Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Actually, many of us do.

My company has been trying 4 day weeks twice a month since 2022 without salary decrease, the trial have been mostly conclusive, and we'll probably move forward and have 4 day weeks all weeks at some point. That's the stated goal anyway. The main difficulty is probably the fact that customers don't have 4 days and expect support all week. A partial answer to this is people have been able to pick 2 additional days off each month no questions asked, and not everybody like the same days off so it has been working out.

Studies show productivity is kept at the same level when companies switch to 4 day week, but people are happier and feel more rested (which is why there are more productive, there's probably also the fact you don't have to worry about life stuff as much at work since you can do many things that need to be done during the week during the off day). Since we produce the same amount, I don't see why the full salary should not be kept.




why not 2 days a week with full salary then? where do you stop?


If we can show that productivity is not affected, why not indeed? Spending time at work is not a goal.

I have not seen study stating this though.


"Spending time at work is not a goal."

Of course it is. Too many people with free time will just get bored and stray away from the path of the righteous so that would be a direct way to hell.

(too many people actually believe that, see the discussions about unconditional basic income)


Pfew, it's fortunate you added this parenthesis at the end :-)


Yeah, since there are way weirder opinions online, than one can hope for, irony online is a tricky thing ..


In principle, at the point where productivity actually starts to decrease.


We can even relax this to: let's stop at whatever amount of work that is necessary and not more.

A good start would be to stop producing so much junk.

(edit: downvoters: interested in what you think, please develop. I think we produce a big amount of useless stuff, and that keeps many human beings pointlessly busy - what's the positive here?)


Signaling to attract a desired mate. Or whatever other reason (at least some) humans are attracted to power.

What amount of work is necessary? Apartment life without personal car? Townhouses with a 1 car garage? Detached single family homes with 2 car driveway with 2 Toyotas? Or is it 1 Toyota and 1 Lexus? A flight to a tropical destination once ever 3 years? Or every year?

You see where this is going.


I didn't mean the amount of work an individual needs to do to get enough money to fund their life or for something else, I meant the amount of necessary work the human population needs to do, collectively.


Surely the latter is a function of the former.


who decides the amount the population needs to do?


As a first step, we could as the human species decide that such or such thing is not useful, or even harmful, and stop producing it. Or reduce production of the stuff we are producing in too big quantities. That would reduce the amount of work we do.

Not saying it's easy, it might require huge changes, but seen from outside we probably look very silly.

There's a fast food place I discovered recently, they serve your meal in a disposable box. That could be changed to use reusable plates instead. Okay, that can be hard because then the place needs to handle washing the dishes.

They also give disposable glasses if one asks. I can avoid this by bringing my own bottle, in my country nobody would see an issue with this, tap water is free in restaurants by law. If many people do this, that less of these glasses to produce in the first place.

And above all they also unconditionally give you both disposable chopsticks and a disposable fork without asking. I would guess almost half of this stuff is produced to be immediately thrown without even being used a single time. Those could be made reusable too, but there's even a first step that would also cost less time to the restaurant, so double win: let people take what they need. quadruple win, because that's also less waste to handle, and so less effort to take care of the Earth when we inevitably need to do it.

And the disposable cutlery, or wrapping (for groceries, for instance), is only the tip of the iceberg. Think also useless/harmful software, software that is made over and over because nothing is open source and shared. Think cheaply made and/or unrepairable stuff that breaks too early and you need to replace entirely. And again, all the work needed to handle this waste.

There are a lot of low hanging fruits. But how we as a species are organized right now does not handle this very well, does not incentivize it, actually doesn't even care that much and actually incentivizes the contrary and externalizes waste and pollution, mostly.

So yes, that's a pitch for degrowth, that may sound extreme to some, but it should just go without saying. And I'm not even touching the idea that we could (and probably should) lower our comfort, that's free degrowth without hurting comfort!

What I'm proposing here actually improves our comfort, because we have less work to do so more free time, more time with our loved ones, more time doing what you decide to do! It can even be what you do for work, why not, if you like doing this. And maybe more time for boredom and deep thinking, which need more of.

All that junk is making us work more. It's so meaningless to spend so much cumulative time producing pointless things. What a giant waste of time.


> work that is necessary and not more.

there is no such thing as "not more"


If productivity is kept at the same level, and people work a day less, you wouldn't produce the same amount.


I meant productivity overall is constant. Productivity "per hour" is better.


> I meant productivity overall is constant

That's a huge statement there. Do you have any evidence that this is the case for everyone at every company no matter what?


> Do you have any evidence that this is the case for everyone at every company no matter what?

Of course not, you are asking for the impossible.

But we have evidences that 4 day weeks boost productivity at least in some settings. If you are interested in the topic, look up "4 day week productivity" on a web search engine, or "4 day week" / "4 day workweek" on HN [1,2] if you want previous discussions about this. The topic is not new here. You'll find many posts where companies think it works.

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...


I love it when people post studies just because it agrees with their worldview. For full disclosure, I support the 4 day week but I know to be objective. None of those links contain references to proper RCT with control groups or a variety of office roles so there is really no evidence for it. Trial plus survey is a better term as it carries no scientific connotations.

You are not really going to get your average companies to participate in those kind of studies anyway. Those companies want warm bodies and it has nothing to do with empirical evidence




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: