
The solution to (nearly) everything: working less - csantini
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/18/solution-everything-working-less-work-pressure
======
peatmoss
I really wish there were jobs out there that let you do this. My ideal work
week is 32 hours, with occasional bursts of more. I've met very few
traditional workplaces that were very open to the idea of part time schedules.

For me, focus is all or nothing during work hours. I'd much rather bring fire
for fewer hours each day, and then recharge with some of my other pursuits.

~~~
keithpeter
Teaching?

Not sure if it would pay enough where you are; and not sure if you would want
to try it (not easy work if you do it properly).

Teaching can be fractionalised quite easily - I do 3/4 of a standard teaching
week so I teach fewer classes spread over 4 days. To fit your second
paragraph, you would need to be very disciplined about getting the preparation
and marking done within your chosen working days.

~~~
pmiller2
That last sentence is absolutely key. Most people do not understand that the
time commitment involved in teaching is not well approximated by the amount of
time spent in front of the class.

------
atemerev
I don't know, did Keynes ever understood how capitalism works? Capitalism is
competition. If your employees work less, your competitor's employees will
work full time and overtime, getting their product to market faster and
reaping all the rewards. It works with entire countries as competitive agents
(see China). "Winner takes it all" operation mode of modern markets amplifies
the magnitude of the problem.

Another issue is management overhead. Managing 10 people working full-time is
easier (perhaps exponentially) than managing 40 people working 1/4 time.
Easier means cheaper, which means that you are better positioned in the
competition. This is why every rational company will hire 10 people full-time
and leave the other 30 unemployed, instead of hiring all 40 for quarter of the
time.

I see no solution to this problem in peacetime (Keynes' own solution famously
didn't work). In wartime, of course, there are nearly no unemployed.

~~~
lsy
I think you're forgetting to take into account the effect of longer hours on
productivity (negative), and the fact that our working hours are a choice
which (within a certain range) don't seem to have a strong effect on actual
results in the "marketplace".

In the developed world, the 40-hour week is standard both because 60-hour
weeks are less-productive, and because as a society we've chosen to prioritize
health and happiness over the (mostly imagined) productivity of a longer
workweek. But 40 isn't a magical number, it's possible 30 would work just as
well or better.

~~~
atemerev
As long as the productivity stays the same or increased, this option is
viable. But if not, it isn't. Increased productivity from shorter hours is
good, of course, but Keynes thought that even decreased productivity could be
fine, as at some point it will be "enough".

Here's the catch: under competitive market economy, there is never "enough".
And if you pass on market economy in your country, there are other countries
who will outcompete you, both economically and militarily.

------
antisthenes
And exercising more.

I'm fairly certain the optimal work week is ~30-35 hrs, and the optimal
exercise time is 6-8 hrs/week.

Imagine how low the health care costs could be if we were somehow mandated by
a benevolent dictator to do some activities at work (our preferred sport for
example).

One can dream.

~~~
civilian
This would be acceptable if the benevolent dictator also participated in 6-8
hrs/week of exercise, and it was televised raw on CSPAN.

At the very least it would be a good motivator, and at I bet it'd be very
humanizing too. "Oh man, our B.D. only did 7 reps when he was aiming for 10.
Look at that sad puppy face! Just exhausted, but he has 20 more minutes to
go."

------
iamcasen
Crazy that, though this is so widely known, nothing has really changed in the
last 100 years. Instead, wages stay stagnant, and cost of living rises. Hours
needed to survive increase. It's all so illogical, it's crazy.

~~~
james-watson
It's illogical from a rational, maximum-utility-for-all perspective.

However, looking at it from the point of view of a primate status hierarchy
competition, it makes perfect sense. The apex individuals derive pleasure from
subjugating their lower status colleagues, and thus seek to make their lives
as miserable as possible.

From this point of view, all of human history makes sense. We are but
primates, and no amount of highbrow pontificating can change that.

Starting today, if the powerful wanted to, they could design a rational system
that maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering for the largest number of
people possible. But then, there is no incentive in the primate brain to
foster such an endeavor. Even philanthropists, instead of uniting and agreeing
on a shared vision, compete with each other for status amongst themselves by
virtue signalling their own superiority over their peers.

It is nature red in tooth and claw. We are no exception.

~~~
jjn2009
>Starting today, if the powerful wanted to, they could design a rational
system that maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering for the largest number
of people possible.

In the same breath you pointed out why such a system does not work then state
such a system is possible, I don't think anyone with power would ever
genuinely want to enact such a system, but even if they did those
participating in such a system would always look for ways to un-level the
playing field and recreate the hierarchy we seek in society as primates.

------
andrewfong
Working fewer hours per week can actually be really hard. Fewer hours means
more workers, but adding more workers means additional communication,
planning, and other costs.

This is especially true for "knowledge work" since you can't brain-dump
everything you know onto a co-worker. If your job involves a service component
as well (e.g. like lawyering), that probably means you have also to be on call
in addition to the hours you spend working. And then there are tasks where
workers need to put in 40 hour work weeks to get anything done because of how
long to get up to speed (e.g. I'd personally have a very hard time getting any
meaningful coding, writing, or art done if I was limited to working only two
hours a day or one day a week on that project).

I think the solution here is probably not so much a focus on part-time work
but on seasonal work or jobs where sabbaticals are a thing.

------
_zachs
This is something I'd definitely be interested in trying. Like stated
elsewhere here, the Netherlands has a culture similar to this.

I've had 3 internships so far, and the most recent one has had a lot of
overtime. Maybe I'll try to start my first full-time job in the Netherlands.

