32-Hour Work Week (1 Viewer)

[FreeBaGeL]

I honestly think this is sort of a pie in the sky kind of idea. Employees would love to have to work less, but they are not going to agree to the corresponding 20% pay cut. Employers are not going to give them a 20% raise and lose the corresponding production. So other than a few outliers, this will probably never be realistic .

Why? It's happened multiple times already in history.

With productivity per hour factored in modern companies are essentially getting 160 hour workweeks worth of productivity compared to the 40 hours companies were getting in 1940 when the workweek was reduced to 40.

Imagine if our grandparents and their grandparents were as weak to their company overlords as we are today. We'd all still be working six 10+ hour days a week at a minimum baseline and thinking that was a reasonable work/life balance.

 

[the moops]

I honestly think this is sort of a pie in the sky kind of idea. Employees would love to have to work less, but they are not going to agree to the corresponding 20% pay cut. Employers are not going to give them a 20% raise and lose the corresponding production. So other than a few outliers, this will probably never be realistic .

Why? It's happened multiple times already in history.

With productivity per hour factored in modern companies are essentially getting 160 hour workweeks worth of productivity compared to the 40 hours companies were getting in 1940 when the workweek was reduced to 40.

Imagine if our grandparents and their grandparents were as weak to their company overlords as we are today. We'd all still be working six 10+ hour days a week at a minimum baseline and thinking that was a reasonable work/life balance.

Seriously. IMO this is inevitable, it's just a matter of who and when

 

[Instinctive]

I gotta think I'd spend less time on FBGs during work if I didn't have stuff dragged out with little usable time between meetings and flights and calls and stuff. Like I probably do around 25-30 hours of WORK (reviewing docs, writing white papers, making docs, problem solving with my teams, and meeting with clients.

Then add like 10 hours of wasted in between or transit times (not counting actually flying because that's time I can be nice and heads down productive) and just generally shooting the breeze with people. And then add like procrastinate time and stuff that's possible to do in an hour (counted in my 25-30 number) but takes 2-3 because I'm tired or just did another thing or I know I've got time later in the ay open so I may as well do it then...whereas if that time later in the day was "leave and go to the driving range" I'd have the thing done in the morning.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I honestly think this is sort of a pie in the sky kind of idea. Employees would love to have to work less, but they are not going to agree to the corresponding 20% pay cut. Employers are not going to give them a 20% raise and lose the corresponding production. So other than a few outliers, this will probably never be realistic .

Why? It's happened multiple times already in history.

With productivity per hour factored in modern companies are essentially getting 160 hour workweeks worth of productivity compared to the 40 hours companies were getting in 1940 when the workweek was reduced to 40.

Imagine if our grandparents and their grandparents were as weak to their company overlords as we are today. We'd all still be working six 10+ hour days a week at a minimum baseline and thinking that was a reasonable work/life balance.

There are people out there right now who do work 60+ hours per week. You can do that if you want, and some people opt for that. (Talking salaried workers here, not OT-eligible, of course)

Most people don't, because those terms are unacceptable to workers in most labor markets. That doesn't have the slightest thing to do with anything our grandparents did*. The reason why firms don't hire most of their workers on six-day-a-week schedules is because job candidates will tell them to get bent, not because it's illegal (it's legal).


* Well, okay. Our grandparents worked hard and increased everyone's living standards to the point that people started choosing more leisure instead of more stuff. But that's an organic process. It's the same reason why people sign their kids up for traveling soccer teams instead of detasseling in 2024.

 

[Stoneworker]

I honestly think this is sort of a pie in the sky kind of idea. Employees would love to have to work less, but they are not going to agree to the corresponding 20% pay cut. Employers are not going to give them a 20% raise and lose the corresponding production. So other than a few outliers, this will probably never be realistic .

Why? It's happened multiple times already in history.

With productivity per hour factored in modern companies are essentially getting 160 hour workweeks worth of productivity compared to the 40 hours companies were getting in 1940 when the workweek was reduced to 40.

Imagine if our grandparents and their grandparents were as weak to their company overlords as we are today. We'd all still be working six 10+ hour days a week at a minimum baseline and thinking that was a reasonable work/life balance.

So are we okay with the wealth gap that will created between the 32-hour employees and those who choose to continue to work 40?

As well as the wealth gap that will be exacerbated even further with the ones that currently work 50-60+ and ultimately receive the promotions, large performance bonuses and equity in the company?

 

[NewbieJr]

I can't see many employees agreeing to take a 20% pay cut, even if it did mean more free time. And I certainly don't see any employees willing to take pay the same salary with employees only putting in 80% of the time. So this is definitely a pipe dream. Now, a 4 x 10 work week would be super-appealing to me.

 

[the moops]

I can't see many employees agreeing to take a 20% pay cut, even if it did mean more free time. And I certainly don't see any employees willing to take pay the same salary with employees only putting in 80% of the time. So this is definitely a pipe dream. Now, a 4 x 10 work week would be super-appealing to me.

Again, the thinking is that workers get the same amount of work done in 4/32 than they would in a 5/40 or 10/40 situation.

 

[massraider]

I can't see many employees agreeing to take a 20% pay cut, even if it did mean more free time. And I certainly don't see any employees willing to take pay the same salary with employees only putting in 80% of the time. So this is definitely a pipe dream. Now, a 4 x 10 work week would be super-appealing to me.

Again, the thinking is that workers get the same amount of work done in 4/32 than they would in a 5/40 or 10/40 situation.

People taking somethung mythical (20% pay cut) and running with it as if that's the only way it can be done.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I knew a Florida contractor, and he had some sloooow moving laborers. He could never get a day's work done in a day. So he started telling them, If we get xyz done, you get paid for a full day, whenever we finish. They would finish two hours early, he actually got more work done, and the laborers loved him. I thought that was brilliant, and marveled at how I really never saw that anywhere else.

I don't wonder why I don't see that anymore. People are petty, and resent when someone else has/had it easier than them. It's human nature, it's the same nature that makes a person not quite as happy as they should be when their family/friends come into a windfall.

The bolded is the biggest detriment to these nice perks that manager/bosses can provide. Not every job can allow for a flex schedule or have people willing/able to bust their buts to get xyz done. If they can't (or won't) they would rather complain that Bob gets to leave an hour early and they can't. Well Bob is better than you that's why he can leave early. Get your work done like Bob and you too can have that benefit. But rather than work hard to do that they ***** and complain and ruin it for Bob. Eventually the manager will either be threatened with lawsuits or just doesn't want to deal with the complaining and take it away from others.

At my previous job I managed a group of about 10 people. We were a manufacturing/engineering company that supplied equipment all over the world. I had people that wanted to take long lunches, come in early, come in late, etc. I had some on salary and some hourly (stupid company based this on job title rather than actual work being accomplished). I gave all the salaried people the option of flex schedules but by CA law I couldn't do the same for the hourly people due to OT rules. The hourly people did get a benefit because we had enough work (serving our customers with equipment that had to stay on line so there were deadlines on things) that they could work OT and get more pay out of it. I had one hourly guy complain that he wasn't salary and I explained to him the difference and that he was getting paid OT where the salaried guy wasn't. So he was actually making more money. He didn't see it that way and really wanted to be reclassified. So I went to bat for him (I wanted to help my guys get what they wanted) to reclassify him. The GM was baffled but agreed because I requested it (and it reality the two people were doing essentially the same work so they should have been classified the same). A few months after the reclassification the guy started complaining that he wasn't making as much money anymore. I just shook my head.

But there were also hourly guys that complained that the salaried guys had a more flexible schedule where they could take a half day off here and there and they couldn't (again due to labor laws/OT they couldn't work more than 10 hrs a day where the salary guy could). They made enough of a squawk that I had to take away the 9-80 schedule for the salary guys. So people worrying more about others than just their situation. It was terrible.

This happened where I work as well, with PTO. When I joined the group, part time workers >50% FTE got it, but full time did not (they had been encouraged to give it up years ago). People without it complained, and eventually partial FTEs were strong-armed into cashing in, and relinquishing future PTO.

Fast forward about 20 years, and full timers have griped so much, PTO may be restored. But with this iteration, part time workers will be excluded.

So the PTO cycle has been: everyone had it, only part-timers had it, no one has it, only full time employees will have it. Yet every other employed group in the hospital provides PTO as a benefit, for all workers > half time.

 

[Terminalxylem]

From my perspective, I think the majority of people think it works best with 3 day weekends, but really our operations would probably benefit if we had more of a rotation since other regions rely on us to be at least somewhat responsive.

I wouldn't mind getting Wednesday's honestly.

Being off during the work week is great. It’s way easier to get things done than weekends.

 

[Gally]

Fast forward about 20 years, and full timers have griped so much, PTO may be restored. But with this iteration, part time workers will be excluded.

Wait, this group doesn't get paid time off (assuming that is what PTO is)? No vacation time at all? Doesn't seem right.

 

[massraider]

Unintended consequence. More free time to spend money.

 

[NutterButter]

Unintended consequence. More free time to spend money.

we should probably get a raise for agreeing to work 8 hours less

 

[Joe Schmo]

detasseling

I had to look this up

 

[massraider]

Unintended consequence. More free time to spend money.

we should probably get a raise for agreeing to work 8 hours less

Right! People are gonna be forced to find something else to do for a whole day, they should get compensated.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Imagine if our grandparents and their grandparents were as weak to their company overlords as we are today.

Would you say today's employees are more or less willing to stand up against what a company asks of them?

 

[Terminalxylem]

Fast forward about 20 years, and full timers have griped so much, PTO may be restored. But with this iteration, part time workers will be excluded.

Wait, this group doesn't get paid time off (assuming that is what PTO is)? No vacation time at all? Doesn't seem right.

Nope. Full time employees haven’t had PTO for as long as I’ve been here, 20+ years.

ETA The base schedule is 7 days on, 7 off, so the unstated sentiment has always been we have enough days off, as-is. Standard shift is 10 or 12 hours.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

Government worker. it's tough to get through one 8-hour day a week let alone 4. Deadlines, smeadlines...
Best part-time work, full-time pay gig around.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Our company floated the idea to us back in 2019 I think (it was pre-pandemic). The offer was, move to a 32-hour work week and take only a 10% pay cut. Only two people said yes, everyone else (including me) was a no.

 

[Sand]

I knew a Florida contractor, and he had some sloooow moving laborers. He could never get a day's work done in a day. So he started telling them, If we get xyz done, you get paid for a full day, whenever we finish. They would finish two hours early, he actually got more work done, and the laborers loved him. I thought that was brilliant, and marveled at how I really never saw that anywhere else.

I don't wonder why I don't see that anymore. People are petty, and resent when someone else has/had it easier than them. It's human nature, it's the same nature that makes a person not quite as happy as they should be when their family/friends come into a windfall.

The bolded is the biggest detriment to these nice perks that manager/bosses can provide.

Charlie Munger: "The world is not driven by greed, it's driven by envy."

Most quotable guy in the universe next to Yogi Berra. And he's exactly right. Drive envy out of your world and you'll be so much happier.

 

[the moops]

Our company floated the idea to us back in 2019 I think (it was pre-pandemic). The offer was, move to a 32-hour work week and take only a 10% pay cut. Only two people said yes, everyone else (including me) was a no.

I am surprised by this. That would be an easy YES from me

 

[Sand]

I honestly think this is sort of a pie in the sky kind of idea. Employees would love to have to work less, but they are not going to agree to the corresponding 20% pay cut. Employers are not going to give them a 20% raise and lose the corresponding production. So other than a few outliers, this will probably never be realistic .

Why? It's happened multiple times already in history.

With productivity per hour factored in modern companies are essentially getting 160 hour workweeks worth of productivity compared to the 40 hours companies were getting in 1940 when the workweek was reduced to 40.

Imagine if our grandparents and their grandparents were as weak to their company overlords as we are today. We'd all still be working six 10+ hour days a week at a minimum baseline and thinking that was a reasonable work/life balance.

There are people out there right now who do work 60+ hours per week. You can do that if you want, and some people opt for that. (Talking salaried workers here, not OT-eligible, of course)

Most people don't, because those terms are unacceptable to workers in most labor markets. That doesn't have the slightest thing to do with anything our grandparents did*. The reason why firms don't hire most of their workers on six-day-a-week schedules is because job candidates will tell them to get bent, not because it's illegal (it's legal).


* Well, okay. Our grandparents worked hard and increased everyone's living standards to the point that people started choosing more leisure instead of more stuff. But that's an organic process. It's the same reason why people sign their kids up for traveling soccer teams instead of detasseling in 2024.

I don't see how this works out for companies, but ran across this article the other day. And no Fing way I'd work 6 days. I'd much rather (and have for years) worked 60 hour weeks and got them all in during the 5 day workweek.

Businesses are moving to 6 day work weeks

A new report found many companies might require workers to add on an additional day of work.

www.newsweek.com

As well as the wealth gap that will be exacerbated even further with the ones that currently work 50-60+ and ultimately receive the promotions, large performance bonuses and equity in the company?

That's generally the way it's always been. The hardest workers are the successful ones. I don't see this moving a needle.

Our company floated the idea to us back in 2019 I think (it was pre-pandemic). The offer was, move to a 32-hour work week and take only a 10% pay cut. Only two people said yes, everyone else (including me) was a no.

I am surprised by this. That would be an easy YES from me

InstaYES from me. My place will let you drop to 30 hours weeks with a proportional drop in pay and keep benefits. I'm thinking hard about 3 10s and a four day weekend. 75% salary is a-ok.

 

[the moops]

Fast forward about 20 years, and full timers have griped so much, PTO may be restored. But with this iteration, part time workers will be excluded.

Wait, this group doesn't get paid time off (assuming that is what PTO is)? No vacation time at all? Doesn't seem right.

Nope. Full time employees haven’t had PTO for as long as I’ve been here, 20+ years.

ETA The base schedule is 7 days on, 7 off, so the unstated sentiment has always been we have enough days off, as-is. Standard shift is 10 or 12 hours.

You and your kind have been getting screwed with this. How did you all not take a stand and require paid time off???

In a 2 week period you work between 70 and 84 hours. Let's average that at 77 hour hours. So every 2 weeks you are getting the equivalent of 3 hours of PTO. 3 hours x 26 weeks = 88 hours = 11 PTO days. Except for the fact that these aren't actual PTO days for they are just fewer hours worked per week and can't be used to take a vacation or be sick.

I haven't had that lousy of a PTO accrual ever. I am up to 8 hours per pay period now, which I know is above normal, but even the newest employees at my place get 5.25 hours a pay period or roughly 17 days

 

[Ghost Rider]

Our company floated the idea to us back in 2019 I think (it was pre-pandemic). The offer was, move to a 32-hour work week and take only a 10% pay cut. Only two people said yes, everyone else (including me) was a no.

I am surprised by this. That would be an easy YES from me

I would say YES now, but this was five years ago. They gave me (and others I am pretty sure; I try not to worry about the salary of others) a good bump during the pandemic, so I could easily afford a 10% decrease in pay today in 2024.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Our company floated the idea to us back in 2019 I think (it was pre-pandemic). The offer was, move to a 32-hour work week and take only a 10% pay cut. Only two people said yes, everyone else (including me) was a no.

How many no's were there against the 2 yes's?

I'd expect the big majority to be "no's" on that offer.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Our company floated the idea to us back in 2019 I think (it was pre-pandemic). The offer was, move to a 32-hour work week and take only a 10% pay cut. Only two people said yes, everyone else (including me) was a no.

How many no's were there against the 2 yes's?

I'd expect the big majority to be "no's" on that offer.

I can't remember the exact number of people asked, but I think it was around 15.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Our company floated the idea to us back in 2019 I think (it was pre-pandemic). The offer was, move to a 32-hour work week and take only a 10% pay cut. Only two people said yes, everyone else (including me) was a no.

How many no's were there against the 2 yes's?

I'd expect the big majority to be "no's" on that offer.

I can't remember the exact number of people asked, but I think it was around 15.

Thanks. 15-2 is about what I'd expect on that. I think people are looking for the exact same pay and benefits but working fewer hours.

 

[Stoneworker]

Average weekly hours for all U.S. private employees is 34.2 hours/week. And it's been that way for 20+ years. So the average U.S. worker already has nearly three 8-hour days off.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Average Weekly Hours of All Employees, Total Private

Graph and download economic data for Average Weekly Hours of All Employees, Total Private (AWHAETP) from Mar 2006 to Apr 2024 about establishment survey, hours, private, employment, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

 

[the moops]

Average weekly hours for all U.S. private employees is 34.2 hours/week. And it's been that way for 20+ years. So the average U.S. worker already has nearly three 8-hour days off.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Average Weekly Hours of All Employees, Total Private

Graph and download economic data for Average Weekly Hours of All Employees, Total Private (AWHAETP) from Mar 2006 to Apr 2024 about establishment survey, hours, private, employment, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

Misleading take away at best

Factors such as unpaid absenteeism, labor turnover, part-time work, and stoppages cause average weekly hours to be lower than scheduled hours of work for an establishment. Group averages further reflect changes in the workweek of component industries. Average weekly hours are the total weekly hours divided by the employees paid for those hours.

 

[Stoneworker]

Average weekly hours are the total weekly hours divided by the employees paid for those hours.

Hour worked, hour paid. There's nothing misleading about that at all.

 

[Mitchie]

Average weekly hours are the total weekly hours divided by the employees paid for those hours.

Hour worked, hour paid. There's nothing misleading about that at all.

well i'm technically on a 35 hour work week but I work more than that maybe avg 40 hours a week and i'm sure some work much more, since a salaried employee i doubt that's accounted for but correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[Gally]

Our company floated the idea to us back in 2019 I think (it was pre-pandemic). The offer was, move to a 32-hour work week and take only a 10% pay cut. Only two people said yes, everyone else (including me) was a no.

How many no's were there against the 2 yes's?

I'd expect the big majority to be "no's" on that offer.

I think the answer will be directly related to the salary and financial status. Are you already living pay check to paycheck where a 10% hit will have an affect on daily life? If so, easy no.

Are you shocking away a healthy savings and 401K where 10% hit knocks the amount you are saving but doesn't affect daily life....probably a yes.

 

[massraider]

Average weekly hours are the total weekly hours divided by the employees paid for those hours.

Hour worked, hour paid. There's nothing misleading about that at all.

Now do Full Time work.

The average American already has a 4 day work week? That will be exciting news to the average American.

 

[Stoneworker]

Now do Full Time work.

The average American already has a 4 day work week? That will be exciting news to the average American.

If someone doesn't like being an employee and taking what the job market offers, then they can create something of value of their own and sell it into the marketplace. Then they can control their own work hours. America is good like that

 

[the moops]

Now do Full Time work.

The average American already has a 4 day work week? That will be exciting news to the average American.

If someone doesn't like being an employee and taking what the job market offers, then they can create something of value of their own and sell it into the marketplace. Then they can control their own work hours. America is good like that

Yea, everyone can definitely just quit their job and start a new business. Super easy, requires no connections or money or family or support structure

 

[massraider]

Now do Full Time work.

The average American already has a 4 day work week? That will be exciting news to the average American.

If someone doesn't like being an employee and taking what the job market offers, then they can create something of value of their own and sell it into the marketplace. Then they can control their own work hours. America is good like that

Yeah, I guess, but this doesn't have anything to do with the stat you posted, and your dubious conclusion based off that stat.

 

[massraider]

Great video.

Scott Galloway discussing the differences in school and work last half century

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I honestly think this is sort of a pie in the sky kind of idea. Employees would love to have to work less, but they are not going to agree to the corresponding 20% pay cut. Employers are not going to give them a 20% raise and lose the corresponding production. So other than a few outliers, this will probably never be realistic .

Why? It's happened multiple times already in history.

With productivity per hour factored in modern companies are essentially getting 160 hour workweeks worth of productivity compared to the 40 hours companies were getting in 1940 when the workweek was reduced to 40.

Imagine if our grandparents and their grandparents were as weak to their company overlords as we are today. We'd all still be working six 10+ hour days a week at a minimum baseline and thinking that was a reasonable work/life balance.

So are we okay with the wealth gap that will created between the 32-hour employees and those who choose to continue to work 40?

As well as the wealth gap that will be exacerbated even further with the ones that currently work 50-60+ and ultimately receive the promotions, large performance bonuses and equity in the company?

I’m 100% ok with it. Lazy people, on average, already have it way too good in this country. Hard work and sacrifice should matter.

 

[Sand]

Lazy people, on average, already have it way too good in this country.

I'm working really hard to get here.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Lazy people, on average, already have it way too good in this country.

I'm working really hard to get here.

Ditto

 

[bigbottom]

Great video.

Scott Galloway discussing the differences in school and work last half century

Very thought provoking. Lots of info - I want to watch it again. When he choked up at the end it made wonder whether there was something going on with one of his children.

 

[MAC_32]

Lazy people, on average, already have it way too good in this country. Hard work and sacrifice should matter.

My ideals and reality often come into conflict, but rarely more often than on this subject- you get out what you put in. So if you don't put it in (hey-o!!!) then good luck

 

[Mitchie]

I honestly think this is sort of a pie in the sky kind of idea. Employees would love to have to work less, but they are not going to agree to the corresponding 20% pay cut. Employers are not going to give them a 20% raise and lose the corresponding production. So other than a few outliers, this will probably never be realistic .

Why? It's happened multiple times already in history.

With productivity per hour factored in modern companies are essentially getting 160 hour workweeks worth of productivity compared to the 40 hours companies were getting in 1940 when the workweek was reduced to 40.

Imagine if our grandparents and their grandparents were as weak to their company overlords as we are today. We'd all still be working six 10+ hour days a week at a minimum baseline and thinking that was a reasonable work/life balance.

So are we okay with the wealth gap that will created between the 32-hour employees and those who choose to continue to work 40?

As well as the wealth gap that will be exacerbated even further with the ones that currently work 50-60+ and ultimately receive the promotions, large performance bonuses and equity in the company?

I’m 100% ok with it. Lazy people, on average, already have it way too good in this country. Hard work and sacrifice should matter.

Most people vastly underestimate the role luck plays in their lives.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I honestly think this is sort of a pie in the sky kind of idea. Employees would love to have to work less, but they are not going to agree to the corresponding 20% pay cut. Employers are not going to give them a 20% raise and lose the corresponding production. So other than a few outliers, this will probably never be realistic .

Why? It's happened multiple times already in history.

With productivity per hour factored in modern companies are essentially getting 160 hour workweeks worth of productivity compared to the 40 hours companies were getting in 1940 when the workweek was reduced to 40.

Imagine if our grandparents and their grandparents were as weak to their company overlords as we are today. We'd all still be working six 10+ hour days a week at a minimum baseline and thinking that was a reasonable work/life balance.

So are we okay with the wealth gap that will created between the 32-hour employees and those who choose to continue to work 40?

As well as the wealth gap that will be exacerbated even further with the ones that currently work 50-60+ and ultimately receive the promotions, large performance bonuses and equity in the company?

I’m 100% ok with it. Lazy people, on average, already have it way too good in this country. Hard work and sacrifice should matter.

Most people vastly underestimate the role luck plays in their lives.

Being born healthy in the US is luck. Putting in effort at work is a decision. Many people in our country are choosing to squander a lucky break that others would walk from Venezuela for.

 

[Mitchie]

I honestly think this is sort of a pie in the sky kind of idea. Employees would love to have to work less, but they are not going to agree to the corresponding 20% pay cut. Employers are not going to give them a 20% raise and lose the corresponding production. So other than a few outliers, this will probably never be realistic .

Why? It's happened multiple times already in history.

With productivity per hour factored in modern companies are essentially getting 160 hour workweeks worth of productivity compared to the 40 hours companies were getting in 1940 when the workweek was reduced to 40.

Imagine if our grandparents and their grandparents were as weak to their company overlords as we are today. We'd all still be working six 10+ hour days a week at a minimum baseline and thinking that was a reasonable work/life balance.

So are we okay with the wealth gap that will created between the 32-hour employees and those who choose to continue to work 40?

As well as the wealth gap that will be exacerbated even further with the ones that currently work 50-60+ and ultimately receive the promotions, large performance bonuses and equity in the company?

I’m 100% ok with it. Lazy people, on average, already have it way too good in this country. Hard work and sacrifice should matter.

Most people vastly underestimate the role luck plays in their lives.

Being born healthy in the US is luck. Putting in effort at work is a decision. Many people in our country are choosing to squander a lucky break that others would walk from Venezuela for.

Ah yes, just work hard and everyone can become a millionaire.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I honestly think this is sort of a pie in the sky kind of idea. Employees would love to have to work less, but they are not going to agree to the corresponding 20% pay cut. Employers are not going to give them a 20% raise and lose the corresponding production. So other than a few outliers, this will probably never be realistic .

Why? It's happened multiple times already in history.

With productivity per hour factored in modern companies are essentially getting 160 hour workweeks worth of productivity compared to the 40 hours companies were getting in 1940 when the workweek was reduced to 40.

Imagine if our grandparents and their grandparents were as weak to their company overlords as we are today. We'd all still be working six 10+ hour days a week at a minimum baseline and thinking that was a reasonable work/life balance.

So are we okay with the wealth gap that will created between the 32-hour employees and those who choose to continue to work 40?

As well as the wealth gap that will be exacerbated even further with the ones that currently work 50-60+ and ultimately receive the promotions, large performance bonuses and equity in the company?

I’m 100% ok with it. Lazy people, on average, already have it way too good in this country. Hard work and sacrifice should matter.

Most people vastly underestimate the role luck plays in their lives.

Being born healthy in the US is luck. Putting in effort at work is a decision. Many people in our country are choosing to squander a lucky break that others would walk from Venezuela for.

Ah yes, just work hard and everyone can become a millionaire.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Good job.

 

[Instinctive]

I honestly think this is sort of a pie in the sky kind of idea. Employees would love to have to work less, but they are not going to agree to the corresponding 20% pay cut. Employers are not going to give them a 20% raise and lose the corresponding production. So other than a few outliers, this will probably never be realistic .

Why? It's happened multiple times already in history.

With productivity per hour factored in modern companies are essentially getting 160 hour workweeks worth of productivity compared to the 40 hours companies were getting in 1940 when the workweek was reduced to 40.

Imagine if our grandparents and their grandparents were as weak to their company overlords as we are today. We'd all still be working six 10+ hour days a week at a minimum baseline and thinking that was a reasonable work/life balance.

So are we okay with the wealth gap that will created between the 32-hour employees and those who choose to continue to work 40?

As well as the wealth gap that will be exacerbated even further with the ones that currently work 50-60+ and ultimately receive the promotions, large performance bonuses and equity in the company?

I’m 100% ok with it. Lazy people, on average, already have it way too good in this country. Hard work and sacrifice should matter.

Most people vastly underestimate the role luck plays in their lives.

Being born healthy in the US is luck. Putting in effort at work is a decision. Many people in our country are choosing to squander a lucky break that others would walk from Venezuela for.

Ah yes, just work hard and everyone can become a millionaire.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Good job.

Although FWIW if you add "and only spend what you need", I would say even the facetious statement is true.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I honestly think this is sort of a pie in the sky kind of idea. Employees would love to have to work less, but they are not going to agree to the corresponding 20% pay cut. Employers are not going to give them a 20% raise and lose the corresponding production. So other than a few outliers, this will probably never be realistic .

Why? It's happened multiple times already in history.

With productivity per hour factored in modern companies are essentially getting 160 hour workweeks worth of productivity compared to the 40 hours companies were getting in 1940 when the workweek was reduced to 40.

Imagine if our grandparents and their grandparents were as weak to their company overlords as we are today. We'd all still be working six 10+ hour days a week at a minimum baseline and thinking that was a reasonable work/life balance.

So are we okay with the wealth gap that will created between the 32-hour employees and those who choose to continue to work 40?

As well as the wealth gap that will be exacerbated even further with the ones that currently work 50-60+ and ultimately receive the promotions, large performance bonuses and equity in the company?

I’m 100% ok with it. Lazy people, on average, already have it way too good in this country. Hard work and sacrifice should matter.

Most people vastly underestimate the role luck plays in their lives.

Nothing I wrote disagrees with that sentiment. I’ve been massively fortunate. Others I know have been massively unlucky.

 

[Mitchie]

I honestly think this is sort of a pie in the sky kind of idea. Employees would love to have to work less, but they are not going to agree to the corresponding 20% pay cut. Employers are not going to give them a 20% raise and lose the corresponding production. So other than a few outliers, this will probably never be realistic .

Why? It's happened multiple times already in history.

With productivity per hour factored in modern companies are essentially getting 160 hour workweeks worth of productivity compared to the 40 hours companies were getting in 1940 when the workweek was reduced to 40.

Imagine if our grandparents and their grandparents were as weak to their company overlords as we are today. We'd all still be working six 10+ hour days a week at a minimum baseline and thinking that was a reasonable work/life balance.

So are we okay with the wealth gap that will created between the 32-hour employees and those who choose to continue to work 40?

As well as the wealth gap that will be exacerbated even further with the ones that currently work 50-60+ and ultimately receive the promotions, large performance bonuses and equity in the company?

I’m 100% ok with it. Lazy people, on average, already have it way too good in this country. Hard work and sacrifice should matter.

Most people vastly underestimate the role luck plays in their lives.

Nothing I wrote disagrees with that sentiment. I’ve been massively fortunate. Others I know have been massively unlucky.

You seemed to be equating hard work with success and laziness with being poor. I'd argue plenty of people work hard but are not given the same opportunity for success as others, and many lazy people achieve success due to their lot in life.

 

[belljr]

I honestly think this is sort of a pie in the sky kind of idea. Employees would love to have to work less, but they are not going to agree to the corresponding 20% pay cut. Employers are not going to give them a 20% raise and lose the corresponding production. So other than a few outliers, this will probably never be realistic .

Why? It's happened multiple times already in history.

With productivity per hour factored in modern companies are essentially getting 160 hour workweeks worth of productivity compared to the 40 hours companies were getting in 1940 when the workweek was reduced to 40.

Imagine if our grandparents and their grandparents were as weak to their company overlords as we are today. We'd all still be working six 10+ hour days a week at a minimum baseline and thinking that was a reasonable work/life balance.

So are we okay with the wealth gap that will created between the 32-hour employees and those who choose to continue to work 40?

As well as the wealth gap that will be exacerbated even further with the ones that currently work 50-60+ and ultimately receive the promotions, large performance bonuses and equity in the company?

I’m 100% ok with it. Lazy people, on average, already have it way too good in this country. Hard work and sacrifice should matter.

Most people vastly underestimate the role luck plays in their lives.

Nothing I wrote disagrees with that sentiment. I’ve been massively fortunate. Others I know have been massively unlucky.

You seemed to be equating hard work with success and laziness with being poor. I'd argue plenty of people work hard but are not given the same opportunity for success as others, and many lazy people achieve success due to their lot in life.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6a/1d/74/6a1d74377896c7accc851307f410ad08.gif