Firstly, rather than continuing the trend of increasing political power in the early post war period, the productive classes, including employees, have lost political power relative to the ownership classes and thus control of resource allocation decisions.
Secondly, outside tech and a few other vibrant sectors, capital sits idles or is used unproductively (for example in real-estate speculation) or even to destroy wealth (for example through expanded rent seeking). This is relevant because in these cases the increased wealth from increased productivity is just wasted rather than being used productively or at least spent on quality of life.
It's nice to see that somewhere, a few people are trying to address that first issue.
"From 1978 to 2013, CEO compensation, inflation-adjusted, increased 937 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 10.2 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period." 
"The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 29.9-to-1 in 1978, grew to 122.6-to-1 in 1995, peaked at 383.4-to-1 in 2000, and was 295.9-to-1 in 2013, far higher than it was in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s." 
I am Swedish and am puzzled by this.
What is it refering to?
> The Nordic nation has embraced agile working patterns for decades as the country adopted the Working Hours Pact in 1996, which gives most employees the right to adjust their typical working hours of their workplace by starting or finishing up to three hours earlier or later.
This is also completely untrue. I guess they mean Working Hours Act which specifies no such thing.
Maybe some Finnish lawyers chip in here on the actual interpretation of this?
Section 13. "Flexible working hours":
"When working hours are flexible, the regular daily working hours shall be extended or reduced by a flexible period of no more than three hours."
https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2019/20190872#L4P13 (doesn't seem to be available in English at this time)
> The prospects for increasing the flexibility of working time will be examined with a view to balancing the harmonisation of work and family and prolonging working careers. The aim in particular is to improve part-time working opportunities for parents of small children and for those who are caring for elderly relatives.
http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/161935 (there's a PDF link on the page)
I dunno if this is intentionally misleading or a language barrier.
To be honest, whenever I see this, all I think is: Entitlement. "I've reached this level. I want to stop others from reaching this level."
"I want to just limit my work to what I feel is sensible, and no-one should be allowed to compete with my work."
i think as is it is at most a half working day for a lot of people and yet you're expected to treat it like a full day
with a true 4 day workweek then you can focus on working 4 "real" full days
Think about how much easier (and relaxing) it is to plan something to do with 3-day weekends. If that happened every week you wouldn’t need to be distracted on a Thursday (or Monday) to make it work.
That "utopia" was introduced in August (four months before Marin became PM) as a proposal for the future.
Fake news analysis.
Yes, the site made its way to my do-not-trust list as well.
If you're in a position to opt-out of this sort of policy and become more competitive as a result, then this can be great for you because you improve your position relative to the others.
A bit like how people talk about capping incomes, seeminly not realising that this cements pre-existing owners of wealth further.
Right now I'm sort of in an OK position, but ten years ago I would have told you - I don't want a 4-day week, because you're ahead of me, and I want to catch up with you.
I mean, ultimately there's nothing stopping most people negotiating a 4 day week. It just seems to be the case that "most" people accept whatever job is thrown at them, so if you're unskilled, it's difficult to convince an employer of anything even slightly unusual. Fixing _that_ situation (e.g. giving people leverage of some sort) is the way to go, IMO.
In 1940, when the weekend was implemented in the United States, the real GDP per capita was 10,027.46. Today, it is 58,024.99.
With a 5.8x increase in productivity, we should be able to work significantly less then we did in 1940.
That's not where the money goes. That stuff's nothing. You can get working TVs all day long for peanuts on Craigslist. I just last week grabbed a hell of a used business workstation PC on Ebay and threw in an SSD for funsies, under $200 total including the brand-new SSD. Thing screams for all normal tasks. Will probably last years. Basically nothing in the scheme of things. Can someone on a low income reasonably buy one on a whim? No. But having a TV, phone, and computer is not why people are poor.
Housing, medical care, child care. School (see also: housing costs). Those are expensive. Our modern conveniences are nothing in comparison.
Giving people less time to do things for themselves actually increases the GDP, because it means they are paying others to do things they would rather do themselves. Then someone gets to make a profit on that, so this type of thing is encouraged by our economic system.
They will just have to find a way to deal with it.
It could literally be that no one's pay is allowed to change to accommodate these new hours. If they are contact the DoL.
Also, the effect on society is not to be taken lightly. A general decrease of working hours from 40 to 24 hours per week will decrease national GNP significantly. A hoped for advantage is probably that unemployed can make up some slack by becoming employable (to "share the work"), but if other countries keep a 40 hour work week it will be hard to maintain living standards
What's the point of all this technology and innovation if we're always going to keep working the same amount.
Also if an industry can't keep up with this, oh well. That's why you do it slowly so you can handle the fallout.
I'd like a dentist to be able to go to the bank, a banker to visit the dentist, without automatically having to take time off of work to do so.
Besides, they can, and do block time off for personal things in their calendar.
I dunno if this is an example or a counterexample, but there was a lumber/hardware store near my old house that would close at 4, which sounds nuts unless you know that it's a favorite among professionals. Most times if you don't know until 4 that you need a material it's too late to do anything about it anyway. Doesn't help me though, trying to do a temporary repair on anything. Have to schlep across town to the Home Depot after rush hour to get anything done.
> In neighbouring Sweden, where the 6-hour-day has already been applied since 2015, results showed that employees were happier, wealthier and more productive, as they were still fully paid and customers were more satisfied.
Whoa! I did not know that this was already a thing. Well, here's hoping more orgs in the US take notice.
and unfortunately they fail because of costs and a globalised world.
for example china's 996 model would eat europe whole if this ever got implemented over there.
I hope one day down the line Universal Basic Income can level the playing field somewhat - that's one progressive policy that can't be "abused" because it's universal. No one is going to claim it fraudulently, nor will they suspect others of doing so, because that's impossible.
A company in the US can offer a 4 day work week and 6 hour workdays as a perk to attract top talent.
"People would simply figure out a way to work more in order to get ahead and compete with others."
matter at all?
Why would a person who is willing to work extra being paid extra matter, regardless if they normally would work 8 hours or 6?
Let's say your a random person Betty, and you need to work 64 hours to support your requirements (40 hours a week + a part time 24 hour job). If the govern decided that 40 hours should be 32 instead and you get paid the exact same. That doesn't mean you then can now get another job at 8 hours, no that means you get everything you need in 56 hours.
More time to do other stuff besides work.
Sure there will be people that want to excel rather then stay stationary and maybe they'll pick up another job or another shift and work another 8 hours. That doesn't mean that's wrong.
All that it means is 90% of the people work less. You can't govern a nation is absolutes, you govern a nation with majorities. Nobody gets 100% of the votes, no bill passes with 100% of the populous support. So nothing is absolute.
That said, I could totally see such a thing being labelled as another phase in the war on the middle class, where a lot of so-called middle class people are working two 3/4 jobs to maintain their standard of living.
better yet, separate 401K and all other benefits while you are at it
Socialism is something else not to be confused with labor standards or water safety or building code rules or parking fines or mail delivery.
Based on this  paper, 85% of white collar workers are exempt from the 40 hour week limit.
Well, if you look at what organizations were demanding it back in the day, it certainly is. It's kind of funny how deeply the "socialism bad" runs in Americans
I stand by my original point that if the goal of such proposals is to reduce total time spent working in absolute terms that the success of such proposals depends greatly on the form of government that exists in the country it's being proposed.
Socialism is a set of principles a party might adopt to run on.
how many people work 2 or 3 jobs because they want to buy luxury items vs the people that are forced to work to keep their home and pay electricity,water,heat and other must have services. I personally tried once to work more then 8 hours and it was a terrible experience. as a programmer my energy depletes fast and most of the time the best ideas I have when away from the computer.