked construction and IT.
For IT, to really be the best asset we could be, we aimed to be available 24 hours a day as we were reactive problems that popped up as much as we were there for daily maintenance and upgrading. And honestly, you can only click through menus so fast, or walk down the hall so fast. I see the relationship of work accomplished to time spent as directly linear.

For construction. There is a general feeling that it would be pretty nice if we could skip lunch and breaks and go home 2 hours earlier. But that is doing the exact same amount of work over the same amount of time. You don't work faster in construction without increasing your skill level or getting yourself and others killed.

Still working beyond that

[Amigori]

I'd still be working more than scheduled hours! Its not like someone's workload will magically reduce based upon a shorter work day.

And its easy to espouse this nonsense when you're already a 1%'er and don't have to worry about paying the mortgage and feed the family.

Earth paging Adam Grant

[uvajed_ekil]

I hate to be the one to break it to Wharton Boy, but not that many people work 9-5 now that the 1950's are over. Many, many full-timers work longer hours than, and many work less traditional hours - evenings, early mornings, and rotating or irregular shifts. The people working banker's hours are not the ones we should be most concerned about. We should be worrying about the people who work irregular schedules 50-60 hours or more every week with, no real benefits and no vacation time, and still can't make ends meet in supporting a family. I find it sad that some people still only see "workers" as people who work 9-5 in air conditioned offices, 48 weeks a year. Why doesn't anyone worry about the well being and "productivity" of burnt out factory workers or service industry workers who bust their asses every day for low pay? The American Dream is but a dream for most.

Re:Three 12 hour shifts per week

[wisnoskij]

Most people would just get a second job, and work 12 hours every day.

two hours

[roc97007]

What, you mean, from 70 to like, 68? What *will* I do with all that extra time?

Apart from working classes

[TJHook3r]

The people who need shorter days, ie the ones whose bodies wear out, are the ones who will keep doing six day weeks. A lot of us, even surgeons, would certainly not do more in 75% of the time!

Re: I envy people in places like France You should

[ChrisMaple]

Here's some data related to your claim. http://piketty.blog.lemonde.fr/2017/01/09/of-productivity-in-france-and-in-germany/. Note that the blog post is January 2017 for data ending in 2015, and that the publication is French.

In summary: The US, France, and Germany are close to equally productive (money per hour), but Germany and especially the US make more (dollars per person) because they work more hours.

I put in an hour before and after work

[p51d007]

Don't have to, but, I do 2-3 days a week because IT'S QUIET, no phones, no email, text, NOTHING. I can do things & check on the stuff I want to research without interruption. One thing I refuse it to "take it home" with me. My work email is on do not disturb from 5:30pm to 6:30am during the week and from 5:30pm Friday, to 6:30am Monday. If it is an emergency, flipping call 911.

Re: I have the right to work...

[Karmashock]

True, however by fewer you don't mean like "5" employers... you have hundreds of thousands. There is competition.

The issue is not a lack of competition, but rather a SUPPLY vs DEMAND issue.

You don't resolve that by legislating value. You do it by shifting the balance. To increase the value of labor you have to decrease the supply vs the demand.

We're seeing that happen right now even though that is "politically incorrect."

Cutting down H1B visas etc.

Regulators are not going to bias the market in the way that you want. It doesn't work with other products in the market. You can't just say the price of socks is 10 dollars and expect everyone to buy just as many socks for 10 dollars. What you're going to see is more people going around in sandals. Various people will find citing labor as just another market factor that is coldly calculated by the market as... immoral or unethical... this is like calling the winter wind unethical or tide tables unethical. It is naive to impose arbitary moral standards on something that is not plastic to such considerations and has dramatically more power to impose its nature on you than the other way around. The wise course is to understand and work with these forces rather than wasting a lot of energy trying slap the tide away with your bare hands.

If you want to balance power between employer and employee... then you have to shift the supply/demand curve more in the labor seller's favor and away from the labor buyer's favor. There are a lot of ways to do that. But it is going to require some re-posturing by the various political and economic tribalists that have ideologically associated themselves with policies that... sadly have a track record of failure at this point.

Anything short of that is going to have a lot of unsustainable consequences.

Re:Get another job, lazy leech!

[Pfhorrest]

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, but for the record, no, it's not okay for "minorities and white trash" to have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet either.

Re:I have the right to work...

[Karmashock]

Pointing out traffic issues doesn't get us to "contracts should be proscribed by non-stake holding third parties."

Re:I have the right to work...

[Karmashock]

Okay, so you think if I force your employer to give you two less hours of work, you'll therefore be able to pay your rent?

As to choices, yes you have the choice to rent an apartment you can't afford and then work hours that ensure you'll be evicted.

This is a choice.

I suspect you're an adult and will take appropriate actions to see that your needs are met.

As to the suggestion that you need the government to come in and force "the man" to give you what you think you're worth.

"IF" you were worth that, then the market would see you be paid that.

"the man" only pays you that because many areas have been used to a glut of labor in relation to jobs.

This means you have an over supply of labor and insufficient demand to soak it up.

Now, there are different ways to deal with this... one of them is to move. Often economic issues like this are regional and you can address them by going somewhere else. This is something americans used to do all the time but since the 1970s it has become increasingly less common. Various theories for this exist but it does mean that when regional issues occur labor tends to stay in those regions and go unemployed. This depresses wages and creates a generally nasty economic situation.

Forcing the companies to pay you more, often will cause the companies to hire fewer people or do what you should have done... and leave. The statistics on this are pretty clear and not especially open to debate. It is objective reality.

Now if you issue is "how do I address the issue, get paid more, have a better life, have more control" etc... we can do that. There are solutions for that.

But the solution is not "force the government to make them pay me more"... you might see that as an easy fix but you're not factoring time. As in... okay... you did that ONCE... now that "the man" knows you're going to do that, is he just going to put his neck in the noose and let you do it again tomorrow and every day there after?

Most really bad economic theories explicitly do not do a time calculation. Look at their equations and look for a time variable. You'll often find it doesn't exist... for some reason. And that's because they're not factoring long term consequences.

We can cook the golden goose right now... but you're going to starve tomorrow.

Re:You don't know what a right is apparently.

[Karmashock]

Reasons for anything I've said being in error were not provided.

This is a null argument.

What you basically said was that you rudely disagree and that my opinion is as bad as someone I've never heard of before. Given that you're posting under AC... I don't know why you even bother with names.

Should we all just be ACs at this point so that we can shit post and there isn't even any pretense of having a point?

Regardless, you didn't provide a reason for why I was wrong. Until you do, this is a null argument.

Try again.

Six hour workday?

[Snufu]

No way. I'm not tripling the amount of time I spend in the office.

Re:I have the right to work...

[Karmashock]

As to the presumption you can pass a law and force the market to do what you want... Look at Detroit or Venezuela. The market has a response if you want play games.

If I hated someone... I'd tell them to do it. It is one of the crueler things I could wish upon a people.

It won't work. It will backfire. The data makes that clear. We can pull up information if you want.

As to "employers know how to make the labor market a buyer's market"... I'm not disagreeing... but I think when you cite "how" they're doing that, it will reveal other solutions. I know how they do it. I want you to say it. It will come back to supply and demand. Thus making supply and demand the dominant force. It was dominant in Soviet Russia and is dominant in North Korea. You can't stop it. It exists in maximum security prison. It is everywhere in every economy.

As to new kids always entering the labor pool... depends on the profession... if you're exclusively talking about unskilled labor... that is work literally "for" children. As an adult, you should not be competing with children anymore than you should be getting beaten in a spelling bee by a toddler. Between the time you were a kid and now... did you really develop no skills at all? Because "that" is actually the problem if so.

Go to welding school or something... takes a few months... they are paid pretty well from what I understand.

You're killing me.

Says professor, who has never run a business

[Tony Isaac]

It's easy to sit behind your classroom podium and prognosticate about how long the work week should be. But try running an actual business, and you'll find out just how hard it is to get everything done, even with an 8-hour day!

Seems that points are missing...

[martinfb]

How does one get a US worker to focus for 6 of 6 work hours, when we cannot get 6 of 8 work hours out of them?!

Workplace culture

[bblb]

Workplace culture is far more important than scheduling, imo... I left a job that was six figures with a schedule of 1000-1500, a 25 hour work week in favor of a position with similar pay but 0800-1600, a 40 hour work week. 60% more hours for about 2% more pay, but I'm exponentially happier in the new position. Bottom line, the old company was absolute shit... disrespectful, unappreciative, amoral executives without any sense of integrity or honesty and a generally poor atmosphere all around. The new company is just staffed by better people, top to bottom, who care about what they're doing and it's reflected in the atmosphere every minute of the day. The actual job is the same, IT doesn't change too much from one spot to the next, but everything else about work is so much better that I have no qualms at all about being here longer. Folks bring their dogs to work and generally enjoy being at work here whereas the old company was a life sucking, soulless grind regardless of how few hours I was there or how easy the work was.

Shorten workday

[cnoblejr]

Easy way to do that. Become an entrepreneur. You get to choose which 120 hrs a week you work -- AND a 9 out of 10 chance to go bankrupt.

Re: Blathering liar Ken Doll lies again? Unsurpris

[SuperKendall]

Maybe? I don't know anyone else here at al though I do recognize some names when I post... but every response from me is basically independent from anything I've ever posted before in response to anyone. Even if some other post from someone before was stupid everyone makes mistakes or changes, no reason to hold any grudges I say. Besides, who wants to remember the history of a bunch of people on the internet you have no real connection with?

Re:I have the right to work...

[Karmashock]

You're right and wrong. The market is not the problem but the political system which allows politicians to bias the economy.

There are mechanisms to inflate the labor supply with suppresses price.

What you keep not appreciating is that it is SUPPLY and DEMAND.

Contrary to your suggested knowledge of the matter, it is by manipulating SUPPLY that employers lower price.

IF you want to be paid more, then you have to DECREASE SUPPLY. Just as that will increase the selling price of nickel or rubber... it will also increase the price of labor.

Control immigration, regulate the H1B visa system better... and labor prices will come up. It is fundamental and unstoppable. You can get around that as easily as you can get around the laws of thermodynamics. Many say they can dictate the market... hyper-inflating currencies and famines tend to be the reward of such people.

How then were labor prices suppressed? Well, look at a graph of WHEN US labor prices started to go down:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

We can see it started to crash in the 1970s. What happened in the 1970s? Globalism was an element. There were changes in trade, changes in labor, and that put pressure on US wages.

If you want to improve US wages, you don't do it by passing a law that says companies have to pay people more. You do it by increasing the value of US labor... which means shifting the supply/demand curve.