The Four Day Work Week: Sixteen Reasons Why This Might Be an Idea Whose Time Has Come
Posted by Prof. Goose on May 2, 2008 - 10:00am
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: automobile, climate change, commuting, conservation, driving, emissions, fair labor, four day, labor, oil, oil imports, oil prices, original, pollution, shortened work week, traffic congestion, vmt, work, work week [list all tags]
This is a guest post by Aaron Newton, who is working with coauthor Sharon Astyk on the forthcoming book, A Nation of Farmers. Aaron contributes at Groovy Green; he also blogs at Powering Down. Aaron is a land planner and garden farmer in suburban North Carolina, seeking ways to transform the current course of human land use development in an effort to prepare for the effects of global oil production peak and its outcome on automotive suburban America.
The notion of our standard work week here in America has remained largely the same since 1938. That was the year the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed, standardizing the eight hour work day and the 40 hour work week. Each Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday workers all over the country wake up, get dressed, eat breakfast and go to work. But the notion that the majority of the workforce should keep these hours is based on nothing more than an idea put forth but the Federal government almost 70 years ago. To be sure it was an improvement in the lives of many Americans who were at the time forced to work 10+ hours a day, sometimes 6 days of the week. So a 40 hour work week was seen as an upgrade in the lives of many of U.S. citizens. 8 is a nice round number; one third of each 24 hour day. In theory it leaves 8 hours for sleep and 8 hours for other activities like eating, bathing, raising children and enjoying life. But the notion that we should work for 5 of these days in a row before taking 2 for ourselves is, as best I can tell, rather arbitrary.
The idea of a shorter work week is not a new one to anyone old enough to have lived through the energy shocks of the 1970's. It should be fairly obvious to anyone interested in conserving oil that reducing the number of daily commutes per week would reduce the overall demand for oil. There are about 133 million workers in America. Around 80% of them get to work by driving alone in a car. The average commute covers about 16 miles each way.
So let's stop and do some math...and I'll try to argue for 16 reasons why a four day work week is a good idea.
The math, as I see it, goes as thus (I welcome a discussion of these numbers, by the way...):
133,000,000 workers X 80% who drive alone = 106,400,000 single driver commuter cars each day.
106,400,000 X 32 miles round trip = 3,404,800,000 miles driven to work each day
3,404,800,000 / 21 mpg (average fuel efficiency) = 162,133,333 gallons of gasoline each day
Each barrel of crude oil produces, on average, 19.5 gallons of gas. (It is important to note that other products like kerosene and asphalt are produced from that same barrel.)
162,133,333 / 19.5 = 8,314,530 barrels of oil each day.
What this shows is Reason #1; the impact a 4 day work week could have on crude oil imports. I'm talking about a reduction (5-10%? and perhaps even more--ED by PG) in the amount of oil we need Monday through Friday simply by rearranging our work week. No wonder this idea was utilized in the 70's.
But the clear fact that a 4 day work week would save such a precious non-renewable resource is just the first of 16 reasons why I think it's time to revive the idea of reducing the numbers of days we work each week.
Reason #2 The 4 Day Work Week would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants.
As you pull out of your driveway on your way to work your automobile has already begun to emit Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Hydrocarbons, Ozone, particulates, Lead and Chlorofluorcarbons. Some of these compounds are responsible for the greenhouse effect that is warming our planet and throwing our global climate system into increasing instability. Others of them contribute to air pollution that causes everything from dramatically rising rates of childhood asthma to cancers, heart disease and respiratory illnesses. Sometimes I drive to work too, so don't think the whole thing is your fault. But it's true that we're playing fast and loose with our ecosystem and poisoning ourselves with our autos. 60-70% of urban air pollution is caused by cars. Taking 20% of them off the roads during the most heavily traveled time of the day would obviously reduce the overall amount of pollutants produced by our autos. And this is key, if a worker transitions to a 4 Day Work Week and then spends all day off driving around when he or she would have be at work, then the savings in terms of fuel and pollution will be lost. This is not a plan to provide everyone with more time to drive around but a plan to bring people back into their homes and their local communities. It's an effort to give them more time with family, more time to exercise, more time to write the great American novel or learn to keep bees, or get another degree, or start a garden.
Reason #3 The 4 Day Work Week would reduce workers exposure to pollutants.
A recent study by the California EPA says "50% of a person's daily exposure to ultra fine particles (the particles linked to cardiovascular disease and respiratory illnesses) can occur during a commute." A report by the Clean Air Task Force in 2007 found diesel particle levels were between 4 to 8 times higher in commute vehicles than in the surrounding air. It makes sense when you think about it. The pollution coming from the tailpipe of a vehicle is mostly likely to affect you while you're sitting directly behind it, especially if you're stuck in slow moving traffic where the concentrations of such particles can build up.
Reason #4 The 4 Day Work Week would mean less traffic congestion.
Rush hour exists because everyone needs to get to work at about the same time. Anyone who's lived in a city of size can tell you that early in the morning and late in the afternoon the roads fill up. The average 16 mile commutes takes 26 minutes each way. That's 52 minutes a day traveling at roughly 35 miles per hour. Imagine if 1/5 of the cars suddenly disappeared? If the work week was staggered so that 1/5 of all workers took a different day off, the U.S. commuter would see a 20% reduction in rush hour congestion without building a single new road. Which leads nicely to the next reason:
Reason #5 The 4 Day Work Week would reduce money spent on new road construction and existing road maintenance.
With 1/5 few cars making the commute each day, fewer new road projects would be necessary and existing roads would last longer with less maintenance. This is not to say that we shouldn't take advantage of this cost savings to invest in alternative transportation systems. In fact it's the opposite. This could be a gift to the tax payer who would receive new and better options for travel without any rise in taxes.
Reason #6 The 4 Day Work Week would result in a reduction in personal expenses.
From www.ridetowork.org,
"2002 annual household private vehicle expense is $7,371. This is divided into $3,665 for vehicle purchases, $1,235 for gas and oil and $2,471 for insurance and misc."
If workers used their cars 20% less often to drive to work, they would see a reduction in the frequency of oil changes, tune ups and the purchase of new tires just to name a few savings. The above numbers also reflect the price of gasoline in 2002. We all know it has increase since then and will continue to increase now that global oil production has peaked. Remember those 162,133,333 gallons of gas we're going to save?
162,133,333 X $2.75 per gallon = $445,866,665.00
This would save US workers a lot of money! And because our cars would be driven less frequently, they wouldn't need to be replaced as often. That's not to say that would shouldn't try to replace inefficient older cars with more efficient new ones, but this could give the auto manufactures time to wake up to the global peak in oil production and make changes in the types of vehicles they offer. It could also give communities time to respond with planning strategies that favor other types of transportation including walking, biking and mass transit.
Reason #7 The 4 Day Work Week would mean fewer auto accidents each year.
I don't have statistics on the number of automobile related deaths and injuries that occur specifically during rush hour but almost every radio station on the dial offers a regular update of car crashes throughout each morning and evening commute. It seems safe to assume that fewer cars on the road during those periods of time would result in fewer accidents and the injuries that result from them.
Reason #8 The 4 Day Work Week would mean less time spent in VSC or Voluntary Solitary Confinement
Now some people tell me the time they spend alone in their car is relaxing. Personally I think if that's true then what those people are really enjoying is time alone on uncongested roads. Rush hour on a busy street is not relaxing. Personal time away from other people can be a positive experience. But we don't have to spend our time alone in a metal box burning nonrenewable resources that heat the planet. If less time was spent commuting each week, people would have more time for themselves to enjoy, even if they wanted to enjoy that time alone. It seems to me that as a nation we are experiencing an epidemic of disconnect. Ever see those people early in the morning on their way to work at 6:30am talking on their cell phones? Just who are they talking to? Maybe some of them are already working (before even arriving at work) but I bet many of them are talking to other friends and family who are, quite possibly, out in traffic too. How many of you have ever made a cell phone call because you were bored or lonely in your car? I have friends who will call me and announce that's what they're doing, calling me to get some company. The car is an insulator that keeps us from interacting and as naturally social creatures this isn't a good practice. Less time spent in cars can mean more time spent with other human beings living life.
Reason #9 The 4 Day Work Week would mean a reduction in absenteeism
A recent survey found that 43% of respondents admitted to playing hooky last year. That is they stayed home from work even though they weren't sick. Another day scheduled during the week to address the needs and wants of workers would give people more time to complete all sorts of activities. It could keep them from taking their own day off. It could also give people a day to schedule appointments like medical, dental, tax, attorney or other. A Four Day Work Week would mean fewer random interruptions when workers must leave the office to take care of these matters. Even the occasional summer day spent hiking with a child sounds like a good national exercise to me.
Reason #10 The 4 Day Work Week would increase productivity
Yes I said "increase productivity."
In 1930 famed cereal maker W.K. Kellog had this to say about his decision to decrease his companies work week from 40 to 30 hours.
The efficiency and morale of our employees is so increased, the accident and insurance rates are so improved, and the unit cost of production is so lowered that we can afford to pay as much for six hours as we formerly paid for eight.
Peak oil and climate change could make for turbulent business waters ahead. This country needs more business leaders willing to navigate these waters not by burdening their workforce with limitations or restrictions but with a willingness to try new strategies. Ideas such as this one should be strongly considered by corporate America or maybe it's time for the Federal government to revisit this issue through law. New ways of working really could benefit both businesses and employees. It's important in the time ahead not to simply saddle the workers of America with the rising costs of energy and ecological destruction.
There are lots options concerning the number of hours a 4 Day Work Week could contain. Employees could work 10 hours a day and keep a 40 hour work week. Or they could simply eliminate an entire day and drop down to a 32 hour work week. In between is the idea of working 4 days a week, 9 hours a day. But regardless of how many hours people work, the important part to remember is that most tasks are going to get accomplished each week just as they did before. A recent survey by salary.com of over 10,000 American workers revealed that on average, we waste more than 2 hours each day surfing the web or making phone calls to friends. Might these distractions be activities that workers must be willing to trade for an entire extra day off to spend surfing on the Internet? I say that tongue in cheek as there are better ways to spend your new day off but the point is that the inbox is never empty and that important tasks could probably be completed in a shorter work week if time spent at work was all about work. A shorter work week would sharpen this focus and make the workplace more productive.
Reason #11 The 4 Day Work Week would give us more time for family
60% of Americans say they do not have enough time for family. To be sure we could change that statement to read, make time for family, because time is after all what you make it. It's important to note that we work more hours than any other nation on the planet. But why? Why do we work? I think this question is at the heart of support for a shorter work week. We work so we can support our families right? But is more money and the always increasing amount of stuff that money buys really supporting our families? We have to pay bills but would your son rather have you at home or have a new flat screen television? 7 out of 10 teenage pregnancies are conceived at the home of the young girl between the hours of 3pm and 5pm. It is my view that what might be in my daughter's best interest isn't me working 50 hours a week so I can buy her a sweet sixteen car. It might be spending more time at home with my daughter talking to her about her future. A shorter work week would give this nation an opportunity to spend more time at home with our families.
Reason #12 The 4 Day Work Week would decrease labor costs
Long work hours increase the worker turnover rate which leads to more money spent on acquiring and training new employees. Employees who have almost as many days to spend on their own as days they spend working will be much happier and more loyal. These are employees who will work harder and stay longer at any given company.
Reason #13 The 4 Day Work Week would decrease operational costs
Depending on just how a company chooses to structure its 4 Day Work Week, any number of operational costs could be reduced. The energy savings from the climate control of unoccupied buildings could be enormous. Fewer security or maintenance issues could result from having a smaller number of people in the office each day. A shorter work week could mean more infrequent cleanings and less information technology service calls.
Reason #14 The 4 Day Work Week would mean a reduction in the cost of childcare
If a two parent household were to switch to a 4 Day Work Week then their childcare costs could be reduced by 40%. Childcare ranges in cost depending on the type care and the specific location in which a worker lives. Estimates range from $3,000 to $15,000 annually per child. A family spending $5,000 who could reduce the number of days their child is in care from 5 days to 3 could save $2,000 a year. This also means more of the child's time spent with parents which fosters stronger families. It is important to note here that childcare that exceeds the normal 8 hour work day is more expensive. If both parents switched to 10 hour work days their childcare costs might not decrease.
Reason #15 The 4 Day Work Week would provide time for a transition into the informal economy
There are a lot of reasons why consumer culture is bad for us. It focuses not on people and their relationships to one another but instead on things, on stuff, on cheap plastic crap from Mal-Wart. It's worth pointing out that not only is our habit of consuming mass quantities of junk toxifying our lives and our environment with all sorts of chemicals and pollution, it's also using up a number of nonrenewable resources at an alarming rate. It seems reasonable to assume that we can't continue on this ride of infinite growth for a whole lot longer. The coming era will be one of a decline in the availability of all sorts of resources we take for granted right now. Learning how to reshape and relocalize our lives will be an immense effort for both communities and the individuals living in them. Having an extra day each week to begin this process could prove invaluable. Need time to learn how to cook or garden? Have you always wanted to start a new cottage industry business from home? Maybe you'd like to be more activity in volunteer efforts in your community to address peak oil and climate change. This extra day could be our ticket as a nation to scaling back on our consumption while we reconnect to local life.
Reason #16 The 4 Day Work Week feels great!
I write this proposal not as an academic making a theoretical suggestion but as a participant in the new 4 Day Work Week movement. At the beginning of 2007 I renegotiated my contract with my employer and started staying home on Fridays. I now have more than a two day speed bump on the highway of American employment. I get to enjoy almost as many days at home each week as I spend working at my job. And it feels wonderful. Since making the change I have even taken a new job and was still able to continue with my shorter work week. 25% of U.S. companies already have some sort of policy towards alternative work schedules.
Telecommuting, cell phones and the Internet are just some of the other tools that can offer more flexibility to the outdated idea that we should all be at the office from 8 to 5 on Monday through Friday. I can tell you from experience that this feels great. I am able to spend time on projects that are important to me. I get to see my young daughter more. Lately it's been a Friday bike ride together. And I have a chance to share my ideas with more time to write proposals like this one.
Changes require action. Our nation is at a point where we need change. Not politicians talking about change but an actual change in the way we live our lives. The 4 Day Work Week could be a catalyst for a change from a nation that lives to work into a nation that works to live. Come join me won't you?
This piece was originally posted September 20, 2007, for the old comments revisit the old thread.



Four Day Work Week? You will not get any arguments from me on that, all the points here look valid. Let's do it! Cheers.
At first blush, many of these arguments seem to make sense. But a few are dubious, to say the least. Ten good arguments for a case are better than ten good ones plus six bad ones. Even one good argument would be sufficient, if it were to outweigh all the others.
Reasons # 1 thru # 9 – sound fine (at first blush).
Reason # 10 ("The 4 Day Work Week would increase productivity")
Questionable. Can we conclude from this that a 3 Day Work Week would increase productivity even more, and a 2 Day Work Week even still more .. down to a 0-Day Work Week where productivity reaches its maximum?
No doubt there is a productivity optimum, depending on the type of job and the personality of the employee. Perhaps it's four days for some occupations, five for others, etc. But no, this reason doesn't hold much water.
Reason #11 ("The 4 Day Work Week would give us more time for family").
Questionable. More time with the family can have mixed results: think of cabin fever. Or remember Schopenhauer's 'hedgehog's dilemma' – hedgehogs cuddle together to stay warm but then they move apart to avoid pricking one another with their quills. Ditto for hom. sap.
No doubt a lot of families stay together because Dad is away five days of the week. Like holidays – there are holidays with the family and there are holidays from the family. I'm an old-fashioned family guy myself. Believe me.
More later --- just heard Madame Carola Obscura coming in the door. Gotta get away ....
Does the logical reductio ad absurdem still work given that the argument is an empirical one rather than a logical one?
Probably not. The argument is not that for any work week, reducing the work week increases productivity, but that for a 5 day on, two day off, eight hour a day work week, reducing the work week increases productivity.
Indeed, the flaw is not the one set forward here, but that the empirical support is for productivity falling from the sixth hour working to the eighth hour working ... but for the impact on commuting, the change in the work week is not focused on reducing the length of the work day, but in reducing the number of commutes per week.
Clearly, the suggested 4-day, 10-hour day would not have any strong support from the evidence sketched at in the piece for any general substantial productivity benefit. And a 5 day, 6 hour day would not reduce the total number of commutes.
Also, the piece reads as if everyone works at a desk job. For a lot of people who work at an hourly wage, there is something to be done or else they are not on the clock, which means that if the number of hours they work in a day is reduced, then the firm has to have more people on the payroll.
Point taken – thanks. In fact, after that somewhat clumsy attempt at sarcasm I made much the same empirical argument as you did: it all depends. As you point out, we're not all paper pushers or penmen.
As regards the increased productivity argument I would add the ECON 101 dimension: if the 4-day workweek were as productive as it's made out to be successful firms would have introduced it already and the fuddy-duddies would have gone to the wall. Natural selection Schumpeter Hayek Ludwig von Mises and the American question: if you're so smart why aren't you rich ... etc. etc.
Having taught ECON-101, I'll also point out that (1) this argument assumes a complete network of perfectly competitive markets which (2) is nothing like what we have.
Firms are not productivity optimizers even in the traditional marginalist theory, they are profit optimizers, and there are many reasons why there can be productivity increases that are not reflected in increased profit for labor hour. Indeed, the massive departures we have to make from the real world in order to arrive at a model in which profit optimizing and productivity optimizing are equivalent should themselves signal that in general, they are anything but equivalent out in the real world.
Thanks for making the point (ECON 301?)
Second bash:
Is that OK now>? :-)
I've been mostly on a 3x12 hr shift for 10 years. I don't know whether my productivity has changed, but my gas bill is 40% less than it would be with 8 hr shifts. Is it more productive for the department? My first hospital went from 8 hr to 10 hr shifts in order to get improved staffing without hiring new employees. We had about 4 different shifts, with overlapping coverage. I believe the same thing happened when my current department went to twelves, so I'd have to say our productivity went up. Mostly, tho, productivity depends on the patient load.
Hours too long mentally? I'm probably thinking and functioning better in emergencies after 11 hours than I am when I walk in the door.
Hours too long physically? I'm 63, retiring in 6 months, and trying to pick up OT. Worked 112 hrs the last 2 weeks, without killing any patients, mice elf, or anything on the drive home. Just takes a good pair of legs; do about 6 miles in a shift.
Rat
PS...
Not a new idea. When my mom was in nursing school, ca 1940, they worked 5x12 plus half a shift on Sat.
Great idea. However, the big question mark is: do people really drive less on their day off?
That's the thing, if they just drive somewhere else on Friday (or whenever the extra day off is), then the energy savings pretty much evaporate. At my employer we do have our Public Works guys on a 4 day, 10/hr per day schedule. They all love it. Why? Because that gives them an extra day to go hunt or fish -- activities they must drive some distance to. I might also point out that all those people with an extra day off are going to want to go shopping or to some entertainment venue, so the people staffing THOSE places can't have that day off.
I'm pretty sure employers would be able to work their schedules so that there was coverage on all days. This excellent suggestion didn't say that it is mandatory for every person in the country to take Friday off.
Personally, I would rather have Monday off. Nothing better than coming to work on Tuesday and thinking 'wow, part of the week is gone already'.
As far as what people might do on their 3rd day off is not really an issue, considering all the other mentioned benefits of a 4 day work week. Of course it would have to be 4 10 hour days. There is no way this would happen if the number of work hours in a week were reduced.
I agree this is a big question and calls the 40% reduction in reason #1 in to question. First of all if I commute 4 days instead of five that's a 20% reduction, and if I drive for personal reasons on the extra day off then I don't even get the full 20% benefit.
that number's fixed. I missed it in my edit last night. Apologies.
In Los Angeles, smog is usually worst on Saturdays. This could be strong evidence that a 4-day work week would not provide the benefits suggested in this article.
Rampant speculation and riling ahead:
(note: this is not directed at anyone specifically)
Perhaps these people who've been cooped up all week feel the need to get out and go somewhere on Saturday. If the workweek were reduced they may not feel the need to do so. So not only would you get the benefit of them not driving the one day of the workweek, but they may not feel as compelled to go anywhere else otherwise, so you'd get a reduction on Saturdays as well.
More likely, whatever driving they would be doing on Saturday may get simply get shifted. So the workweek benefit may still be there, but they may simply do their Saturday driving on a different day.
Here's stirring the pot: I'd say that fuel burned during recreation is a worthy use. Fuel burned during commuting is completely wasted. I'll make a side note that fuel used in creating the items we need for survival - food, shelter, clothing, etc. is also a worthy use. I'll go even further to say that even if they drive on the "off" day, that is a much better use of the resource. For the reason, I'll answer with a question...what's the purpose/meaning of life? I'll let you decide.
Now, to be a little less controversial, one of the things this WOULD do...is to make a *mandatory* driving day into an *optional* driving day. If you must drive to get to work and you work 5 days a week, you need to drive 5 days a week - though you could drive 7. If you've got a 4 day workweek, you need only drive 4 days a week - though you could still drive 7. The other day becomes optional. So if gas is $10/gal - perhaps on that 5th day that you would have *had* to drive to work, you'll hop on your bicycle and cruise downtown instead (or sit on your fat, lazy ass and ogle the one-eyed god...but that's another story).
In 2006 (I think it was) fuel use for transport by private persons for leisure overtook fuel use for work-related / commuting purposes, in Geneva, Switzerland. (Shopping was split, a bit of it was counted as ‘essential’ driving. ifirc..) That is what you get with great public transport for a small territory, in a rich country. Leisure spots are of course off the public transport grid, either because they involve ‘country’ or because they are set in locations where the land/rents are cheap - off the grid!
Heigh ho, heigh its off to to the mall (park, ski, spa...and in the winter, sunlight..) we go!
Working days (hours) are amongst the highest in Europe. Saturday is still an official working day - employers simply offer it as ‘non-working,’ fact which most employees don’t realize until they are called in to work on Sat. which admittedly only happens for some professions and in some exceptional situations.
I have given this some thought. I think that what we should do is have a 4 day forty hour work week with a mandatory no driving day--for anyone short of emergency services (or alternatively drivers could buy a prohibitively pricey driving pass for the day off though I don't like that idea too much). Let's make it something similar to the Jewish Sabbath say Friday at midnight to Saturday at midnight with Monday off. Its not like people wouldn't be able to do things on this day, it just means they would have to do it without their automobiles. Some people could still work if they wanted or needed too. They would just have to ride a bicylce or walk--with the added bonus that the roads would be much safer on those day. I can only imagine what it would do for this obese country. I know that people would complain, but driving is a privlige and not a right and a mandatory no driving day would undoubtedly curb demand and we could still get the same amount of work done in a week. Maybe it could even be done at the federal level if the government threatened to withold highway funding. Heck, if we just had a mandatory no driving day on the weekend we could still have a 5 day work week. We could even make it Sunday. I am only 26 and still remember how everything used to be shut on Sudays when I was a kid.
I second that JD , as a hard working chef.
But on more important matters...
HOW ABOUT THE BLUES WIN OVER THE COASTERS ... GO YOU BLUE BAGGERS.
I think the old comments are still accurate, especially this one.
If this is actually advocating fewer hours worked...I think that will just accelerate outsourcing to countries where people will work 12 hour days, six days a week, for much less pay.
And the math critiques posted in the previous thread's comment do not appear to have been addressed.
We could make outsourcing illegal.
Hmmmm ... like making outsourcing crude oil illegal? ... careful what you wish for!
more like 14 hour days 7 days a week. I've been to China and if I remember correctly you have too, those folks are ready to work.
(disclaimer: didn't read the whole thing)
I find it funny this guy works with Sharon, a small scale farmer. Wasn't it some sort of Godly mandate to take a day off, get us out of the fields?
I guess it comes down to the definition of work.
Its not as if outsourcing is some kind of natural law reaction to changes in the physical environment ... its a policy choice made by governments, both public and private.
"If this is actually advocating fewer hours worked...I think that will just accelerate outsourcing to countries where people will work 12 hour days, six days a week, for much less pay."
Nah, not at all. Outsourcing happened with the 5 day 40 hr wk in place to begin with. This whole argument is vacant. I've worked 4-10s & 4-12s. It's just cool to have 3 sanctioned days off. Did it change MY life in any significant way? Nope. The wife worked 35 hrs, I worked 48. Now she works 48 and I work 0. And I have to pay child support. Like anything, it is what it is. A system with a life of its own, and good or bad, it seems to be self-sustaining.
I don't think the scheduling life around the kids thing is relevant either. I and my kids found a way to adjust when I worked 4-10s. It wasn't a deal breaker. I've lost employment to outsourcing. No one gave a crap about what it would do to my kids or me or my families existing in any comfort. It's not an all or nothing scenario.
Outsourcing will become a thing of the past anyway. Our wages go down, the Asians come up a little, we all make the same wage, and outsourcing becomes futile. PO will bring about a more localized arrangement for the way we conduct our affairs. It'll be easier and make more economic sense, but I digress.
IMO, a move to 4-10s would have no effect on anything, productivity, home life, carbon emissions,...
Jeff
As long as the overhead for hiring new employees is high, companies will prefer overtime (on top of a 40 hour work week)
rather than hiring more staff.
Also, if real pay is declining, workers will likely work longer to attempt to maintain their standard of living.
Add on top of this the effective elimination of overtime penalties ... for wage labor, this originally involved fringe benefits for full time hourly employees, so that if full time hourly employees get 1/3 of their total renumeration in benefits, then time and a half is the same hourly labor cost.
This was extended, starting in the 1980's and accelerating for the US at least, with heavy pushes to reliance on temporary labor, so that instead of allowing one employee to get overtime, a second person is called in. Of course, this only works if there is a shortage of regular full-time employment, but since the economic policy shift of the mid-1970's away from fighting unemployment to ensuring an adequate amount of unemployment, that has not been hard to arrange ... in the US, again, U6 unemployment in the most recent expansion, which is now over (in employment terms) never dipped below 7.5%.
Another issue:
As we increasingly move to a solar-powered economy, we are going to have to re-engineer everything around the realities of the daily solar cycle. Whether sunlight is being used for interior lighting, or space & water heating, or electricity, or industrial CSP applications, most work is going to have to be done during those six hours or so centered on solar noon. This suggests to me that maybe a six hour per day, six day per week schedule is what we're really going to have to go to at least for most industrial and commercial operations. The good thing abouot that is that it would leave plenty of time each day for home gardening (which is better done at the start and end of each day anyway), chopping wood, crafts, or other sideline employments. It would require that people live pretty close to their employers, though - preferably within walking or bicycle distance.
I thought with cell phones, blackberries, laptops, etc. that people were pretty much working 24/7 anyway, regardless of whether they were at their physical place of employment. The real problem is that Americans, generally, are overworked compared to, for example, the Europeans. In addition, there are no laws requiring vacations so we have very short vacations.
Yes, it is true that if we don't work ourselves to death, then our jobs will be outsourced, which is happening anyway.
The fundamental problem is that we are in a global, largely free trade economy that will only continue to lower the living standards of most working Americans. We don't even truly have a five day/40 hour work week, so I see it as extremely unlikely that we will move to a 4 day work week.
As long as we are wedded to free trade nirvana, the life of the typical American worker will be nasty, brutish, and short. We seem to be perfectly happy with the current situation where the rich are getting much richer and the middle and lower classes are getting poorer. There is no politician with any chance of being President who will change that fundamental reality.
Further, as long as most of us "need" all the toys available in our consumer society, they will not make any changes which will lower their incomes. This is built into our DNA because of decades of consumerist propoganda starting in the early 1900s.
Further, as someone else stated above, more days off may actually increase miles traveled. I live in an area where "pleasure" driving rules.
Tstreet: Not fair-you are going against the common theme on TOD that the USA is potentially Sweden. "We" will all work together singing Kumbaya. Doesn't anyone remember Bush's comment that the great thing about America is that the shmucks work THREE jobs? Oil depletion is going to kick the average American in the head-this is about as important to the persons running the country as the future of the average Haitian IMO.
I'm back.
Reason #14 The 4 Day Work Week would mean a reduction in the cost of childcare
Questionable –it's a question of relative costs: a high-flying manager won't stay at home on Friday just to save $50 on the babysitter. A 0-Day Work Week would reduce childcare costs to zero, of course.
Reason #16 The 4 Day Work Week feels great!
Purely subjective – speak for yourself. I actually enjoy my five-day workweek – meet colleagues at the proverbial water-cooler, listen to Katie Melua CDs as I drive to the office and back, eat great meals at a high-quality canteen where you can choose what you want and don't have to deliberate at length with your vegetarian wife and carnivore sons ...
Phew! As they say, there's no place like work. In fact, I'd go for six days any time.
Reddit and Digg links. Please help us spread this around to your own link services. We appreciate it.
http://reddit.com/info/6hxft/comments/ (env)
http://digg.com/environment/16_Reasons_Why_The_Four_Day_Work_Week_Is_a_G...
Good luck. One trouble is that despite its length, this is a static analysis.
I suspect that if people saw a four-day week as a lasting change, then their habits would change over time, and not in the direction of reducing fuel consumption. For example, the everlasting 24/7/365 school-sports hypercompetition would inexorably rise to a new level, with yet more routine driving halfway across the state to get young Johnny and Susie closer to the world-class level of play they so obviously deserve.
Seriously, people tend to respond to a block of free time by taking a trip; they can't think of anything else to do. Consider the Garden State Parking Lot, or Interstates 90 and 94 out of Chicago, or all the other jammed Interstates outbound from big cities the Friday night and Saturday morning of a nice weekend, or returning the last evening of said weekend. (Oh, and should you read this and feel inclined to put up yet another Blame America First post, consider the Autoroute du Soleil on any nice weekend, ground nearly to a halt all the way from Paris to Marseille.)
In addition, I doubt that one gets to reduce peak commuter traffic by divvying up the five days evenly. Many shops or groups will function less well if a different one-fifth of their people are out each day of the week. So a day will be chosen. Because people use free time to travel, Monday and Friday will be much preferred over Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Unless Mondays or Fridays are chosen, the irate bickering over this matter will cause administrators to throw up their hands and move on to The Next Big Thing. And people are social creatures who want to be off when others are off, so the day would tend gradually to standardize. (A shop could also rotate the day, but that is unlikely as it would confuse clients and customers - let's see, it's March, so my agent has today, Tuesday, off, no that was back in January, oh, fuhgeddaboudit, I need to move my business to another agency.)
If the real agenda was to reduce working hours for the aesthetic sake of a so-called simpler life or whatever, that would have to be accomplished in a more direct manner (and probably by fairly harsh command-and-control, given the experience with and ruckus over limiting working hours in France.) Meanwhile, on to the next idea.
(By the way, this subject was also just touched on by Tim Haab.)
PaulS,
Cleary you're a pro. Yes, a lot of the four-day-workweek arguments belong to the category it sounded like a good idea at the time. Like bioethanol, etc.
Many people would probably go bananas if they had three free days a week --- especially in an irreligious age when work is the main source of meaning for many people.
Blaise Pascal wrote:
Two days in a room (i.e. home) each week is more than enough for most of us. No, no thanks, will Sunday never end?
Good Lord... Have you ever considered taking up a hobby?
A hobby. Wot's that?
Reading Pascal, perhaps?