[SpaceL10n]

I work 32 hours per week. Rather, I work 4 days a week. This means I have 50% more free time than I used to. I fill that free time with dates with my wife while my kids are at school, or hiking, or just goofing at home doing whatever I feel like. One day a week is MINE. I cannot understate just how much this has improved my mental health and quality of life. Not to mention, when holidays fall on certain days of the week, I get 4 day weekends which is like a mini vacation. 48 hours is not enough time to fully decompress and feel human again.

I am never going back to 5 days a week, if I can help it.

Still, these numbers all seem arbitrary. More flexible opt-in work arrangements would be nice. My wife is a nurse and she can work "per diem" which is just amazing. She opts-in and chooses her schedule. I think society as a whole would be a bit healthier if that flexibility was extended to more of the population.

[skeeter2020]

I don't think the push-back here is against a 4 day work week, but the idea that wages increase or stay the same as you reduce down to 4 days. I known several people who work 4 days for 80% equivalent. They seem like you who seek a more balanced, family & personal focused lifestyle. This is awesome and I agree with you that flexibility can be a huge competitive differentiator for companies that doesn't need to cost them a lot more money. It's kinda crazy that more don't seek out creative approaches like this.

[Tade0]

In my region, where the number of hours worked annually is 1800+ as per OECD, it's quite simply difficult. Employers expect full time availablity and would rather not have anyone fill that role than allow for this.

My friend managed to do it by boiling that frog via taking Friday afternoons off. Everyone was happy with that arrangement, so he started taking entire Fridays off. Then he switched to Mondays.

Meanwhile my SO got a hard "no" on any amount of reduction. She's looking for a part time job, but it's not something employers normally advertise.

[wakawaka28]

It would have to be less than 80% for 4 days due to insurance, administrative, and possibly office space costs. You also know as well that people seeking out these kinds of arrangements will be holding down two jobs instead of one, which cuts down on reliability for both employers.

Of course I like the idea of having more options in the workplace but sometimes the down sides are too obvious to get worked up over it. Be thankful we can work five 8 hour days (or less). We could have the 9 to 9, 6 day a week culture that exists in some places.

[footy]

Same. I work 4 days a week, and most weeks I work 32 hours (some weeks I am excited about what I am doing and end up working later than I intended to once or twice). The flexibility is amazing. I have time for personal projects (some of them coding related, but also music or home improvement or really anything I want), I have time to lift every day, I read more than almost anyone I know.

Having that extra day off for Whatever I Want is invaluable, and there's nothing that anyone can offer me that would make me give this up.

[raw_anon_1111]

Counterpoint: I do work 5 days a week 40 hours remotely. I wake up around 7 or 8. I never set my alarm clock. I hang out with my wife before finally getting up, I roll over, get ready for the day and walk to my home office.

I can walk downstairs to work out during the middle of the day, swim almost all year (Florida), go for a jog of whatever.

On a higher level, working remotely means we can do things like spending a full year flying around the country like we did until September 2023 or going forward spending a couple of months in Costa Rica, Panama during the winter while working.

4-5 days a week doesn’t impinge on my freedom like working in an office would. I “retired my wife” in 2020 when she was 46 8 years into our marriage so she could enjoy her hobbies and passion projects.

I “decompress” between the minute I close my computer and not think about work until the next day and walk to the living room.

[itake]

> 48 hours is not enough time to fully decompress and feel human again.

When I’m in that situation, I’m not thinking that my weekends are too short, but that my job is too stressful. I either need to change jobs or find peace in my current job.

[freefaler]

The free market could do that without unions. Doing so increases the cost of labor in the product as % of the total price. You're super highly valued employee, your employer will be more than happy to buy your work in packages of 4 days instead of 5 if it suits him and you. Also if this is not suitable for one party of the deal (either employee or employer) both can go and freely trade/buy their labour.

However, generally advocates propose a blanket "mandatory 35 hours week", which have many negtive consequences:

- Why do you need to "enforce" that to other people who can't or wan't earn the same way and are more than happy to work overtime because they need to say earn more to pay medical bills or want to save to buy a house? Isn't that limiting the amount I as a person can sell my own work hours to the business?

- How can the business compete on the local market when other companies aren't forced to do work with the same cost base for the labour component in the final product?

- How can the business compete with the Mexican company across the border who can do it for even cheaper?

Free markets are very brutal and at the first glance are bad for humans, but their efficiency gives the tax base for redistribution. Also they're inherently moral, because if you can do something for your fellow citizens and swap your labor for their money and back, then you shouldn't expect to be entitled to their surplus earning redistributed via the welfare system.

In tribes in the olden days, when a person got sick/too old, many tribes just left him to die, because they couldn't afford to feed him. Societies are much wealthier now, but we shouldn't forget that starvation and poverty are the default state, not the other way around.

[Pet_Ant]

> Free markets are very brutal and at the first glance are bad for humans, but their efficiency gives the tax base for redistribution. Also they're inherently moral, because if you can do something for your fellow citizens and swap your labor for their money and back, then you shouldn't expect to be entitled to their surplus earning redistributed via the welfare system.

At first, you seem like a sensible person, but then you seem to be completely ignorant as to what "moral" means.

[analognoise]

> The free market could do that without unions.

I suggest doing some reading about labor movements, the Gilded Age, or about current issues - wealth inequality, housing costs, environmental impact, healthcare costs, enshittification.

The free market has failed miserably across multiple dimensions - even Trump has the government owning companies now (Intel). The “free market” has been a failed idea for a long time.

> In tribes in the olden days, when a person got sick/too old, many tribes just left him to die, because they couldn't afford to feed him.

We have archeological evidence that contradicts this directly! What are you even talking about?

This isn’t a good way to structure a society, but your whole point about mixing morality with capitalism is perhaps the worst one.

If you can’t look at the damage to people (and the environment) under our current system and point out how it is broadly immoral, I would suggest taking a closer look at the very least.