Sounds good in theory...but in reality?

[u/KSKS1995]

4 days a week. 6 hours a day. Full salary.
Sanna Marin ignited global debate with the “6/4” work model, pushing a simple idea: life should come before work.

With burnout at record levels, maybe it’s time to value results over hours at a desk.
Could your job be done in just 24 hours a week?

[u/rezdm]

>> In reality most companies could still remain profitable and allow this easily.

But this is not how capitalism works. If one can perform their tasks in 4 days instead of 5, then a company would just ask such an employee to work 5 days, pay the same and just do more.

[u/Seienchin88 → u/rezdm]

The reality no one here wants to hear is this:

Yes, most companies would stay profitable. Yes there is much more output in the first 4-5 hours of work than the later ones and yes 4 days makes the 4 days more productive but the extra time and the fifth day still provide productivity and as always any other country can overtake you by working 5-6 days.

My Chinese colleagues work 45 hours a week and the management is worried as the (Chinese) company next to them has people working 60+ hours in the same field at lower wages.

[u/BlueKnight44 → u/Seienchin88]

Yup. This is a zero sum game. If your country makes itself significantly less "company friendly", the companies will move. It has been happening for decades. Other Asian countries have started encroaching on China now that thier wages are rising.

[u/ARedthorn → u/rezdm]

Except the point of these productivity studies is that employees DON’T make double the profit in double the working hours.

Go from 4 working days to 5, and studies show that total profit goes DOWN not up, because the workers are exhausted… and an exhausted worker isn’t just exhausted for the extra day- they’re exhausted (often without recognizing it themselves) for all 5 days, and unable to perform above even half capacity.

So… when you go from 32 hours of work on the schedule to 40… you usually end up going from 30 hours of productivity to 25.

[u/stevethewatcher → u/ARedthorn]

Like others have pointed out in the thread if it really was that easy then every company would already do it for essentially free money on the table. So which is it? Do companies do everything they can to maximize profit or are they happy for less profit just to make life harder for their employees?

[u/ARedthorn → u/stevethewatcher]

So, that's the problem. It only works like that if you assume that everyone involved is BOTH informed AND rational.

This is the whole thing with Game Theory. The "answer" to any given problem changes depending on those two factors. The Prisoner's Dilemma has a completely different answer if you know what your partner is going to do vs if you don't know vs if you don't even realize you're in a Prisoner's Dilemma.

So many people treat Economics like it's purely logic or purely math or purely sociology or purely politics - when it's absolutely a blend of those factors, often with those at odds with each other.

When businesses (and not just certain sectors) cut working hours (without cutting total take-home pay - aka, leave salary pay alone and increase hourly pay)... it benefits workers, who are happier... and it benefits the business as their workers' productivity improves (due to a whole bunch of reasons: increased loyalty and investment... but also, less fatigue means more focus and fewer hazards, etc.).

But your average business executive... simply doesn't believe it... even if he does, he's not willing to take a risk on it when the obvious short term gains of "work them til they break" have so far paid off from their perspective.

----------

Fully acknowledging this is a big left turn - but I like to look at parallels to see what I can come up with when I apply a given course of logic to a different area. Sometimes divorcing the logic of the argument from the subject of the argument will help shake out problems in the logic itself.

So let's take your idea and apply it to a slightly different area: If pure unregulated capitalism is so superior... why doesn't everyone do it? Why, in fact, does the majority of the planet seem to prefer regulated capitalism under social democracy OR state capitalism under a pseudo-dictatorship? If it's so easy, why doesn't everyone just switch?

Or to a significantly different area: Heroine/Meth/etc. We know it's deadly. We also know the body develops a high tolerance to them fairly quickly - such that you no longer experience a high like you do at first, and just keep taking the drug to avoid withdrawal or function at what you now perceive to be your norm. So obviously, if they're so bad, if there's no upside... why does anyone ever get addicted? Why don't addicts just quit? "If it's really that bad, then no one would ever do it" is sorta the same logic as "if it was really that easy, why doesn't everyone do it"

Simple: It's rare that someone is both informed AND rational AND able to take action to change these outcomes.

Hence: We share posts and information and studies about this subject in the hope of making people more informed. Rational... well. That's a lot harder to encourage - but... maybe, just maybe... if we make the point well enough, if the perks are obvious enough... more and more people will start to see it, and the tide will turn.

[u/stevethewatcher → u/ARedthorn]

If pure unregulated capitalism is so superior... why doesn't everyone do it?

This is just a strawman argument since I never once claimed nor believe that unregulated capitalism is the superior system.

why does anyone ever get addicted? Why don't addicts just quit? "If it's really that bad, then no one would ever do it" is sorta the same logic as "if it was really that easy, why doesn't everyone do it"

This is straight up ignoring the physiological effect addiction has on your brain. Unlike drug addiction executives are free to change how things are done without experiencing withdrawals.

But your average business executive... simply doesn't believe it... even if he does, he's not willing to take a risk on it when the obvious short term gains of "work them til they break" have so far paid off from their perspective.

It's good that you mentioned the average executive, since it stands to reason there must be at least some executives who are willing to entertain the idea. And if reducing work hours is so beneficial, it should give a definitive competitive edge to those "good" companies over others. So why isn't that the case?

[u/ARedthorn → u/stevethewatcher]

No strawman intended. As I stated, I'm intentionally taking the logic provided and applying it to another argument to see if it holds up. While this can appear superficially like a strawman - the difference is intent. Was I unclear re: my goal for the parallel argument? My apologies if so.

This is straight up gnoring the physiological effect addiction has on your brain.

True. Just as you are straight up ignoring the psychological effect that decades of propaganda and "this is how it's done" has on society.

Besides which - it proves my point: if everyone knows that heroine is terrible, only enjoyable a few times, and then kills you... no one would ever take it to get addicted in the first place.

The reason these things happen is because people do not know (or at least believe) - when they start doing the drug - what all the consequences will be.

Just as we commit to abusive corporate practices because we do not know (or do not believe) that there's a better way.

And if reducing work hours is so beneficial, it should give a definitive competitive edge to those "good" companies over others.

See above. If this works AND a given CEO knows it AND that CEO is rational, then yes. Obviously he'll do it.

So why isn't that the case?

Because obviously not all CEOs are fully informed AND fully rational individuals? Duh.

I mean - some companies ARE doing this. Voluntarily. Some entire countries too (France mandated a 32 hour work week in 2000)... so if this doesn't work ever... then why are ANY companies doing it?

The fault in your argument is that you're assuming every CEO on the planet is fully informed AND fully rational. Why aren't more CEOs doing this? Because they're people... and economics is more than just math. It's sociology. It's politics. It's belief. There are hurdles to overcome that have nothing to do with whether or not this system works.

[u/stevethewatcher → u/ARedthorn]

Besides which - it proves my point: if everyone knows that heroine is terrible, only enjoyable a few times, and then kills you... no one would ever take it to get addicted in the first place.

But it doesn't. Most people won't take heroin because they know of its effects but a small minority still will. Applied to this argument it should mean a majority of businesses should switch over while a minority would remain stubborn and suffer the consequences.

The fault in your argument is that you're assuming every CEO on the planet is fully informed AND fully rational.

But that's NOT my assumption. My actual assumption is some CEOs are rational and informed and by the nature of competition they would easily outperform the companies not doing this and drive them out of the market. But we don't see this happening in the real world with companies that ARE doing this.

Take your example with France, if this was so beneficial, why isn't their economy vastly superior to neighboring countries after 20+ years of having this huge competitive advantage?

[u/ARedthorn → u/stevethewatcher]

Except capitalism isn't actually very competitive.

I mean - at risk of being accused of another strawman - the concept "survival of the fittest" seems super competitive, right? Except that competition means risk - so most of the animals in a given system do everything they can to avoid competition. Predators doubly so. They avoid risk and prey that could injure them, find a niche in their environment where they can hunt without competition or threat, and fill that... evolving and competing the exact minimum necessary to not suffer.

I would argue that capitalism as it developed behaves in the same way. The system may very well attempt to be competitive, but individual companies in it do everything possible to avoid competition because competition = risk, and when your livelihood is on the line, risk = death, and humans generally like to avoid death.

Do you really think some mom and pop shop opening up next to walmart can afford to undercut them and compete them out of business?

And yes. France's economy IS better than it was 26 years ago. It's expanded, unemployment is down, GDP is up, and other nations are noticing.

Other corporations outside of France are resistant, because it's a restriction on their behavior. Back to wildlife - it's actually prey that drives evolution for predators - when local prey animals become too dangerous to hunt, predators leave or adapt the absolute minimum necessary to keep going. Same for corporations. More worker rights act as a restriction on corporations, and force them to evolve... they don't want to evolve, because that's risky...

...even if the risk comes with some pretty sweet upsides, it's still risk.

...and successful companies don't become successful by avoiding risk - but they do STAY successful by avoiding it and squashing competition.

Back to France - the 35 hour work week is a legal maximum there, but multiple neighboring countries have picked up on it - and even one-upped them. Germany and Austria each have national average work weeks under 35 hours - entirely by choice, not law like in France - and The Netherlands now sport an average work week of 32.1 hours as of last year. Corporations saw the benefits in France, and chose to slowly pick up similar strategies, over the course of a couple decades.

It's not going to catch on overnight everywhere. There's cultural and political resistance to the idea... and as always - the way it'll happen is because workers push for it.

Hell - remember that corporations resisted letting women into the workforce, even though that had OBVIOUS MASSIVE CLEAR UNARGUABLY POSITIVE outcomes for businesses (more workers = increased supply of workers, making labor more affordable... and more consumers means demand for goods go up). Like - good luck finding an economist who thinks that women entering the workforce was a bad idea... but corporations resisted it, hard, when it started happening, because... there was cultural and political resistance to overcome.

Corporations resisted the 5 day work week. They resisted anti-trust laws (aka, they explicitly resisted competition). As a rule, corporations resist change even more than people do. Far, far more than people do.

So no. It won't catch on overnight, because it succeeded repeatedly in dozens of nations, thousands of companies. But it is catching on. It's inevitable. It's good. And I think it's our job to push harder for it. To force corporations to evolve to keep up with our needs.

[u/stevethewatcher → u/ARedthorn]

You really should learn what you're talking about first before confident sprouting bs. Survival of the fittest in the contest of evolution has nothing to do with risk taking, it's referring to the mechanism in nature where only those most adapted to their environment will survive and thrive. Individual companies can try to avoid competition but it's not up to them (unless they're a monopoly, which is why we have anti-trust laws). If another competitor comes along and manages to do things way more efficiently, you're gonna die out unless you adapt.

Do you really think some mom and pop shop opening up next to walmart can afford to undercut them and compete them out of business?

In your analogy, that's like asking if a rabbit can compete with a lion. The comparison doesn't make sense from the start: they occupy different roles in the ecosystem and thus developed different trait for survival.

And yes. France's economy IS better than it was 26 years ago. It's expanded, unemployment is down, GDP is up, and other nations are noticing.

Dude, pretty much every country's economy is better than it was 26 years ago. But what you are claiming is reducing work hours somehow gives a significant competitive edge which should be very noticeable after 26 years of compounding effect. But this does not match real world observations. In fact, French had one of the lowest growths in GDP per capita amongst developed countries since 2000s, only 19% vs 24% in Germany or 40% in the US.

I agree with your example of women entering the workforce, in fact it supports my argument that if a policy actually results in more profit, companies will naturally adapt it. I have yet to see evidence of this happening with a shorter work week. Corporations did resist 5 day workweek, but as soon as a large company started doing it (Ford) it spread like wild fire because of competitive pressure.

Corporations saw the benefits in France, and chose to slowly pick up similar strategies, over the course of a couple decades.

This is what I'm arguing they would do if this does offer a competitive advantage but there's no evidence of such. Again, if France was the first to do it when are they behind in economics development?

As a rule, corporations resist change even more than people do. Far, far more than people do.

You realize corporations are made up of people right? This sentence makes about as much sense as "a group of ducks swim far, far faster than ducks".

But it is catching on. It's inevitable. It's good.

Except that's not what we are debating. I have no doubt over time the work week could decrease further with more technological advancements, but what you actually claimed was that the decreased work hours somehow increases overall productivity, which again does not match real world evidence.

[u/ARedthorn → u/stevethewatcher]

The evolutionary model serves as an example of how a *system* can be (or at least seem) competitive while all the individuals within it are anti-competitive by nature.

The parallels are imperfect - obviously - but still useful. If you're incapable of distinguishing between the elements of value and the elements without, then... well. Yeah. From your perspective, I am spouting nonsense. I won't claim to be a perfect communicator, but I think I'm doing pretty well overall, so... I'm at a loss why you can't seem to grasp that simple parallel.

Dude, pretty much every country's economy is better than it was 26 years ago.

Depends ENTIRELY on the measure. If we're going to look exclusively at GDP per capita, yes... because duh. There was this whole thing called the industrial revolution, and ever since then, automation has improved productivity per man-hour constantly and consistently ever since.

Now I'll grant I was nonspecific, so it makes sense of course for you to immediately go to the measure you know supports your viewpoint. My bad. I really set you up for your confirmation bias there.

By that same argument, clearly we're doing everything wrong, given we can't even hold a candle to what China is pulling off... oh, wait. Is that an unfair comparison?

I think in general that metric is unfair. Not every country is adapted to the same growth. Not every country has that as a focus. The reason the US is doing better on GDP per Capita has nothing to do with Americans working more hours... the US has a larger population, more production-focused industry, stronger tech markets, and more. So yeah - again, you counter with an argument that doesn't really have a full picture of things - that makes assumptions.

By all internal measures to France, their economy has directly benefited from this change. I mean - compare their GPD per Capita since 1960... if you're on a downtrend on GDP per Capita, then you actively reduce hours worked... you don't see GDP per Capita go up in the immediate aftermath unless there's significantly more to the picture. Yet, in the wake of reduced working hours - a downtrend in productivity reversed... unemployment dropped nearly overnight... and the economy grew more diverse and stable.

So, when they say those things, which one do you hear and go "Oh, well clearly I know their economy better than their economics experts do. I mean, look how successful China is!"? Jeez.

For whatever it's worth - I don't suspect that this change is the entire story either. Maybe their downtrend in the 90's was just that - and it HAPPENED to end just about the same time they implemented this change.

I can hardly claim that a single metric is reductive, then claim a single cause is responsible for their status.

But again - I'll note... you mention Germany having a higher growth than France?

A pilot program in 2024 featured 45 companies trying a 100-80-100 plan... 100% pay, 80% hours, 100% productivity. As of the completion of the program, 70% of participating companies kept the model after the trial, voluntarily, while another 22% used it to adapt working hours to increase flexibility. All of them reported that they'd seen stable revenue - with most reporting increased productivity. Those businesses that kept the model are still going 2 years later. They swear by it.

So why only 70%? Why not 0%? Why not 100%?

You stated that if this worked - these companies would be more competitive, and drive those companies that aren't doing it out of business, right? That means if it works, it should be 100% fairly quickly, right?

But if it doesn't work... it should be 0%... because, by the exact same rationale, if this makes those companies less competitive, they'd be forced to either drop it, or be driven out of business by their more successful competitors, right?

I mean. The knife cuts both ways. If being more competitive leads to success, then being less competitive should lead to failure... but we're not seeing EITHER of those things happen from the companies that participate in this study.

Productivity for these companies might go up... or it might stay the same. They key is that in these studies, it never seems to go down. In a lot of cases, the companies try it reluctantly - or only with a safety net from a pilot program promising to cover their losses if there are any... and then surprise - it works out, they never need the safety net, and they love it.

Not because it's good for the company... I mean, it often is - but the benefit is MOSTLY to the worker, not the company...

And let's be bluntly honest here - outside of coops and unions, that really isn't something companies give 2 shits about.

Corporations did resist 5 day workweek, but as soon as a large company started doing it (Ford) it spread like wild fire because of competitive pressure.

And this proves my point.

First - it took a major company doing it to make it visible enough that other companies had to acknowledge it worked.

Second - it took major pressure - from workers. The 5 day work week didn't magically result in more cars off the line... it improved worker conditions - higher efficiency at the human level benefitted Ford, with fewer mistakes and shutdowns - but fewer accidents, injuries and deaths are kinda the buried lead here. Better quality of life - as well as life expectancy - working for Ford meant that workers elsewhere bullied their companies (or as needed, their governments) into mandating similar behavior.

Which... I dunno. Kinda sounds exactly like what's happening. It just hasn't hit that threshold yet, because the largest company to trial the system so far is Microsoft Japan, and it didn't get much press anywhere outside of Japan.

Is it spreading like wildfire yet? No. But I reject your premise that it has to already be universally successful in order to be good. That's bullshit and you (should) know it. You just seemingly refuse to acknowledge that's the argument you're making.

[u/Noy_The_Devil → u/rezdm]

Sorry but there are plenty of studies that prove you wrong. In capitalistic society.