[overlordalex]

To maybe throw the question back - what have you done to make 3 day weekends a reality?

The way the post is worded right now seems to be phrased in a way that 3-day weekends are blindingly obvious, but if you look at the history of labour rights I dont see why anyone expects it to just happen without a massive amount of organising

[pwinnski]

Most advances in labor rights came about as a result of hard work: blood, sweat, and tears. Not, it turns out, this particular one!

The five-day work-week came about because Henry Ford declared it to be so in 1926, and wasn't made any sort of law until 1939.

Ultimately, the decision to move to four-day work weeks can only be made by CEOs or equivalents, and while some have, most haven't. At my previous company, the head of HR proposed it, the CTO agreed, and it went to the CEO, who said no. He didn't want the CTO org to have benefits the rest of the company didn't have, and didn't want to extend a four-day work week to all departments.

When they continue to have trouble filling open job positions because they aren't competing will in the market, perhaps he'll change his mind.

https://www.4dayweek.com

[slively]

Attributing the 5 day work week to Henry Ford is not placing the credit correctly. He may have been the first big CEO, but it was the work of labor rights activists and unions. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/sep/09/viral-imag...

[pwinnski]

The trade unionists had been pushing for eight-hour days, not five-day weeks. The thing Ford did largely unprompted was switch from six days to five days. Even your own link seems to confuse the two, but is focused on the eight-hour day part of the original false image.

[slively]

> Ford’s initiative was not widely copied overnight. In 1916, the federal government passed an act to require an eight-hour day and overtime pay for railroad workers, but most workers still didn’t have those protections, and working hours remained a hotly contested issue. "Demands for the five-day week began to proliferate in 1919, a year in which 4 million American workers went out on strike,"

[ghaff]

And that CEO is not necessarily wrong. Even if you posit that certain types of creative problem solving might be as productive with a 32 hour work week as a 40 hour one, I'd also posit that there are a lot of jobs within companies that really do mostly map to hours in seats. And granting, say, engineering only a special privilege like that seems like it would be terrible for morale--especially given that there are doubtless other jobs at a company that could in principle also be equally productive with 4-day weeks.

And it probably goes without saying that most people would not be OK with a pay cut--which might have to actually be more than 20% given the cost of benefits is fairly fixed.

[pwinnski]

To add insult to injury in this case, all departments were completely on board other than sales, and this was an engineering-driven SaaS company. Sales people at that company are paid commission, and most of them outearn all software developers at the company, and even the C-suite. Still, it was in deference to them that the initiative was squashed.

On paper, it may have seemed like the right move, but it was huge demoralizing to the engineering org to be told, essentially: we will neither pay enough to be competitive, nor offer any other compensatory advantages, primarily in deference to this other department that we do pay well.

The morale question was apparently only considered in one direction.

[ghaff]

I actually find that a bit surprising. I would assume a lot of sales comp was commission driven so presumably reps could just have kept on working however many days they wanted to. Of course, they presumably wouldn't have had the support they wanted for one day a week so there's that.

[_flat20]

> Ultimately, the decision to move to four-day work weeks can only be made by CEOs or equivalents, and while some have, most haven't.

Not how it happened when going 6 to 5 days. People made it happen. And OP is one of them.

[pwinnski]

This is widely believed, at least the first part, but not true.

People (trade unionists) made eight-hour workdays happen, but Henry Ford made a five-day workday happen[0]. As I stated, most labor rights came about because of blood, sweat, and tears. Just... not that particular one, oddly enough.

The fact that Ford's five-day work weeks were made up of eight-hour days, for that you can think unions and the hard work of many people! But the shift from six days to five, not so much.

P.S. OP was probably not working age in 1926, as they would need to be to have made the shift happen originally.

0. https://www.truthorfiction.com/henry-ford-invented-the-5-day...

[dsugarman]

>The way the post is worded right now seems to be phrased in a way that 3-day weekends are blindingly obvious

Seems like all anti-work propaganda (ie: r/antiwork) to me, there's no meat. You could turn this post into an inductive proof saying it is so obvious that having X-1 days is better than X days of work until you get smacked in the face trying to hand wave that 1->0 will have no impact on productivity.

[dfxm12]

there's no meat

This ignores that there have been trials about this. Companies trying 4 day work weeks have found their workers to be more productive.

Also, consider that worker productivity has gone up since the 70s, but wages haven't kept pace.

In surveys, most people say they'd rather have 4 day work week. 5 days is in second place. then it goes down from 3.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776163853/microsoft-japan-say...

[ahoy]

The worker is alienated from (most of) the product of their labor. Until that changes, "productivity" doesn't benefit them, only their employers. Why should we want more of that?

[bowsamic]

I agree. The capitalist is anti-worker

[Dylan16807]

So what if there's an impact on productivity? Productivity has increased far more than necessary since the last time we adjusted typical hours.

I'd compare it to getting rid of smaller coins. Sure, it would cause some rounding hassle, but the last time we got rid of a coin the smallest remaining one was worth more than a 2020 quarter.

It seems pretty obvious to me, based on the non-linear utility of money, that as productivity increases the ideal work week shrinks. Is that not a good enough sketch of a proof?

[wahnfrieden]

it's fine to dream of ways to replace work with automation, for massive productivity increases to lead not only to bigger investor returns but also a higher standard of living, and to talk about how it can be realized without waiting around for it to happen or making everyone's lives worse. aren't we mostly dev types here, where this is what we think of already all the time - how to reach your goals with less action and time. why choose to owe all that time saved to your boss where the primary reward is more work to spend that newly-gained spare time on (I know the reasons people give)

[leshow]

I don't think framing this as someone's individual responsibility is at all fair or realistic.

[henryfjordan]

Productivity has risen 61% since 1979: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/. 40 hour work weeks have been the standard. Wages only rose 17% in that same period. The capitalists have been able to bank the other 44%.

A 3-day work week (aka 40% less productivity if you assume a perfectly linear relationship between time working and productivity) would still mean a nice little gain for the capitalist compared to 1979 numbers.

If you've worked, you've contributed to that 44% productivity gain. Why should you need to revolt or organize to get what you've already worked for? Capitalists are taking a larger and larger share every year. Is that ethical?

I get that pragmatically many aspects in life are a power struggle, but "throwing the question back" is really a way of putting the burden of fixing an unfair system back on the victim.

[missedthecue]

Are workers getting more productive, or are tools and technology getting more productive?

It used to take a room full of highly trained engineers using slide-rules, protractors, and graphing paper to design the newest car or plane. Now it's done in AutoCAD. But it's not obvious to me why the employee should collect the difference for the capital investment poured into technology.

In other words, it's not as if humans have evolved since the 1970s to be more productive. Any gains are entirely the consequence of investments in tech and tools and modern managerial techniques.

[henryfjordan]

I agree that it isn't obvious who should reap the benefits of productivity gains, but that means it is also not obvious to me that the capitalist should get it compared to the employee.

We created a system that heavily favors the capitalist starting with the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that most of society was subsistence farming. Encouraging capital investment in new machines and factories through laws/policies made sense to help raise society (and thus the workers) out of that situation. We have made enough progress since then that there are now barely any subsistence farmers in the US.

Why should we continue to embrace policies favoring the capitalist? Why should we continue to award 100% of the gains of new technologies to capitalists? Maybe they should only get those gains for a few years, or they should get half and half should go to the workers?

[missedthecue]

"Why should we continue to award 100% of the gains of new technologies to capitalists?"

Because they assume the risk of these ventures. Ever hear the statistics about how 95% of startups fail in the first x years? Meanwhile, the guy clicking around in AutoCAD did nothing to further the rise of productivity. Why should he be gifted the benefits of other's toil simply for breathing?

[Bakary]

Entrepreneurs benefit from free toil and public investment all the time. Try starting a business in a poorer country with no good institutions nor infrastructure, inefficient education etc. and it'll become abundantly clear what you are taking for granted.

[sokoloff]

You literally noted above that 100% of the gains are not going to the capitalists but rather are being split (using your numbers) around 5:2 among capitalists and workers.

But, remember, that’s before considering the impact of healthcare costs (which are majority paid by capitalists and majority benefiting the workers).

[henryfjordan]

Fair enough on my "100%" math, you are correct.

I'm not so sure about the healthcare argument. The link I included above compares productivity to compensation. I'd assume compensation includes the value of benefits like healthcare but I could be wrong. I'd also argue that many of the rising healthcare costs are being rewarded as profit to the capitalists so it might not be as cut-and-dry even if healthcare is a large source of the pay-productivity gap.

[jen20]

Modern managerial techniques if anything have regressed the situation.

As for tech and tools, who do you think made those things if not humans?

[missedthecue]

The human inventors of computers, computer components, productivity improving software (like AutoCAD), robotics, and other systems are very wealthy.

[throwayyy479087]

The difference between producitivity and wage gap is fully explained by increasing healthcare costs: https://www.ajmc.com/view/healthcare-costs-increased-twice-a...

[topkai22]

The difference between productivity and wages is not fully explained by increasing benefits/health care costs, but it is something like over half the difference.

Benefits costs do a better job explaining increasing wage inequality, but again not all of it and doesn’t address what’s happening outside the US

[orangepurple]

Healthcare costs are largely driven by metabolic syndrome: the main cause of diseases of major modern civilizations. Half of Americans are on track to be pre-diabetic or diabetic by 2050.

[bowsamic]

That would be very convenient for capitalists but it is false, though even if it were true for the US it is not true for European countries

[anigbrowl]

Why should you need to revolt or organize to get what you've already worked for?

Because you won't get it otherwise. They're not going to give it back or forgo it in future because controlling a greater share of resources gives them more leverage.

[gertlex]

Honest question that came to mind with these numbers:

While some fraction has gone to the corporations/shareholders ("capitalists"), what fraction of the productivity gains has turned into cheaper consumer goods, aka (can't point at the data, just many who comment on it) the populace owns a lot more 'stuff' like electronics than they did 43 years ago, aka QOL gains resulting from productivity.

Or is it just silly of me to not assume that ~100% of gained productivity went straight into corporations'/shareholders' pockets?

[WalterBright]

> The capitalists have been able to bank the other 44%.

Don't forget the massive growth at all levels of government.

Also don't forget that wages are not the right measure - total compensation is. Total compensation is often 150% of wages (things like health insurance, retirement plans, 401k matching contributions, etc.). All those "employer-paid" benefits are actually coming out of your paycheck.

[_yb2s]

> Capitalists are taking a larger and larger share every year. Is that ethical?

How is this possible? Wouldn't capitalists willing to take a smaller share (higher wages, better product for lower price) out-compete those that don't? It seems to me that the major advantage of capitalism is protection from this type of situation?

[drinkzima]

It's mostly false: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Pik

[henryfjordan]

A ton of capitalist-favoring policies assume a perfect free market (all participants have equal knowledge, transactions are instant, etc). Not a single market like that actually exists in reality. We've created many capitalist policies which allow the exploitation of such imperfect markets.

"Job Stability" being a factor in the labor market is a perfect example. People are afraid to leave a stable job for a less stable one even it pays more because they know it takes time and effort and luck to find another job (aka imperfections in the job market). If your unstable job disappears, that might mean there's no money for food or no health insurance. This puts a huge thumb on the scale in favor of the capitalist. If they can offer "stability" then they can also lower their wages considerably.

[drinkzima]

We have metrics for these things ("Capitalists are taking a larger and larger share every year"), no need for hyperbole: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Pik

[mouzogu]

i think if i tried anything i would just be left to fall on my sword alone.