would society benefit from working a 3 or 4 day week?

[Gideon Lorr]

i dont give a rats arse. i actually offered it when the company was struggling as i knew i could freelance for double that. i just never bothered. i still can if i like, i just prefer to spend time with my son. my dad was a workaholic and it never did him any good apart from the large pension he gets. which wont last long as neither will he.

i think society is harmed by people working too much and not having enough free time with family etc.

of course a capitalist society will never try to look to a better work/life balance and neither will governments. i just think society would benefit from more quality time with family and friends etc. maybe im just a hippy still?

There is no denying if you work four days instead of five a week you'll benefit from more leisure/'quality' time, providing you still have the financial means to live as whatever you feel is comfortable for you. In other words, you feel your gain from the extra free time exceeds the benefits you would get from the wages you have given up. However, people have different utilities for the many ratios of work and leisure they could choose. Most people would choose an extra day in work for the income it brings over the alternative of leisure time, for a given wage rate.

@kgi- benefit scroungers are a different situation.

 

[KNiVES]

I do a four day week, 12 hours a day. If everybody did 48 hours over 4 days it would be far better - more work put in, and longer weekends.

 

[Bear]

I do a four day week, 12 hours a day. If everybody did 48 hours over 4 days it would be far better - more work put in, and longer weekends.

I'm almost the same. I work a four day week but do approx 40 hours a week.

 

[Mucky_Pup]

Would me losing 32-64 hours of pay a month, benefit me? Hmmm how about no.

 

[matt_fsr]

Would me losing 32-64 hours of pay a month, benefit me? Hmmm how about no.

Whereas I think I'm the opposite.

I'm not loaded, but I'm comfortable - and I reckon I could work 4 days a week instead of 5, to enjoy my time off more. Just because I'm not at work, doesn't mean I have to endlessly buy things and spend cash.

For every 4 people who joined me in doing this, another person could be employed to cover the 'gaps'.

This should therefore reduce unemployment, reduce benefit payments and lower everyone's tax demands, thereby making us all slightly better off (although clearly not as well off as a 5 day week provides)

Anyone else agree? Am I missing something really big here?

 

[ntg]

i dont mind working 3/4 days and im substantially better off than on the dole and own a nice house and car and have a great family.

You have repeatedly failed to grasp this very concept. You will NOT have a nice house and car AND work 3 days a week. It just cannot happen. Hell, you can't have these things when you work 5 days a week, what makes you think otherwise.

oh hold on..you got the answer below..

as i say if you could wipe out welfare and therefore drop income tax we could all drop from 5 days to 4 without any loss of income. hell i could go down from 4 days to 3 if i didnt pay income tax.

wipe out welfare? And what would happen with all those who need it? Chuck em off a cliff? Or do you imagine in your lucid dreams that because "we" would work 3 days a week suddenly everybody else would/could/should get a job? Don't you understand that there are loads of people who cannot work and/or will not work?

Drop income tax? How would the state be founded then? If the IT dropped then the aggregate amount collected would drop, so who would plug the shortfall? the wipe out of the welfare budget that cannot happen anyway?

Also, what does the income tax has to do with your working patterns? If you work a 3 day 40hour job you'll get a full pay and get taxed on it. If you work fewer hours you'll get lower pay and get taxed less. What's the income tax got to do with anything?

maybe i am looking towards a utopian state - and its most likely pie in the sky - but its got to be better than how society works now. capitalism (as we know it) has brought us to our knees so we need to do something. else in a few years we get this all over again.

maybe you haven't thought about it at all and you just see what you want to see.

Capitalism is the cummulative behaviour of people in today's world. It's not an abstract thing enforced by outside aliens. We are capitalists and we get what we deserve. There are many less-capitalist states where you can move to and enjoy what you think would be a better alternative. What's stopping you? Oh I know, you can't have the nice house, nice car, good salary AND work a 3 day week there either..

anyway, im off soon so some of you can bang on about me being a nutter, while i have a lovely day off with my son tomorrow. ahhhh 4 day weekend. bonus!

lol..enjoy your time off with your son but I don't see why you try to rub it in other people's faces. Many of us have the option (or can change into having the option by switching jobs) to get a 4 day or 3 day week but we don't because we have our reasons, so get off the high horse.

 

[ntg]

For every 4 people who joined me in doing this, another person could be employed to cover the 'gaps'.

This should therefore reduce unemployment, reduce benefit payments and lower everyone's tax demands, thereby making us all slightly better off (although clearly not as well off as a 5 day week provides)

Anyone else agree? Am I missing something really big here?

You are missing something huge. There are many jobs where continuation and ownership of tasks/projects is critical. A lot of well paid jobs rely on individuals leading or managing large and business-important projects. That simply means that you can't have 2 people sharing that role and passing it on to eachother every 3 days or so.

For more process-y and manual tasks you can probably implement this job sharing idea, but the higher you get up the ladder the more responsibility you assume and the more difficult it is to share responsibility/ownership etc.

That's a foundamental reason why this proposition is unworkable in the very basic practical terms, let alone the economic impossibility of it.

I would venture a guess and say anyone paid over 40k p.a is probably into a role that would be either impossible to job-share or the very handover of tasks etc. from one person to another every few days would lead to inefficiencies, mistakes, and overall errors, resulting in the companies paying someone a bit more to have them working a full 5 day than splitting the job.

 

[ntg]

It doesn't translate to quality time with that section of society because, typically, they have too much time on their hands, start using it unproductively and get in a rut.

Don't disagree, I just used it as an extreme example to illustrate that having free time doesn't equal quality time - mainly because the financial issue kicks in very soon.

His point "a capitalist society will never try to look to a better work/life balance and neither will governments" is that a capitalist society is not interested in the consequences of what it does to make profit..... People there work 7 days a week and the place is polluted to hell.

I agree that we need some state intervention and regulation and safeguarding to avoid slipping into a Chinese state of being, but I also want to point out that we are the society, we are the capitalists. The companies are not some faceless abstract ideas, we are leading/managing/working in them. There are a lot of good reasons why companies prefer to have people working crazy hours than enable job-sharing, and cost usually has nothing to do with it. I would argue that it would be profitable (from a payroll point of view) for many companies to enable job-share, but they would rather pay a higher salary than 2 part-timers in order to get the efficiencies and benefits coming from a committed professional.

We are capitalists because most of us want it, not because it's forced down our throats. Granted some people will have it forced but there will always be losers and winners in any case.

You can bet anything you want that the very moment job-sharing became the rule people would try to work extra hours to make extra money! It's just the nature of the beast.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

For more process-y and manual tasks you can probably implement this job sharing idea, but the higher you get up the ladder the more responsibility you assume and the more difficult it is to share responsibility/ownership etc.

...

I would venture a guess and say anyone paid over 40k p.a is probably into a role that would be either impossible to job-share or the very handover of tasks etc. from one person to another every few days would lead to inefficiencies, mistakes, and overall errors, resulting in the companies paying someone a bit more to have them working a full 5 day than splitting the job.

Except delegation is one of the most important skills a manager and leader must possess to be effective. Micromanagement by anyone except the person directly carrying out the work is counterproductive and wasteful. It is a waste of the company's resources to have senior management or directors talking through every step.

Proper documentation as well as established and effective communication alleviate a vast number of problems with shared working, and is the norm on large projects. So many project managers fall down on this because they try to be the beacon of all information, rather than digesting information and giving direction.

The only factor that does not translate are the soft skills and personalities of the people in question. One person may get on famously with a client, while the other does not.

Society has benefitted immensely from shorter working weeks, and as mechanisation and computing improve, we will see less and less demand for quantitative workers, and eventually qualitative workers too. We should all hope that computers and robots will do everything for us in the future, giving us completely labour free lives.
That's progress.

 

[ntg]

Except delegation is one of the most important skills a manager and leader must possess to be effective. Micromanagement by anyone except the person directly carrying out the work is counterproductive and wasteful. It is a waste of the company's resources to have senior management or directors talking through every step.

Proper documentation as well as established and effective communication alleviate a vast number of problems with shared working, and is the norm on large projects. So many project managers fall down on this because they try to be the beacon of all information, rather than digesting information and giving direction.

The only factor that does not translate are the soft skills and personalities of the people in question. One person may get on famously with a client, while the other does not.

It's not just project management - which I also think cannot be jobshared. Jobsharing in senior management and exec level is just impossible. Also, there are many people (e.g. investment banking, doctors etc.) where having a person managing a task/deal/job alone is necessary to maintain custom and high quality.

Think of yourself as a client and going to your doctor or to a business person for a deal, how would you like to deal with different people every other time? You may tolerate it but if you were wealthier and paying more you wouldn't. It's just not practical and businesses would end up paying more to get people working 5 days again. Hence the whole thing falls apart.

Documentation and delegation is good and necessary but does not enable job-sharing. Think of your job (don't know what it is, just wildly guessing) and imagine sharing it with someone who has to pick up on your emails and communication with stakeholder/clients. It would be a logistical nightmare to share that back and forth every few days. Continuity would be just impossible.

Society has benefitted immensely from shorter working weeks, and as mechanisation and computing improve, we will see less and less demand for quantitative workers, and eventually qualitative workers too. We should all hope that computers and robots will do everything for us in the future, giving us completely labour free lives.
That's progress.

That's why I said manual and laborious tasks can be jobshared. Anything that requires creative input and soft skills will not be replaced by robots, ever. Instead people will move on to more sophisticated tasks etc.

Mechanisation and robotics have increased output and relative wealth but have not made people work any less, not by any stretch of imagination. It's just how the economy works.

 

[neil3k]

hell to the yes.

won't happen though

 

[Deleted member 66701]

You will NOT have a nice house and car AND work 3 days a week. It just cannot happen.

I've a five bed house, double garage, a Westfield sports car and three lovely kids.

I work 3 days a week.

I would venture a guess and say anyone paid over 40k p.a is probably into a role that would be either impossible to job-share or the very handover of tasks etc. from one person to another every few days would lead to inefficiencies, mistakes, and overall errors, resulting in the companies paying someone a bit more to have them working a full 5 day than splitting the job.

Nonsense. Plus I do in three days what others take five days to complete

 

[ntg]

I've a five bed house, double garage, a Westfield sports car and three lovely kids.

I work 3 days a week.

That's impressive and credit to you. I have to ask though, did you achieve that by always working 3 days a week? Or did you switch to a 3 day week afterwards? I assume you are employed and not self-employed.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

That's impressive and credit to you. I have to ask though, did you achieve that by always working 3 days a week? Or did you switch to a 3 day week afterwards? I assume you are employed and not self-employed.

I started at 5 days a week full time but every time I've recd a reasonable pay increase or promotion I've trimmed some hours off my working week. I worked out what was an acceptable salary to live the life I want to live and let that salary stay at that level (taking inflation into account) whilst reducing the hours I work.

I must add that I don't drink, smoke or go on extravagant holidays. I actually live quite a frugal lifestyle and I'll be retiring in 11 years at 45. My leisure time (that is frequently taken up with OU study or Freemasonry) is my most valuable possesion.

I think this sums up my outlook on life:-

A boat docked in a tiny Mexican village. An American tourist complimented the Mexican fisherman on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took him to catch them.

"Not very long," answered the Mexican.

"But then, why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?" asked the American.

The Mexican explained that his small catch was sufficient to meet his needs and those of his family.

The American asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?"

"I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, and take a siesta with my wife. In the evenings, I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs...I have a full life."

The American interrupted, "I have an MBA from Harvard and I can help you!

"You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat. With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers.

"Instead of selling your fish to a middleman, you can negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New York City! From there you can direct your huge enterprise."

"How long would that take?" asked the Mexican.

"Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years," replied the American.

"And after that?"

"Afterwards? That's when it gets really interesting," answered the American, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start selling stocks and make millions!"

"Millions? Really? And after that?"

"After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, take a siesta, and spend your evenings drinking and enjoying your friends!"

 

[realBabelfish]

I started at 5 days a week full time but every time I've recd a reasonable pay increase or promotion I've trimmed some hours off my working week. I worked out what was an acceptable salary to live the life I want to live and let that salary stay at that level (taking inflation into account) whilst reducing the hours I work.

I must add that I don't drink, smoke or go on extravagant holidays. I actually live quite a frugal lifestyle and I'll be retiring in 11 years at 45. My leisure time (that is frequently taken up with OU study or Freemasonry) is my most valuable possesion.

I think this sums up my outlook on life:-

+1. love that story

my dad was a workaholic. i guess im the opposite. i work to live, not live to work.

 

[G-MAN2004]

Basic economic knowledge is frighteningly scarce these days.

Christ.

Indeed. We'd be even more ****** if we had these sort of people in power instead!

 

[Radiation]

We could not only work less but have a higher quality of life and more disposable income, the problem is capitalism needs a big change, growth can't go on forever and it's foolish to think so, we would be better off in the long run with a more sustainable system.

To start the changes i would scrap the idea of supply and demand, constant growth, endless profits expected on information and making money off uninvested money and debt, there should be a proper and fair calculation done on profits made for a goods or services, at the moment business is profit motivated, it tries to get as much as it can, this is greed based thinking, taking as much wealth away from others as possible, this is bad for many reasons.

Taxes, debt and the cost of living keeps most people down where they're forced to work a full week just to survive, we can do better.

 

[ntg]

We could not only work less but have a higher quality of life and more disposable income, the problem is capitalism needs a big change, growth can't go on forever and it's foolish to think so, we would be better off in the long run with a more sustainable system.

To start the changes i would scrap the idea of supply and demand, constant growth, endless profits expected on information and making money off uninvested money and debt, there should be a proper and fair calculation done on profits made for a goods or services, at the moment business is profit motivated, it tries to get as much as it can, this is greed based thinking, taking as much wealth away from others as possible, this is bad for many reasons.

Taxes, debt and the cost of living keeps most people down where they're forced to work a full week just to survive, we can do better.

So how would the system you propose work? Would there be a free market or would everything be controlled by the state or would everything be owned by the state?

What measures would your system include to stop discrepancies between wealth and abolish the rich/poor divide?

 

[Radiation]

There would be laws with checks and balances to make sure the system functions fairly and everyone can make a fair profit and income.

By simply removing the idea of supply and demand or the perception of value and replacing it with fair and calculated profits we have fixed a big problem when it comes to greed and wealth distrubution.

Profits need to be made based on true value not percivied value, no one will be able to sell a piece of junk they call art for a million pounds in this system.

A house shouldn't cost much more than the materials and labour that created it, maintaining or losing value based on it's state, only gaining if improved.

Making money off debt should be limited to whats reasonable etc.

 

[TommyV]

My sleeping pattern would benefit from a 3/4 day week, would be badass having a 3/4 day weekend each week!