[notus]

> In contrast, Jack Ma, co-founder of Chinese online shopping giant Alibaba, has championed 12-hour working days. In April 2019, he described the "996" pattern, in which workers do 09:00-21:00 shifts, six days a week, as "a blessing".

Yikes, that sounds depressing.

> A report commissioned by the Labour Party in the UK suggested a four-day working week would be "unrealistic".

The report seems to be missing the point of most 4 day work week initiatives which is that we spend a ton of time not actually working because people feel like they are expected to always be in the office between arbitrary hours. Just because people "work" less doesn't mean their output is changing. Unless your definition of work is warming a chair.

[koonsolo]

You should check out the youtube video with Jack Ma and Elon Musk. Anything that comes out of his mouth is complete bullshit and crazy. It puts anything he says in perspective.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/videos/comment...

[earenndil]

Non amp: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/cy40bc/when_elon_mu...

[westoque]

I believe the 4 hour work week only works for brain intensive tasks where it needs significant mental effort to get things done so ample time for rest is needed to be “refreshed”.

Meanwhile, if you’re building on shoes in a shoe factory, there should be a very predictable output for people working on 4 days vs 5 days.

I don’t condone people to be overworking but that’s just my take.

[clarry]

Have you actually built shoes in a shoe factory?

Long days of dull and repetitive work, day after day, week after week, month after month, can be super exhausting mentally as well as physically. And it does show in terms of productivity. You're right, the output might be very predictable but it doesn't mean people aren't more productive and motivated when they feel more rested and less exhausted/tired/bored.

I'm a skilled machinist. And I couldn't even pretend that a full day of work didn't make me feel exhausted or that I didn't get tired and feel productivity & attentiveness taper off with time. Observing the coffee breaks when managers aren't around is enough evidence that most employees seem prone to feel the burden of long days at work. People find ways to avoid working too much -- coffee breaks, bathroom breaks, etc. I don't think it's just laziness. I would prefer to spend less time doing more focused work, stretching out a long day is always painful.

Now I work an IT job and am generally more energetic, but I would still prefer to have more time & energy left for my own life and ambitions (which work probably won't ever satisfy).

[yabadabadoes]

There's less and less work where you can be tired and productive. There is either a customer watching you, a great deal of variety in the task or a machine with a quickly falling TCO after your job first.

[WilliamEdward]

https://github.com/996icu/996.ICU

"The name 996.ICU refers to "Work by '996', sick in ICU", an ironic saying among Chinese developers, which means that by following the "996" work schedule, you are risking yourself getting into the ICU (Intensive Care Unit)."

[EpicEng]

Many jobs are "warming a chair". Pretty much all of retail and service jobs. In manufacturing you will absolutely lose productivity if you shave a day off of the schedule.

[hamandcheese]

Have you ever worked in retail or service? I have, and I know people who still do, and it’s hard work. Restaurants, for example, will usually send you home with no pay if there is so little to do that you are warming a chair, and I’ve worked minimum wage retail jobs that do the same.

[Harvey-Specter]

It has nothing to do with whether or not the job is hard. I've worked retail, food service, and landscaping jobs through high school and university. I know those jobs aren't easy.

The difference is that those jobs require workers to be present throughout the day in order to get work done. As a software developer I could probably cut my hours per day and produce the same amount of output. As a waiter my productivity (and earnings) was dependent on customers showing up to the restaurant. If I only worked 6 hours instead of 8, or 4 days instead of 5, then I served fewer customers and earned fewer tips.

[bsanr2]

Do they? Retail is definitely subject to fairly predictable rush periods. All the while I was working at an electronics retailer, where my job was as much to educate or guide as sell, I wondered why we didn't have "sales hours" that were fully-staffed, and in between, some sort of remote assistance, where we would be on-call to help people out through video calls. When half your job is simply pointing people to items, why actually be there? And for the people who want to know about products, like the gentleman who wants to buy a full home theater set-up, shouldn't we be fresh and ready for them, not dragging after 8 hours of telling people where power cords are?

And, of course, we're paid the same or more, as we're making the company the same amount of money, if not more.

There is certainly room for innovation that makes sense for productivity AND for worker morale. But the people making the decisions are risk-averse and don't have to deal with the downsides of their heel-dragging.

[olyjohn]

There's an easy solution when workers are required to be present... don't make all the employees work at the same time. Need more hours of productivity? Hire more people.

Also, as a waiter, your wages should not be paid by the customers. Tips are bullshit, and the rest of the world knows this. You should be paid a fair hourly wage.

[EpicEng]

>There's an easy solution when workers are required to be present... don't make all the employees work at the same time. Need more hours of productivity? Hire more people.

And now you've increased overhead and labor costs for these companies significantly while reducing the pay of the average worker (are cashiers going salary now?) I don't see how that works for anyone.

[arghwhat]

I think the person meant that presence is a core component of the job, and reduced presence is on its own a reduced work output.

[EpicEng]

Yes, for years. It has nothing to do with hard or easy; the business doesn't function without you there. Comparing that to a job like ours makes no sense. Hours worked is directly correlated with output, unlike engineering.

[hinkley]

Hours worked matters in software when the project is so mismanaged that there are regular emergency situations. Someone “has to” be around for those events.

There are too many places that function like a firehouse and hours in seat matter at those places.

[EpicEng]

Of course people need to be present or available for emergency situations, I think everyone understands that.

[hinkley]

I think you missed the point.

The sort of people who want you in your seat 50 hours a week are often compensating for the other ways they're mismanaging resources.

[anon73044]

I invite you to go work full time at your local big box store. Especially in Building Materials. Or Flooring perhaps. Yes, alot of retail is "hurry up and wait" on the front end, but in other departments there's literally tons of work that happens throughout the day and you'll never notice it if you're not there 40 hours a week.

[EpicEng]

Then we agree; hours worked in a job like that directly correlates to production or a butt in the seat is required at all times.

[anon73044]

No, you statement was that "Many jobs are "warming a chair". Pretty much all of retail and service jobs."

Actually talking and helping customers isn't "warming a chair" any more than loading lumber or unloading appliances or working up quotes for custom orders.

[hogFeast]

Amazon did 60-hour weeks at the start, and paid the equivalent of $3/hour. If you create an "elite" culture, ironically, you can sucker employees into working for peanuts.

[jacquesm]

Fortunately, the Labour Party doesn't control businesses and every company is free to negotiate whatever contracts it feels like within the law, so a subset, such as 4 days instead of whatever the legal maximum is is perfectly possible.

[tomp]

Is this entirely true? A lot of state benefits are linked to hours worked, e.g. if you don't work full time, you might not get full state pension, employement insurance, etc... (Although admittedly these benefits are quite minmal in the UK, at least for London.)

[robocat]

Also some professions require so many FTE years experience to progress with professional qualifications (or maintain?).

I know a nurse that needs to do a minimum of 35 hours a week so that they can get full-time experience so that they can meet requirements for the next job.

[C1sc0cat]

There is a minimum to qualify - unfortunately a lot of employers game the system with Zero hours contracts.

[arghwhat]

> Unless your definition of work is warming a chair.

Breaking news: Electrically heated seats puts millions out of work.

[mlthoughts2018]

“AI causes unemployment nightmare.”

[devy]

> Yikes, that sounds depressing.

Perhaps - but more depressing is losing a high paying job and earning a minimum wage with no hope of living a comfortably life, in that local context. Taken it out of context makes it further apart from the true meaning.

Success has no shortcuts - it requires 100k+ hours of hard working and perseverance. Working leisurely is for the folks that are already prosper (read: take a look at Microsoft employees' avg. salaries.)

Working less and living a good life? No, you can't have it both ways, unless you're already rich.

[notus]

> Success has no shortcuts - it requires 100k+ hours of hard working and perseverance. Working leisurely is for the folks that are already prosper (read: take a look at Microsoft employees' avg. salaries.)

Working leisurely is for companies that have a culture that encourages it and nothing more.

I don't consider myself rich (although this is kind of a relative measurement), but I definitely work leisurely and make enough money to buy a house, car, etc.

I also took a lot of shortcuts, like dropping out of college. People CAN and DO have it both ways without already being rich and that should be the standard for society going forward. We should always strive to improve the experience of workers.

[jniedrauer]

> Working less and living a good life? No, you can't have it both ways, unless you're already rich.

As someone else said... why not? This isn't some immutable law of the universe.

[Vrondi]

12 hours days, six days a week is not a "comfortable life".

[authoritarian]

I've never had a job where I had to work more than 5 days and/or 40 hours a week. I did well in school, found a job that values work life balance, and have gone from security intern, to associate security engineer, and finally to security engineer over a 4 year period. It may not be a "high paying job" compared to someone who worked at FAANG, but I have been able to purchase a house and save for retirement in the years since I've graduated college all without ever having to kill myself by working a ridiculous amount of hours.

You can absolutely have it both ways

[drakythe]

Why not?