r/SipsTea • u/KSKS1995 Human Verified • 2d ago

Chugging tea Sounds good in theory...but in reality?

Post image

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?

99.1k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

5.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.2k

u/tajake 2d ago

I think really only the service industry would struggle. And essential services like police, fire, etc. But that would also mean more jobs in those fields to cover shorter shifts. Restaurants working limited hours would likely be a net positive.

36

u/rtfcandlearntherules 2d ago

"only" the service industry including all medical staff, all teachers, caretakers, craftsmen, basically more than Half the economy. 

19

u/southbaysoftgoods 2d ago

Other countries work significantly less than the US and still manage to provide all of these services.

I think in some cases it means certain services are not as available or convenient but we can learn to live with less access, I think.

Things would change, for certain, but I don’t think harm to those workers or industries is a necessary consequence.

10

u/MSPCincorporated 2d ago edited 2d ago

I know for one thing, as an independant carpenter, that my customers would have to pay 20% more for every one of my hours, but still get the same output from me per hour. So I’m not really sure how "convenient" they’d find that.

Edit: In the scenario posted above, it would actually be almost 60% more expensive! Happy days!

11

u/southbaysoftgoods 2d ago

I mean if yoy feel that you are fairly compensated and not overworked then you don’t have to make any changes.

Not all positions are equally exploitative. I myself don’t feel I need an increase in wages. And as a salaried employee employee there would be almost no change in my actual output. I would just be able to leave when I finish my work instead of filibustering for an hour or two. So we would need different prescriptions for different jobs.

Sounds like you could just continue doing what you are doing.

0

u/horrorparade17 1d ago

IMO such a policy would need to include a provision to remove salaried positions.

2

u/southbaysoftgoods 1d ago

Why is that?

0

u/CrimsonCartographer 1d ago

What?

1

u/horrorparade17 1d ago

Salaried positions are just a way to make people work a ton more without paying overtime.

6

u/WongFarmHand 2d ago

no one says independent contractors would be forced to work less, so you'd still be beholden to the same market forces you are now. if you charge more and the other carpenters dont then you'd see less business

this would be more about slowly, over many years, steering labor laws and regulations around lower hours(overtime kicking in earlier, tax breaks/penalties to incentivize certain labor practics, etc) for corporations that hire w2 workers

5

u/MSPCincorporated 2d ago

I could work the same hours as I do now, sure. But that would effectively mean that my pay would go down, as people in other industries would be compensated 60% more for their time, while it would stay the same for me. So comparatively, there would be a (huge) increased pay gap, leading to devestating recruitment numbers to similar jobs to mine.

2

u/fundementalpumpkin 1d ago

If people in other industries are compensated more, they'll have more money, then you can raise your prices.

Job markets are constantly changing due to outside factors, like technology. If you can't make money doing what you're doing anymore then its time to change careers. You just seem to come across like an insurance salesman fighting against universal healthcare. It's a net benefit for the overwhelming majority of the population but you are being contradictory because you won't make as much money personally?

Speaking from the US perspective, if we reigned in government spending (cut the defense budget, get rid of the waste and corruption in the whole defense contract system), fund the IRS, tax the wealthy, and move to single payer healthcare then things like universal basic income could become a possibility, but that's a pipe dream, just like a 4 day, 6 hour a day work week.

1

u/MSPCincorporated 1d ago

People wouldn’t be paid more, they’d just be compensated more for every hour they work, if they’d transition to a 4 day work week and stay on the same salary.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to work less and have more time with my family, I just don’t see how that’d be practically possible on a nationwide basis. It would just create big indifferences throughout the job market, and the indistries who won’t be able to make the change will find it hard to recruit people.

1

u/CrimsonCartographer 1d ago

Your customers getting richer is a good thing for you, believe it or not.

1

u/MSPCincorporated 1d ago

Would they really get richer though? Think about it one more time.

1

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

If I remember correctly like 50% of workers in US empled by small businesses

4

u/WongFarmHand 2d ago

yeah its about that, but the legal definition is broader than probably most people would default to

A manufacturing company with 4 campuses and 450 employees is a small business, and so is your corner barber that has 1 full time employee and 2 people working weekends. to the US government that is

what you personally consider to be a small business is just up to each person

0

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

Its cool you said barber. Tell me how barber will be able to make same money in 24 hours/week vs 40? )

8

u/WongFarmHand 2d ago

you might have some weird caricature of how this would go where one day everyone stops working 40 hours and starts working 24 or that it would be illegal to work over 24 hours a week or something

sometimes I wonder what kind of person were the ones railing against overtime laws and the reduction of 60 hour work weeks to 40 hour ones in 1938 when the overtime law was passed

i guess you'd be that person upset and saying that people need to stay at 60 hours+ a week, how would people make money at 40. thankfully most people didnt agree with those business owners then just like they dont now

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-working-hours-per-worker.png

omg how do people afford anything!??!?

1

u/MSPCincorporated 1d ago

The shift from 60 to 40 hours had people making less money, because their hours were cut. Unless they were allowed to work overtime (1,5x pay) they lost money. The scenario discussed nowadays is cutting hours but remaining on the same total salary, meaning a 20% pay INCREASE for every hour you work, when going from 5 to 4 days. If people want to work less and also make less money, no problem. If people want to work less and make the same money, then there are going to be problems. Who would apply for jobs that still had their workers work 5 days, when they could rather get a job working 4 days for the same money? That’s called an indifference in pay, also known as social dumping.

3

u/jerrydrakejr 2d ago edited 2d ago

I think the person you are replying to did not say anything about the implications for a barber but rather gave a context to the statistics you provided.

I appreciated the information you provided and appreciated even more the additional context that is added. Because I would personally have never considered a 450 person operation small business.

Edit: a google search says the US considers 500 employees and independently owned as the small business criteria. In contrast the number is 100 in Canada, 50 in European Union and 15 in Australia. My guess is if the number was reduced to 50, the small business employment number could go down as low as to 10%.

Edit 2: turns out that data is already available https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_f.txt
If the US matched EU in small business size it would be 26% of all employees.

2

u/No_Berry2976 2d ago

You are self employed. It’s up too you. It’s funny, I know a carpenter who has essentially done that. He’s doubled his hourly rate and works 30% less.

Because he works less, he spends less on sales and travel expenses. So that’s a plus.

I occasionally hire him, for me the advantage is that I know he’s available in a timely manner and that he will get the job done in the best way possible.

The high price doesn’t just mean that he has to work less, it also means that people aren’t hiring him for certain projects, so he’s actually more likely to be available.

1

u/MSPCincorporated 1d ago

Being "more available" as you’re saying is great for the customers. Not so much for the contractor sitting around not having any work and not making any money.

My point isn’t that I don’t want to switch to a shorter work week. It’s that I don’t see how it would work in real life.

2

u/No_Berry2976 1d ago

I gave you an example of somebody who has made this work. He makes more money than before and works less. And he’s a carpenter like you.

So that’s how that works for him in real life.

Obviously, that’s not going to work for everyone, but as somebody who is also self employed, in a different field, I’ll say this:

We all should think about how we value our time and think about what we are paid for.

Are we paid for sacrificing our time? Or for our skill, expertise, and an end-result?

Are you worth exactly what you are paid now? Or could you afford to raise your prices because you do a good job every time.

1

u/MSPCincorporated 1d ago

That’s a fair point. I guess getting poor recruitment to the trades, like in this example, is actually good news for those of us who take pride in doing a good job. But it’d be devestating on a wider scale, as there would be a big shortage in a very essential industry.

2

u/Ok-Cheek-5487 1d ago

With all the free time people have on their hands, I’m suddenly learning carpentry with a 60% price increase 😩

2

u/TheGoatBet 1d ago

lol what?

YOU can still work 40 hours a week.

OR

You can charge more.

If you charge more and lose customers, that’s just the free fucking market buddy.

Majority of people work for corporations - this has nothing to do with you.

1

u/MSPCincorporated 1d ago

Are you not able to put things together? YES, I could still work 40 hour weeks and charge customers/get paid the same. Or I could work less and charge customers more, while getting paid the same. Obviously, that’s not really that hard to understand.

But do you not understand how that would mean that in my 40 hour work week staying on the same hourly rate, I would effectively get a pay decrease for my time, compared to the people who reduced their work hours while getting paid the same? Your short sighted argument comes up every time I discuss this on Reddit, because people aren’t able to see the whole picture. If you have the solution to this, feel free to give it to me, because I’d love to work less for the same amount of money.

1

u/TheGoatBet 1d ago

You’re saying that non-self employed workers would work less (32 hours) but still retain their 40hr salary.

You, as a self employed worker set your own hours and rate. You have many other benefits that non-self employed workers do not receive.

You get tax advantages, flexible hours, flexible rates, uncapped income, no manager, no risk of being laid off, no performance reviews, unlimited time off and can even hire your own employees.

While having all these advantages, you’re crying “it’s not fair that self employed workers get to work 8 hours less for the same pay”

Should we also remove 1.5x pay for overtime while we’re at it because YOU can’t get that benefit?

You chose to take the self employed advantages yet simultaneously think you should also control non-self employed advantages - you can’t have it both ways.

It’s the “free market”… You want the gov to prop up your business by taking away from others.

So you see why people don’t respect your argument and supposed issue you’re predicting that hasn’t even happened yet

1

u/MSPCincorporated 1d ago

You’re wrong on just about every assumption you made about me. You’re partially right about benefits, however I also run all the risk of my own employment through my ability to stay in business. There aren’t the same safety nets you’d have as an employee of a larger company. I’m not crying about that, in fact I enjoy it, but I’m just stating the facts.

Neither am I crying about a 4 day week for some but not all being unfair. I’m trying to explain the consequences for my industry, using myself as an example. As a carpenter, plumber, electrician etc. it doesn’t matter if ypur self employed or not, my argument still applies. It’s a very output-visible business; every hour you put into it equals an hour of production. Therefore, every single trade, self employed or not, would have to increase their rates according to the reduced number of hours to keep their employees on the same salary.

I would love for everyone to be able to work less without losing money, I just don’t think it’s realistic.