The Case for the Shorter Work Week

[Spartan_Warrior]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/case-shor ... 00325.html

Nothing new here to the likes of us, but could be an interesting article to pass around to non-believers... and I was surprised to find something interesting on Yahoo. As usual, the comments provide some good laughs too.

[Chad]

We may actually be heading toward these shortened work weeks based on the big increase in the number of people who work at temp jobs.

The comments on any major site just expose the lack of logic and knowledge of the general population. I try not read them, as they are very depressing.

[rube]

Reading this I have nothing to complain about, living in the Netherland and being Dutch.

My wife and I have both worked for some years 4 days a week each. It is great and less day care is needed. Now it is 5 (me) and 3 (she) days a week.

If I did not had the plan for ere I would love to work 4 or 3 days again.

[dot_com_vet]

My college had 4 day weeks, it was great. I could work on Friday, helping to pay for said college.

I've never had an employer allow four day weeks, but I do see old-timers strategically using their vacation to do the same thing as much as it allows.

[Seneca]

I'd find it very upsetting if my company did this.

I'd rather get paid 20% more, work 5 days and hit FI faster.

[dot_com_vet]

You may not get paid any less with a four day week. At least my college, the days were longer. I had solid classes some terms from 7 am - 5:30 PM. The teachers put in longer days too.

One of the main benefits touted was energy savings. (HVAC, lightning, fuel for commuters)

[Seneca]

You may not get paid any less with a four day week. At least my college, the days were longer. I had solid classes some terms from 7 am - 5:30 PM. The teachers put in longer days too.

One of the main benefits touted was energy savings. (HVAC, lightning, fuel for commuters)

Right, very job specific.

For hourly people it definitely does not have to mean a cut in pay. For salaried it likely would.

[KevinW]

My college had 4 day weeks, it was great. I could work on Friday, helping to pay for said college.

Usually when that happens the faculty and staff work Fridays and catch up on all the stuff they can't do when do when students are around, like grading and administrative upkeep.

Once I had an employer that was OK with me working 10 hour days 4 days a week, with the same pay and responsibilities. I loved it.

[Seneca]

I worked at a hospital where there was a "Baylor shift" available for nurses. They worked 12 hours sat and sun and did one 8 hr shift during the week. They were paid for 40 hours. Seemed awesome to me!

I should amend my statement above, likely not to help private industry salaried people.

[oldbeyond]

I'd really consider working 30-35 hrs a week if given the chance. Taxes here are pretty high(the highest marginal tax rate is 57 %), and the top 10 % earn $70000/yr. The combination of high taxes and relatively low wages make careerism less appealing, and I'd prefer having more time right now rather than in X years time. I realize this would increase the time needed to hit FI, but I also feel that the future is uncertain, and I want to live a good life even in the accumulation phase. I might get hit by a bus a month before achieving FI, for example. Like with everything else, you have to compromise, and I feel that a slight reduction in working hours would help make time for health, relationships, spirituality and craft. Sadly, very few jobs in the private sector offers this here. Basically, you work forty hours or zero hours. This is especially true in my industry(construction). People working part-time are basically the involuntarily underemployed in the service industry and women in the public sector. Doctors can get away with it too, since there's a shortage of them.

My plan is to spend my twenties accumulating skills, by avoiding stressful management positions for ones providing me an opportunity to acquire high-demand technical skills, and then "cash in" by starting my own consulting business. Having my own business, I will most likely be able to lower my tax rate a bit, too.

[Spartan_Warrior]

The article is not about "alternative" 40 hour schedules (e.g. 4 days at 10 hrs each) but about working less hours than 40 per week. This is based around the historical premise that the explosion in productivity since the industrial revolution would obviate the need for humans to work much more than a few hours a week to produce enough to meet everyone's needs.

But as we all know, instead of working less, we decided we wanted more (stuff). To say nothing of the skewing of profits from all that productivity toward the wealthiest--what the middle-class has seen of those productivity gains, they've been convinced to spend on consumerism.

To say "I couldn't live on less money/hours" generally is missing the point (not saying that of anyone here, since the desire to work more--if you're saving it for FI and not spending it stupidly--is quite understandable).

RE: The "alternative" 40 hour schedule is quite nice. I happen to work a 4 day/10 hr day schedule myself. (And I get to telework two of the four days.) It's been awesome for work/life balance, although admittedly those two days when I don't telecommute are very tiring--I wake up at 5:30AM, leave by 6:00 and get home around 5:30PM, after the traffic.

I wouldn't mind working less time with less pay/benefits. Since I have sufficient vacation time saved and rarely use it, I once asked my supervisor if I could, on a more or less recurring basis, use the four hours of leave I accrue each pay period so I could work for one hour less on those two long days. She didn't respond.

[workathome]

I think if we didn't dramatically increase the demand for material products, as per ERE's general philosophy, and we didn't require fancier newer cars, larger houses, latest tech, etc. this would already be feasible for the entire middle class of America. It's the constant competition for shinier products that drives the rat race.