Is it time to consider a four-day work week?

The need to create jobs could be greatly alleviated by reducing the 40 hour work week. I would be interested in other people's opinion on the effect this could have on the economy.

Take the teaching profession. You really don't want students attending classes ten hours a day, and you really don't want to switch out teachers in mid-week.

Impractical for low paying jobs, after all, are you going to raise pay rates to compensate for those hours that are lopped off?

Certain jobs can only be performed by certain people. Say you're having brain surgery. Would you really want the number five guy coming in and doing the job simply because the number one guy had reached his limit for the week?

This is a good idea in theory, and for some it would work out OK. For for others it wouldn't work out well at all.

allow for more people employed. It means less pay but you at least keep benefits. There is still 5 days of work but the work is shared.

Students can easily fill in the 5th day with research, field work/field trips and enrichment. Most high schools have a schedule similar to universities now anyway. (Science MWF, Lab on T,Th) My son's schedule is in 6 day cycles.

Doctors... well different doctors do different things but I have not seen one that actually performs surgery straight for 8 hours unless it is a special circumstance. It happens but they don't do it every day. Most only schedule their surgeries two days a week, the rest of the time is seeing patients. There are so many shortages of doctors in certain specialties it would be impossible for them to work a four day work week but then again, they are professional level and like self employed people, they put in an over abundance of hours to either build their client base/practice/business or service the one they have built. If the AMA opened more medical school slots as well as speciality residencies and if the cost of the education was not so crippling ($200,000 debt by the time you are done), many doctors would not be so overworked.

Low paying jobs are mostly part time by design.

Go study your ed-psych. Switching up teachers, especially for younger students, would lead to all kinds of problems, and our students would suffer. Also, schools simply don't have money for weekly field trips, field work and/or enrichment.

While surgeons generally don't operate five days a week (though I've known some who do), the other work that they do is almost as important. Also, some medical specialties are five days + per week, anesthetists, etc. Do you really want a sub par gas passer sitting in for your surgery just so he has a job? Oh, and some doctors, especially those who do very tricky surgeries, do surgery for ten, twelve, even fifteen hours or more. What, you want them to switch out in mid operation?

So you're willing to make all low paying jobs part time, thus destroying people's lives? I know lots of low paid people who do work forty hours a week, and if they got cut back even a few hours, they would go under.

What about the owner/operator of a small business who puts in fifty, sixty hours a week? Will you force them to hire part time help? For many small businesses that would be the kiss of death.

Like I said earlier, your proposal might work for some jobs, but certainly it isn't a good fit for many others.

who will supervise those enrichment activities, labs, etc.? Teachers! So there is no 4 day work week it's just a restructuring of the week. There is no way I could survive making less money, even if I did keep my benefits. Please don't be so cavalier about the income of other people.

week breaks in between. Shorten the day and make it 5.. or to save money go only 4.. AND because of busing costs, many districts are doing this now.. 4 day school weeks.

As for surgeons.. I suppose they'd have to hire more.

As for people being paid more or in par with living costs, I believe that in this current breakdown of our capitalitic society, we could create a world where people aren't stretched to the brim, and where people aren't so damn greedy to think they are entitled to certain shiney objects.

And again, it would be a disaster to switch up teachers in the middle of the week. Giving students a three day weekend would also be doing them a disservice, since their retention of material would go down and their education would suffer. This is basic ed psych.

Again, they may have to hire more surgeons, but still, would you rather have the best brain surgeon in your area working on you, or would you be willing to settle for somebody fresh out of med school just so that they can be employed.

And yes, we could create that world that you speak of, but the question that comes up is will we? Given our cutthroat capitalistic society, I highly doubt it. Hours would get cut, but their pay wouldn't go up, and their ability to pay for the basics, food, shelter, clothing, would disappear.

56hr a week, salary and have 8days of vacation. My sis n law has her kids going year round with 3 week breaks in between. If you shorten the day in school by an hour or only go 4 days a week with more weeks how is that switching out teachers?

What I'm hearing is can't. Can, can do anything. Can't gets stuck at the bottom of the hill. If we continue on a cut throat capitalistic model everyone knows, my 4 yr old, when an adult, will be working 16hrs and living in a dorm-like hostel that the company provides... Personally, I think that Chinese model looks like slavery.

Also, I'm assuming if we allow those with the greatest potential to continue on in school and allow them to do so without taking out gigantic loans, we would get the best potential out of our society. Personally, I think its an awful waste when I hear that many H.S. valedictorians cannot afford to go to college, so they go directly into the work force. What a waste.

It simply flies in the face of the OP's original proposal, which is to cut the hours that people work

However I think that shortening the week to four days is going to adversely effect students' retention, this is basic ed psych. Actually, retention is one of the biggest factors in pushing for year around school:shrug: Why undo that good by shortening up the school week?

As far as higher ed goes, yes, we need to do something there, like providing free college education.

And please explain how wanting to retain forty hour work weeks is "cut throat capitalism"? You don't want your child working sixteen hour weeks, so how is cutting work weeks now going to prevent that?

Are you or were you a classroom teacher?

as many jobs. I'm just tired of hearing can't. If all we do is complain and offer no sollutions, how do we solve? Teachers, like so many, need more money. I don't think there is anything wrong with looking at the possibility of decreasing the avg. work week. Have you thought of what two parents having more time to help their children with homework would be like?

prep work at school, rather than dragging it home... One for language/ history.. another for math science. It could work if we start thinking outside the box for a change.

And many students use that time to make up classes in summer school. Personally, I need the time to plan for the coming year and decompress. Teaching is as exhausting as it is thrilling.

which felt like less than a week due to crazy rotating shifts, talk to me about exhaustion and needing time to decompress. Nurses need unions like teachers have, No Shit.

I'm lucky if I get thirty-two hours a week, and even then I barely make enough to pay all my bills. It's near impossible to save up for anything - like the dental work I needed done four months ago - on my paychecks as is.

I suspect a lot of people are not aware of these services if they have a Dental Hygiene Department at a local college near them.

http://www.prairiestate.edu/dental/index.html

http://www.prairiestate.edu/dental/patientinfo.html

Services and Fees Services Adult Youth Child
Cleaning $20.00 $15.00 $ 6.00
Fluoride Treatment $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
Bitewing X-rays $12.00 $12.00 $8.00
Occlusal X-rays(2 films) $3.00 $3.00 $2.00
Full Mouth X-rays $20.00 $18.00 $8.00
Per X-ray film $4.00 $4.00 $4.00
Sealants (per tooth) $5.00 $5.00 $5.00
Mouthguard $5.00 $5.00 $5.00
Panorex X-ray $20.00 $20.00 $20.00
Bleaching Tray (per arch) $10.00 -- --
X-ray fees also apply to patients scheduled for radiology labs. There will be a 25% discount for all senior citizens, PSC faculty, and staff.

I know there's a dental school in Milwaukee that offers free-low cost dental work. Haven't been able to determine if UW-Madison (which is in town) offers it. I'm a little nervous about going to students, though - I have two broken teeth that need repairing of some kind, and probably a fair number of cavities. (I'm much more hygienic than it sounds; it's mostly from the year I was too poor to afford a toothbrush, toothpaste and dental floss on a regular basis.)

This mindset that only the serious stuff gets done between 9 and 5 is so bogus.

I'd love to see a four day work week. Why not?

The avg. work week should be perhaps 30hrs/ week. This way anything over that time is overtime.. AND adjust everything including min wage etc for this adjustment. The reality is families now consist of 2 persons out of the house per week. You barely get home and make dinner or head to a soccer game before your head hits the pillow and the next day begins. Our way too busy lives need more free time to spend with the family. But if you do this, we would have to change our trade policies. We would have to insist that trading countries adhere to the same qualities of life that we wish our own citizens to have.

Obama really wishes to usher in a wave of vollunteerism and community involvement. This cannot happen when a household has two adults out of the house 40+ hrs a week to scrape together enough to pay bills. AND with a little extra time, people could take classes and re-train or increase their training. People can give back to their community. People can have more time to excercize and eat healthier. Its time to have some damn time. AND with as many people experiencing massive amts of time off, they are realizing how much time is consumed away from loved one's and away from doing things they like as hobbies or whatever. Its time to have 4wk vacations, pd. time off for having children or attending to an illed loved one, and its time to work on our relationships again.

We have an opportunity to change the way we do many things. Our capitalistic sick society is breaking down. This is the time to involve ourselves into demanding time. We are not born to work ourselves to death. We are born to experience life. Life won't find you inside a cubicle box or stuck working your butt off. We can be what we want and we can change things the way we want them.

I retired I felt just drained. Thenhealth problems surfaced and I'll bet they had to do with all the stress that had built up over the years. I used to say I was proud of my hard work but I don't say that anymore. I look at myself and how I was back then and I was just driven. I feel I sacrificed a lot of my physical health to do the jobs I had to do...

money sucks. I do like having more time off though. Now my cheap labor employer is using the shitty economy to freeze my already low wages for another year.

Evidently for some I was not too clear in that I was looking for a reduction in hours to stimulate more jobs.

Is it possible that pay could be some way kept the same by providing tax incentives for those corporations that would adopt the less than 40 hour standard week? Perhaps not a 32 hour week, but maybe a nine hour four day week or some other standard that would stimulate job creation. I certainly am not an economist, but could tax breaks be compensated for by more people working and paying taxes thereby making it a break even arrangement?

Here something else that I have wondered about. Why can't home loans that are in jeopardy be renegotiated to maybe a 45 year loan or even 60 years? Seems to me that both the home owner and the bank would profit rather than the bank being stuck with a property that has lost value and the homeowner out on the street.

Instead of simply having one or two people in debt slavery, we can now have entire generations born into debt slavery? Not a good idea.

Besides, I have a huge problem with rewarding people who bought too big a house on bad credit and bad faith while those of us who did the right thing and stayed within our means get screwed one more time, and are expected to bail out the idiots with our tax money.

to save the cost of steam heating a 150,000 sq ft 80 year old uninsulated brick building. It did take some time for the hourly employees to adjust to the new schedule. After a month they seem to like the schedule. It saved them the gas for the commutes and it gave the three day weekend every week. When the Spring returned and heat was not an issue, we polled the hourly workforce about ending or continuing the 4 day schedule. They voted 80% in favor of keeping the four day work week. Salaried staff did work a half day on Fridays.

12 hour shifts and full time pay.

In fact, a significant percentage of US workers have seen their work week/hours steadily increase as they are required to make up for the work that used to be done by the people that have been steadily laid off for decades.

http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=9781400034338">The Disposable American: Layoffs and Their Consequences

A lot of companies would cut down to a 35 hour work week or something similar and basically expect people to still work 40 or more while paying them for 35 or less.

Last year my company went from a 37.5-hour work week to a 40-hour week and all salaried employees got an offsetting pay increase to compensate for the additional hours. (Hourly workers, naturally, got an increase automatically.)

So, in the set-up you propose, it would be logical that, going from a 40-hour week to a 32-hour week, we'd all have to take a 20% cut. It might put more people on the payrolls, but there would be a lot of people, a whole lot more, actually, who are already working who would no longer be able to meet their obligations with that kind of reduction in income. How does that help the economy?

That you can be assured of.

Don

Yeah, I'm betting there were those who picked apart the idea of a 5 day work week also. My how times change.

Fact of the matter is that most jobs would work under a 4 day, 8 hr/day work week structure.

"Sorry, but you're going to be paid less and unable to make your mortgage or other bills because we're going to employ more people." That won't fly.

The difference between then and now is the push for a five day work week went hand in hand with raising people's wages. You really can't have one without the other, yet the OP is proposing simply to cut hours with no mention about a raise in pay. That would be a disaster.

That the OP didn't mention it is why discussion is helpful. I suspect that a reasonable plan to guarantee more time off would be an inducement for some to switch to even a 10 hr/day schedule with the promise of another day off each week. I'm guessing that most would be willing to switch even if meant a modest reduction in wages (say a 32 hr week with a pay adjustment to a 36 hour wage equivalent.)
That would create fewer jobs but would make the transition more palatable.

After all, if you raise the wage of the employee who's hours are being cut, and raise the wages of the new employee who is taking up the slack on those hours, overall the employer is going to be paying out more.

Do you honestly think that will fly also?

I'm not suggesting it would be a simple plan. It would require a lot of economic analysis before a real proposal would hit the table. There are many factors that come into play. For example, businesses that can shutter the premises one day a week will see an offset in terms of operational costs. For other businesses, wage levels will be set based on competitiveness. If the competition agrees to shorter workweeks with no or little wage reduction they company/organization will face the choice of losing good workers or meeting the challenge.

Of course, it's doubtful that anyone would suggest a move to a four day work week standard because much of the industrialized world has a five day standard.

....will be more than offset itself by a reduction in productivity. So what you're suggesting would result in employees being paid the same amount of money for 20% less work product to save the relatively small amount spent on heat and lights (and no savings at all on things like rent and insurance etc). Because if productivitiy didn't more than offset operational expenses, there would be no point in being in business in the first place.

And how would "(shuttering) the premises one day a week" result in more jobs?

As for shuttering, not all businesses would be able or willing to close down entirely and they would need to hire. As I wrote before, sustaining wage levels wouldn't result in as many new jobs, and the shuttering option is one reason why.

Jeez. Real adjusted wages are LOWER than they were in the 70s.

Time to take the hats out of our hands and start "telling" the Ruling Class how things are going to be.

Enough!

My bosses have even told me just to go home at 3:00 sometimes on Fridays. I'm sure it's not like that in many cases and I'm sure in many cases it is like that. The four hour workday could definitely work in a lot of situations assuming that people don't treat Thursday like they treat Friday now.

this has been brought up before with our management, because some employees have educational, childcare, or other demands on their time and have requested a reduced work week - some of them have even said they're willing to work without benefits. Each additional employee adds overhead costs (including benefit contributions) that our company's management team doesn't want.

Also, there are many employees for whom a 20% cut in hours, with a corresponding 20% cut in pay, would be simply and immediately devastating. It's been said that many Americans are only one or two paychecks from homelessness. Where I live and work, a sudden drop of 20% in pay could easily have that effect on a sizable number of our work force.

Passing a law reducing the work week for 40 hours to 32 would also have the unintended effect of causing management to convert as many wage-earners to salaried workers as posssible. Salaried people would be working 40-60 hour weeks to make up for the cut hours of the hourly wage earners. I don't think that all of the hours would be converted to unpaid work done by salaried workers, but it's unlikely that they'd all be converted to new job positions, unless the employer is somehow restricted forcibly from using other work-arounds such as additional outsourcing and even illegal, unpaid overtime.

I would think that many corporations would see significant savings in not having to heat and light their place of business five days a week. This would result, based on a 5 day work week, in a 20% reduction in these costs. Think how this could also help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If it only resulted in a 2-3% reduction the savings would be astronomical. The more I think about this the more attractive it seems. I also have thought about when FDR came into office the work week was often 60 hours.

I think that the Republicans, those that are actually in charge, would love to turn back the clock. The really stupid Republicans, the working stiffs, would probably think it was great. Working class Republicans are really pathetic souls. Strong unions could have prevent much or what has happened to the American worker since they could have pressured congress not to pass anti-labor measures favoring out-sourcing of jobs and incorporation of businesses in off-shore tax havens.

To a great extent the American worker actually cooperated in their own demise by buying the bull that was peddled by management that they would be well taken care of and didn't need those evil unions' protection. Yeah, they took real good care of them.

A growing number of Americans, including many people I know personally, are working two or even three jobs for a total of much more than 40 hours a week, in order to make ends meet - when they can find and keep those jobs.

It'd be better to push your Federal reps and Senators to pass the Employee Free Choice act than to try to get another work week reduction. (in my opinion, of course).

The overhead cost for each employee is fixed, and is fairly high. Adding employees while reducing their hours and increasing their pay is only likely to happen with a strong resurgence of organized labor. Otherwise, people will just be pressured increasingly to do more with less time, and jobs will be outsourced, dumbed down or replaced by automation at an even higher rate than they are now.

...how does that create more jobs?

They also get 4 or 5 week paid vacations. If we were not so addicted to consumption we wouldn't have to make so much money to pay for it.

This helps the economy how, exactly?

....is that people should get paid the same amount of money for working fewer hours and producing less.

Which would actually be of negative benefit to the economy, but apparently logic isn't at play here.

but a positive benefit to the wage earners. Apparently in your "logic", it is the wage-payers who represent "the economy".

"when the Kellogg company made their historic switch to a 6 hour day on 1 December 1930, they were searching for a strategy to cope with the unemployment of the Depression. To their surprise, they found that workers were more productive, on the order of 3 percent to 4 percent. In some departments, the pace had picked up even more. According to one observer, '83 cases of shredded whole wheat biscuit used to be packed in an hour (under the eight hour day) At the time of my visit, the number was 96' The workers were pleased, preferring the quicker pace but shorter hours. And management was pleased as well. According to W. K. Kellogg 'the efficiency and morale of our employees is (sic) so increased, the accident and insurance rates so improved, and the unit cost of production is so lowered that we can afford to pay as much for six hours as we normally paid for eight.'

Contemporary evidence tells a similar story. When the Medtronic Corporation in Minneapolis decided to give its employees forty hours' pay for 36 hours of work, it hired no additional peronnel but found that output increased. On balance, the company saved money...Far from being costly, nearly all these workweek reductions paid for themselves, even when workers' incomes were held steady." Juliet Schor "The Overworked American" pp 154-155

83 X 8 X 5 = 3320 cases of shredded wheat packed per week

96 X 6 X 5 = 2880 cases of shredded wheat packed per week

Maybe math has changed since 1930, but that doesn't look like an overall increase in production to me. And how does a 3-4% increase in hourly productivity offset a 25% decrease in hours worked?

And if they're paying their employees the same amount of money for six hours of work as they previously had for 8 and getting slightly less than 90% of the total output per employee per week, how does that enable them to hire more workers?

Which was supposedly the point of the original post of this thread in the first place.

With a 6 hour day, you add a shift and have 4 shifts instead of three.

I don't think the math works to pay people the same, although the businessman Kellogg claimed it did. As I said in another post, I think people should take a pay cut with their hourly cut. 25% would be too much, as would 20%, but if 4 nine hour days replace 5 eight hour days that would be doable. Even five seven hour days would give people more time, but the typical American does not seem to appreciate their free time so much.

8-hour day: 83 cases/hr cost $10 in labor, unit labor cost = 12 cents/case.
6-hour day: 96 cases/hr cost $10 in labor, unit labor cost = 10 cents/case.

Old price/case retail = $1. Profit/case = .88 (assume away other costs for the moment)
New price/case retail = $1. Profit/case = .90

Profit for every $10 in labor cost, 8 hour day = $73
Profit for every $10 in labor cost, 6 hour day = $86 (+17.8%)

Total production goes down, but it would go down regardless; the initial reason for cutting hours was because of the bad economic situation - people are buying less. But they're buying less from the capitalist's competitors, too.

The question is, what to do in that situation:

Old 8-hour profit for 3320 cases = $2922
Old 8-hour profit for 2880 cases = $2534 (-13.2%)
New 6-hour profit for 2880 cases = $2592 (-11.3%)

The increased productivity from shorter hours means the manufacturer's total profit decreases less in relation to his competitors. He can fill the lower demand at lower unit cost.

And, equally important, return per dollar invested has increased.

He's investing less money in raw materials, & getting the same return per dollar.

He's investing the same in labor, but getting more return per dollar.

He's investing less in, e.g., electricity, but getting more return per dollar.

And he still has the capacity to immediately ramp up production when the economy gets better, with an experienced (& grateful) workforce.

He also has the capacity to cut his prices a little without decreasing his profit per $ invested - & hopefully gain a little market share from competitors. And his product quality stays the same.


OTOH, his competitor who cuts workforce or reduces wages runs the risk of decreasing productivity (from not enough labor to run production lines effectively or do repairs, as well as pissed off, exhausted employees who might spit in the cereal mix).

Thus he risks decreasing his own rate of return per unit sold, & per dollar invested.

Imagine 10 employees are making the cereal, each making $1/hr ($10/hr total).
You lay one off. Now your hourly cost is $9, but with a slight productivity loss:

8-hour day: 83 cases/hr cost $10 in labor, 10 employees, unit labor cost = 12 cents/case.
6-hour day: 96 cases/hr cost $10 in labor, 10 employees, unit labor cost = 10 cents/case.
8-hour day: 82 cases/hr cost $9 in labor, 9 employees, unit labor cost = 11 cents/case.

Your profit/case on 82 cases is now 89.1 versus the previous examples:

Old price/case retail = $1. Profit/case = .88
6-hr price/case retail = $1. Profit/case = .90

Your profit on each $10 invested in labor is 81.1, as opposed to:

Profit for every $10 in labor cost, 8 hour day = $73
Profit for every $10 in labor cost, 6 hour day = $86 (+17.8%)

And you still have to spend the same on electricity for the 8 hour day with 9 employees.

If you're sure productivity will increase, & sure you can maintain the increase, in a situation where economy-wide sales decrease, the choice is obvious.

Not to mention it keeps people afloat, & if enough businesses do it, it keeps the economy from going into death spiral.

apparently most people on DU do not have enough money. I find that puzzling.

See my signature line.

I doubt anyone raising a young family, and working two to three jobs for a total of 50-70 hours a week would have time to post here. I haven't said anything about not having enough money FOR MYSELF - I've only expressed the opinion that a federal mandate to reduce the legal work week by 8 hours probably will not be a panacea for our broken economy and our soaring unemployment rate. In fact, I can see it hurting people in the work force by forcing them to work harder to get the same work done in less time*, and by driving even more jobs offshore - unless there are other efforts made by the government to counter this effect.

*that's already happening btw

The American way, and perhaps the capitalist way, is to divide the world into winners and losers. Look at what companies are doing, they are slashing jobs and laying off workers. Thus, there are winners, who get to keep their jobs and incomes and livelihoods and homes, and there are losers, who have lost their jobs. Even the winners' lives in this case can also be diminished. Where I work, if they laid somebody off, there would not be any less actual work to get done every day, so the remaining workers would have to work harder.

What I suggest, is that rather than putting the hardship entirely on a group of people, that if everybody took a cut, that it would not be so harsh for a few. Suppose a company employs 5,000. Instead of laying off 625 of them, the entire workforce can cut back just one hour a day. That's a 13% pay cut, yes. But which is worse, a 13% pay cut for everybody or a 100% pay cut for 13% of us?

If the government somehow forced employers to cut pay/hours to save jobs I'd rather see the top 10% "earners" cut and leave the ones at the bottom alone - any pay cut hurts if you're already scraping by or going under. In any case, without the strong organized labor movement to back it, this idea, whatever its merits, isn't going to get any traction. I don't agree with it because I don't believe it would have the positive effects claimed for it by the OP and other supporters - but there's not much point arguing against it because it is extremely unlikely to happen.

Still, if you're positive reducing the work week is good thing to do, it'd be a good idea to get behind the Employee Free Choice Act which could help a rebirth of organized labor. It was the labor union movement that brought us the 40-hour, five day work week after all.

and for the economy to be shedding jobs makes that job production process that much harder. But for the economy to shed hours may have the same total financial impact, but not the same social impact. Also, since some discretionary income is saved and other is spent buying chinese products, then for people to lose discretionary income would not have the same impact as somebody losing their job.

You are right, that it is unlikely to happen, but I still think it would be better now if we cut hours rather than cutting jobs.

"Also, since some discretionary income is saved and other is spent buying chinese products, then for people to lose discretionary income would not have the same impact as somebody losing their job."

I'm not referring to people with "discretionary" income, unless we're counting rent, child care, health insurance premiums, food, transportation and things like toilet paper, toothbrushes, and cleaning products as "discretionary" purchases.

I know of a whole warehouse full of people working for just over minimum wage who not only would be in serious trouble if their hours and income were cut, they're hurting badly each time their overtime is cut (when the company occasionally looks at "the bottom line", panics, and cracks down on overtime). I've even seen a fellow employee decline a promotion offer because losing her overtime would have cost more than the piddling raise the promotion offered.

The reality is, we need what our President is promising - we need a new deal, with new jobs rebuilding our nation's infrastructure and building our nation's leadership role in science and technology. The solution is not for everyone at the very bottom of the economic ladder to sacrifice the remnants of their financial survival in the hopes that somehow this would translate into more jobs created HERE instead of being shipped overseas. The solution is to bring back unions, and bring back OUR jobs. Bring them home.

I have to give up now because this is just too frustrating. We're talking about completely different people, and we're talking past each other :(

in parts of Arizona have gone to the 4 day school day.

Maybe it wouldn't work out for some people and certain situations, but that shouldn't mean that it can't work for others. Why not encourage employers to present an optional four-day schedule if it's possible and feasible, then those who wanted to could sign up. It would be great for working mothers and people who have other responsibilities to be able to work less hours without being penalized. And companies who are hurting could cut back that way without harming morale.

it would be very helpful for people going to school, caring for relatives, raising kids, or volunteering. It'd be awesome if we could volunteer for cut hours to save jobs too. It'd take some work to create the structure and encourage employers to use it, but it would be worthwhile.

http://www.worklessparty.org/


Today the average worker is approximately 400% more efficient than a worker in the 1950s. In just eleven hours a worker can produce the same amount of goods and services as someone working 40 hours in the 1950s. It also means that 400% more stuff has to be consumed or people will lose their jobs.

The present economic problem is two fold.

Firstly, once adjusted for inflation, wages in North America have barely kept up with inflation. In a global context the situation is much more serious. When jobs are exported to third world countries with minimum labour standards, it creates a labour force that can’t afford to buy all the goods and services being produced. This is a virtual identical repeat of the problem that caused the great depression.

Secondly, what we have been consuming is the planet itself. According the UN millennium report 60% of the worlds ecosystems are in substantial decline...If current surplus production capacity is balanced with increased consumption our ecological footprint will increase faster than it has ever done before.(3) World leaders are frantically trying to find new ways for consumers to return to their dutiful roles of spending more and more. If they succeed we are going to have a much bigger problem to deal with.

So what is the solution?

One potential solution that was implemented in 1933 by President Roosevelt during the great depression is to reduce the workweek from ten hours a day to eight hours a day. Instead of having a high unemployment rate, the work is shared so that more people can become employed.

Technological efficiency gives us a choice; we can either continue to work just as hard and exponentially consume and grow the economy, or we can translate those gains in efficiency into other more meaningful activities such as child rearing, education, arts and holding elected leaders accountable. It is not surprising to learn that countries that do have lower workweeks such as Norway, Holland and Germany are more egalitarian and have lower crime rates. This might be coincidental, but I suspect that when people have time to invest in other types of work besides trying to endlessly fill up landfills with junk, we create the opportunity for a healthier and wiser society.

In 1933 we changed from a 10 hour day to a 8 hour day. Maybe its now time to change to a 6 hour day.

It won't work in a capitalist system that is already stretched to the max, and the meat cut off the bone. Never happen. Think about workers benefits & more workers to maintain the 40 hr profit. Insurance. Accounting.

Only socialist systems can get away with that, where the means of production is controlled.

By your logic, it couldn't happen, unless somehow there used to be more meat on the bone.