<DrumBeat: May 2, 2008 The Oil Drum Solving Our Water Problems - Desalination Using Solar Thermal Power>

70 comments on The Four Day Work Week: Sixteen Reasons Why This Might Be an Idea Whose Time Has Come

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Carolus Obscurus on May 2, 2008 - 10:48am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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 ....

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BruceMcF on May 2, 2008 - 12:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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?

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Carolus Obscurus on May 2, 2008 - 12:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Does the logical reductio ad absurdem still work given that the argument is an empirical one rather than a logical one?

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BruceMcF on May 2, 2008 - 3:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Carolus Obscurus on May 2, 2008 - 3:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thanks for making the point (ECON 301?)

Second bash:

As regards the increased productivity argument I would add the ECON 301 dimension: if the 4-day workweek were as productive as it's made out to be successful firms might under certain circumstances have introduced it already and the fuddy-duddies might in some cases have gone to the wall and you can read all about the nitty-gritty in Samuelson's Economics 125th edition.

Is that OK now>? :-)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Wharf Rat on May 4, 2008 - 5:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

70 comments on The Four Day Work Week: Sixteen Reasons Why This Might Be an Idea Whose Time Has Come

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version