
It's time to switch to a four-day working week, say two experts - joeyespo
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/2-davos-experts-says-it-s-time-to-switch-to-a-four-day-working-week/
======
peatmoss
I think three day weekends would be undeniably good for the health of our
society and everyone living in it.

I have long (semi-jokingly) professed belief in the Church of the SubGenius.
They extol the virtues of slack. I think the intended meaning of “slack” is as
in “to slack off.” But I choose to believe in it as slack (i.e. spare
capacity) in a system.

While some might use that extra day to slack off, plenty more would use that
day to invest labors in their communities, maybe to get some exercise, maybe
do some neglected repairs around the house.

I feel like in the name of efficiency, we’ve purged a lot of slack from the
system, but that has left us with a lot of institutions that are at risk for
catastrophic failure. For people who are stretched to their breaking point,
there needs to be more slack.

~~~
Swizec
According to the theory of constraints (on which I am expert since I read 1
graphic novel, The Goal, and 1 novel, The Phoenix Project) systems without
slack become exponentially slower until no work is capable of getting done
anymore.

The reason for this are statistical perturbations in stochastic events. If a
task takes a worker rand(1,4) units of time you can expect them to do day/1 to
day/4 tasks in the day.

You look at the worker doing day/1 tasks and you say, "Well shit, that person
is slacking most of the time. Most of these tasks take 2 units, 4 is very
rare". So you ask them to work harder and impose rules so they must perform
day/3 number of tasks per day.

You look at your constantly busy workers and you're happy. No more slack in
the system.

But your assembly line grinds to a halt. Nothing ever gets done anymore.
Everyone is busy all the time. Everyone's always working. But nothing is
finishing.

What gives?

Turns out any task that hits N=4 on the random curve, wreaks havoc and you
fall behind. Then you have both yesterday's _and_ today's tasks to do. You
can't. The next day ... well the problem ends up growing exponentially.

Efficient systems have slack.

~~~
sonnyblarney
This is a very good bit of information, but most modern workplaces are not
factory floors 'processing work items', so the analogy only goes so far.

Also, it very well could be that reducing to 4 from 5 does nothing but simply
reduce the number of hours 'the factory is operating'. Surely there'd be a
bonus because people might be more relaxed, but it's hard to weight that
against the lost day.

For example, my local coffee shop is open 7 days a week, let's say that their
staff works 5 days on, 2 off so there's a steady rate of staffers.

If they just switched to 4 on 3 off ... I'm not sure anything would materially
change in terms of productivity etc. - and 'all else being equal' (i.e.
demand, cost of goods, wages/hour), the staffers would simply make less money
and I doubt they'd chose that.

But maybe '3/4 days' would be better in some industries than others.

~~~
Swizec
> most modern workplaces are not factory floors 'processing work items', so
> the analogy only goes so far.

I recommend reading The Phoenix Project. It does a great job of dispelling the
myth that software engineering is unpredictable and artisanal and whatnot. At
the abstraction layer of a department or division manager it becomes
indistinguishable and the same stochastic modeling principles apply.

But that’s besides the point. A more important point is the idea of
effectiveness.

4 days of effective work are often better than 5 days of being busy but
ineffective.

Personally I get more done in a 4 day week because I am more cut-throat about
saying No to things that don’t matter.

------
epaulson
We should all aim for 4 days as the ideal instead of 5, but we should also
drop the M-F work, S-S weekend ideal too. For large chunks of the workforce
they're already working something other than M-F anyway because we want 7 day
coverage of our retail and service sectors. More professionals - dentists and
veterinarians and insurance offices and you name it - should be open on the
"weekend" or should not all dentists need to share the same "weekend",
especially if we're dropping down to a 4-on, 3-off standard.

If for no other reason, we build a lot of infrastructure for "peak" usage,
like rush hour traffic. If we all have the same 3 day weekend that means we
have lower "weekend" traffic one more day but the peaks stay the same, but if
we better distributed our weekends, overall peak would go down a bit.

It's a whole new set of coordination problems, of course, but we don't all go
to church on Sundays anymore, we don't all need to be off the same day.

~~~
david-gpu
I get what you are saying, but presumably weekends still exist because
families and friends want to do group activities at a time when all are
available. If you have children younger than 12 or so you need to be available
when they are not in school.

~~~
kennywinker
If you have children of working age they are likely working service industry
jobs and work weekends and evenings anyways.

~~~
obmelvin
Children that old don't need to be taken care of as much. It makes more sense
to optimize for taking chare of younger children.

------
b0rsuk
Working as a programmer, I already started de facto shortening my shifts
without cheating on my employer: on 7th, and especially 8th hour, I don't
write new code anymore unless it's in places I have very solid understanding
of. My mind tends to slow down in the final hours, and it takes a lot of
effort to come up with something new, and my bug rate increases.

What do I do instead? Binge read documentation to learn about new functions
and parameters that may make my work easier. Tweak vim configuration.
Experiment with new shell commands. Clean up my email inbox and various
notifications.

These activities still push the work forward, but don't require as much
creative juice and there's no consequence for mistake.

I would still prefer a 4 day week, but it's the next best thing.

~~~
jlawson
I do this too.

Same principle applies in the gym - you start out the workout with the super
strenuous squats and deadlifts, then move to the difficult bench press and
dips, then finish with relatively easy bicep curls, tricep pushdown, and
cardio.

Some things just can't be done effectively unless you're above a certain level
of rest; other things can be done even if you're tired. It just makes sense to
sort things into the period of time where you can actually do them.

In coding this extends all the way to watching lightweight YouTube videos
about coding late at night when you're tired.

------
itamarst
You don't have to wait for society to make this happen (and in fact waiting
will fail you). This is something many programmers have negotiated on their
own (e.g. [https://codewithoutrules.com/2019/05/09/part-time-
software-d...](https://codewithoutrules.com/2019/05/09/part-time-software-
developer/)).

More broadly this is one of many good reasons for programmers to unionize;
even if salaries are high, working hours are still far too long.

~~~
Rapzid
I think too many people are willing to take a pay cut to do this. If you
believe you will be as or more productive, or that your skills and knowledge
are more valuable than just your raw time, you should consider negotiating a 4
day week with no pay cut.

~~~
necovek
Since I am willing to take a pay cut, and even a pay cut per hour, here's my
reasoning.

For every hour spent at work, I am not spending it on something of my own
choice. Hours of my own choice are worth much more than hours of work to me,
because they usually fulfill me more.

So, if I am to work couple hours a day, that's going to cost you little. The
more you take from my "own" hours, the costlier they get. So, if I consider a
normal work week to be 24h, anything above that costs non-proportionally more.
I.e. 40h is not 40/24 more, but it's actually 24 x base_hourly_cost + 16 x
own_factor x base_hourly_work, where own_factor is usually around 2, depending
on how much I might like the base work.

So, in a sense, I am not taking a pay cut, I am just taking a reasonable
salary for doing the work, but if someone insists on taking more of my time
for little benefit to them and a lot of burden to me, it's going to cost
significantly more.

~~~
qntty
You're essentially paying your employer so that you can have more free time.
One could argue that if you feel the need to pay for your own life, you're in
a sense the property of another person. If you do X amount of work, why
shouldn't you be entitled to the fruits of that labor? Why does anybody have
the right to take the value that you created away from you?

~~~
necovek
In European copyright law, they actually can't: non-exclusive (eg. can't be
sold) moral right protects the obvious moral aspects, but there are also
compensation related clauses (eg. I created a "work of authorship" and got
compensated $1000, yet company earned $5 million off it, I'd be entitled to
ask for a fairer share of the profits). I am sure this hasn't been tested in
courts for software development so far, with it being such a collaborative
endeavor, it'd be hard to lay a claim to how much your worm was really worth).

I also take a different view: a person is not owned, but it's normal for
labour to be paid. A labourer can design their own pricing scale to encourage
labour deals they prefer. Just like companies design their pricing schemes to
eg. support only large customers (up to 20 users free with no support, paid-
for afterwards).

------
necovek
I've long argued for a 4-day 6-hour-day work week. I've even questioned a few
potential employers about it, citing research: I've even offered to take a pay
cut (per hour, i.e. hourly rate was cheaper than for 5-day 8-hour day weeks),
but nobody was interested.

They would frequently say how they are not interested in "part time" work. I'd
counter that this is full time work, with efficiency higher than the full time
work, because people can focus on intellectually hard problems only for a
short while sustainably. Sure, I can put in a couple of weeks of 12h days, but
after that, I'd struggle to put in 4h days of quality, focused work (well
known as burnout). Similarly, 8h days are not sustainable either, though it
takes longer to burn out.

As people have noted, the extra time I get would not be spent in pyjamas
watching netflix: it would be quality time with my family, working on projects
and research, etc (if it wasn't for miserable pay and state of academia, I'd
probably be doing research exclusively). Civilization as a whole would benefit
as a result if there were more people putting their brains to problems they
think matter. And as stated numerous times, even employeers would benefit.

But alas, when there's the next guy willing to submit to the "norm", it's hard
to get the ball rolling.

~~~
smsm42
> They would frequently say how they are not interested in "part time" work.
> I'd counter that this is full time work, with efficiency higher than the
> full time work, because people can focus on intellectually hard problems
> only for a short while sustainably.

Is it really true? Can you prove it? I mean you can argue that, but if you're
absent 20% of the time compared to other workers, is it true that your value
is still the same because you're so much more productive? Maybe yes, but can
you prove it to an employer? You're asking them to take a risk on supporting
unfamiliar approach - which their familiar approach probably worked for them
for years and they are fine with it. What do you offer them to justify taking
this risk? I mean, maybe you are so spectacular that employing you is worth
any risk. But naturally most people aren't that exceptional, by definition.
Their experience shows 5-day weeks works great for them, how much better would
be 4-day week to justify the risks?

> Civilization as a whole would benefit as a result if there were more people
> putting their brains to problems they think matter.

Is there any proof that there's significant marginal increase compared to
thousands of existing research institutions that have tens of thousands of
very smart people already spending years attacking practically every important
problem? Would amateurs spending one day a week on side projects significantly
change the picture here - and offset the above-mentioned professionals _not_
spending one day a week on their area of expertise (instead doing their
hobbies in turn)? I am not sure this is that obvious.

~~~
losvedir
People argue it here all the time but I'm certainly skeptical. The hardest
intellectual work of my life, my undergrad at MIT, I spent far more than 8
hours a day, 4 days a week on. The idea that all the undergrads there burning
the midnight oil are just being foolish and don't they know they could get all
their work done in less time doesn't pass the smell test for me.

~~~
akhilcacharya
Most people don't do MIT level intellectual work...

~~~
Freak_NL
Such an effort is also quite different from salaried work. When you are taking
an undergraduate course you put a lot of effort into a finite project. You
tend to have the energy reserve for something bounded like that, but it does
come at a cost. Usually, at the age where you would enrol in an undergraduate
program, the gains outweigh the cost, and the cost is often lowered
significantly by the intrinsic motivation of working on your own interests.

With salaried work the only effective limit is your retirement. Working more
simply means more income, but if that extra income isn't needed, or doesn't
net you enough extra benefits compared to simply having time off, the cost of
being mentally engaged for such a large part of the week just doesn't weigh up
to the gains.

Sure, if your work is so engaging and rewarding that work itself is a
pleasure, than it might pay off. But for most of us it just doesn't work that
way. Work often means doing things were mostly others set the agenda, and
while you may be good at what you do and find motivation in doing it, I've
found that it rarely means that you can do it with the same sustained level of
energy and quality for more than four eight hour days — and even that isn't a
given.

------
wsc981
In The Netherlands /a lot/ of people work 4-day workweeks already [0]. It's
not that novel. But it'd be good if more countries could largely make the
switch.

Due to the progressive tax in The Netherlands, working 5 days instead of 4
doesn't earn /that/ much more money and if you have toddlers, you will spend a
day less for daycare, a day extra with your kids and probably have more time
for the fun things in life as well.

As a salaried employee I often chose a 4-day workweek as well when living in
The Netherlands. But once I started freelancing, the 5-day workweek seemed the
better choice for me. As freelancer you are taxed a bit less compared to a
salaried employee, so there's more incentive to make as much money as possible
during the workweek.

\---

[0]: [https://www.equaltimes.org/a-four-day-work-week-is-
only-a#.X...](https://www.equaltimes.org/a-four-day-work-week-is-
only-a#.XPxZxC2B27w)

~~~
Freak_NL
At my small (Dutch) company the standard contract is 36 hours, so most
employees work 4 × 8. I have a four month old son, and my wife normally works
4 × 8 as well, but she does 3 × 8 + 4 until we find our bearings with the
young one.

That means two days of daycare (partly subsidized by the government), one day,
each, at home with the child, and one day where she works from home for four
hours.

This is fairly typical for white collar workers in the Netherlands. Four days
is more than enough for me.

------
madspindel
"In thirty years America will be a post-industrial society with a per capita
income of $ 7,500. There will be only four work days a week of seven hours per
day. The year will be comprised of 39 work weeks and 13 weeks of vacation.
With weekends and holidays this makes 147 work days a year and 218 free days.
All this within a single generation."

From The American Challenge by Jean Jacques Servan-Schreiber published in
1967. Too bad this will never happen since most managers are workaholics.

~~~
benjohnson
I'm my estimation - you can almost live this way if you limit your
expectations to someone from 1967 - limited food choices, single car, small
home, frugal car-based vacations and heathy living.

~~~
esturk
Funny you added 'healthy living' at the end. It makes you wonder why people
would live beyond their means to be unhealthy.

~~~
sokoloff
Because people are terrible at accounting for the future. Shows up in diet,
exercise, personal finance, and probably a bunch of other places.

------
frankbreetz
There us nothing to disagree with here, but I feel like America is so far to
the right that an idea like this will be answered with "people are so lazy"
and "you signed a contract" or something similarly ridiculous. My response to
all this is wasn't the goal of our forefathers to give us a better life?
Doesn't that mean less hours working? Even if my parents grew up in the best
economic period of the past thousand years, shouldn't my life be marginally
better then their's? Maybe I am a "wuss" compared to the people who stormed
Normandy, but maybe those people are wusses compared to medival people, and
those people are wusses compared to cavemen, shouldn't you want to create the
type of world where your wuss children can survive?

~~~
daodedickinson
The problem is there are so many over-demand jobs and under-demand jobs
because schools stole so many billions from students learning information that
could not be put to fruitful use. And those jobs are so unequal in how much
work they take. So you have many jobs or situations where people are paid to
sit and many like in medicine where more people might die if you want to sleep
a healthy amount. The time should fit the job. But the pay should fit the
time, and then that's the next problem to sove, and on.

------
neilv
That would work for some kinds of work.

But I live to work, and often work 7 days.

I can't imagine doing a project with delivery time pressure (like a startup
trying to execute in a timely manner), working only 4 days, with a 3-day gap.

I'd rather have flexible hours, and an emphasis on working sharp in the hours
we do put in -- not have frequent 3-day interruptions of project mental space,
and putting off gratification in seeing the project come together.

~~~
stevesimmons
Me too. I feel very lucky to have found a company that is a perfect fit for my
skills and interests, and that is at the right stage that me working hard now
will make a big difference.

I can't imagine _not_ working 6-7 days a week.

~~~
Apocryphon
That's great for the both of you. But workaholics shouldn't get to dictate the
norms for the rest of humanity.

~~~
neilv
Agreed, no one should dictate norms.

But I'd rather have expectations of flexibility (e.g., take day off or a short
day because didn't sleep well, or family activity, or enjoy the nice weather,
or just finished a work crunch), than (I imagine) expectations that, on those
4 days, one had better be there the full day and at least pretending to work.

For some jobs, flexibility could mean that someone can arrange with their
manager&team to personally have a predictable 4-day schedule.

------
filleokus
Have there been largeish tests of company wide four-day work weeks in the
software sector?

Here in Sweden the movement has mostly been push by the left, and for workers
with lower wage/burnout/high amounts of sick leave etc. I think it's mostly
been tested in the health care sector. I think it lowered the amount of sick
leave, but was too expensive to keep since those type of jobs are very hard to
make more productive. I.e, we always need nurses on staff at the ER, or to
look after the elderly.

Most office-type work seems that it could potentially benefit from this
though.

~~~
Swizec
I don't know about largeish tests, but 37signals is famous for their 4-day
workweeks during summer.

[https://m.signalvnoise.com/why-we-only-work-4-days-a-week-
du...](https://m.signalvnoise.com/why-we-only-work-4-days-a-week-during-
summer/)

~~~
thatfrenchguy
That article makes it sound like they don’t go on vacation in exchange, which
is a bad deal.

Americans already take pity time off.

------
mto
I work 25 hours a week remotely as freelancer (although I'm available in slack
more or less all the time) and earn nearly twice as much as during my PhD.
Only that in more than 3 years I never really got into demotivated/frustrated
phases. During my PhD I often felt depressed when sitting in the office all
day, never getting a bit of daylight... And paying 300€ a month to have
someone walk my dog.

I have lots of time for learning new stuff and also teach a course twice a
year at a local college for some extra cash.

Started when my daughter was born and never stopped ;). Couldn't be happier
and I really hope I can somehow keep it that way.

------
SteveGerencser
My dad ran his factory this way from day one. I forget exactly when they
started, late 80s I think, and they always worked 4 10 hour days, Monday thru
Thursday, 3 day weekend. Worked great when they went to 2 shifts as well. 4
hour a day downtime for maintenance to do their magic each day.

Employees loved it, management loved it, the only ones that complained were
some of their very large customers, and even they got used to it after a year
of not being able to reach anyone on Friday.

------
ksec
Well in many places and across many industry, it would be great if we could
get 5 days work week standard in the first place.

Instead, not only just tech industry in China, many are now moving more
towards 996.

~~~
FabHK
where 996 is 9am to 9pm, 6 days a week.

Jack Ma, defending 996:

“To be able to work 996 is a huge bliss,” China’s richest man said. “If you
want to join Alibaba, you need to be prepared to work 12 hours a day,
otherwise why even bother joining.”

~~~
dheera
Jack Ma is a massive hypocrite IMO. In another speech Jack Ma said:

"Independent thinking, teamwork, care for others, these are the soft parts.
Knowledge may not teach you that. That's why I think we should teach our kids
sports, music, painting, art -- making sure humans are different from
machines."

Yeah, the FIRST thing you need to do to do that is to end this 996 horror. 996
IS treating humans like machines. People already have kids and parents to care
for; if you want them to engage in sports, music, painting, art, they need
normal work hours.

------
disconnection
From my own research, I would say that 4 days is still too much in many cases:
[http://www.disconnectionist.com/blog/becoming-a-part-time-
su...](http://www.disconnectionist.com/blog/becoming-a-part-time-
superhuman.html)

------
hobo_mark
European here. This summer I'm taking all Fridays off until October (since I
had too many holidays left). Yesterday was the second time, I still showed up
in the office but just worked on my own projects all day (it's allowed). Once
I was in the flow, I've been doing the same on Saturdays (like today) and
Sundays (albeit shorter hours). I'm definitely making more progress than when
I was only working on it at night, try it if you have the opportunity (and no
kids/spouses of course).

------
throwaway82137
Data point from BigCo: almost no-one (at a US BigCo) would take reduced hours
for proportionally less pay.

I work at a silicon valley BigCo, and I work half-time (20 hrs per week). I
got this by just asking for it, though it did require high up approval. I
didn't even hide the fact that it was for the purpose of personal projects. I
get half my salary, and half my stock and bonus. It is still more than plenty
to afford living here for me. I have 1 kid.

I've done this for 5 years now, during which time I've spoken to many BigCo
colleagues about this, and I'd estimate about 100 of them know my "deal", and
so far no-one has followed my path. Note that 80% and 60% are also options.

When asked they uniformly say that they couldn't take the reduction in pay.
Median total comp for these people is easily 300k. Some don't even have kids.

So no, if you want to improve society you'd have to force a 4-day work week by
law, otherwise no-one will follow-thru.

------
bryanrasmussen
I can barely afford working 5 as it is, I have to level up my wages or get an
extra source of income, not decrease.

~~~
isostatic
One reason housing is so expensive now compared to the 50s is that there are
10 working days per household now, and were 6 in the 50s.

With more money, the price of limited resources increases to fill the void.

If a 3 or 4 day week is mandated, there’s less for housing, it’s the same
demand, the same supply, so prices have to come down.

~~~
bryanrasmussen
one reason that prices did not increase to fill the void immediately is that
systems have an information lag between events, thus I expect a few years of
mismatch. Furthermore some resources are going to increase in cost no matter
what because external pressures - climate change - are going to drive up the
costs of those resources (primarily food) no matter what.

------
sakisv
It's kind of disheartening to read things like this on one hand and on the
other hand read news that Austria "increased the flexibility" of the working
pattern by bumping up the limit of what is considered legal to 12 hours:
[http://www.mondaq.com/Austria/x/733020/employee+rights+labou...](http://www.mondaq.com/Austria/x/733020/employee+rights+labour+relations/Amendmends+To+The+Working+Hours+Law+The+12Hour+Working+Day+Light)

Given that this is a country which is in the EU I'm very much worried about
this being adopted by more countries and becoming the norm, all in the spirit
of maintaining our "competitiveness"

~~~
asdf21
What issue do you have with people working three twelve hour days?

------
purplezooey
The worst part of this is that it will, like most everything else in the US,
be an option for the wealthy, some white collar workers and those fortunate
enough to live in California while leaving everyone else behind.

------
tempodox
> Critically, they also say workers were 20% more productive.

So, there wouldn't even be an actual loss in productivity. Still I predict
this recommendation will fall on deaf ears. The problem is not economic or
rational, it's cultural and religious. “Society” still adheres to the notion
that a person's worth is largely determined by the extent of their economic
activities (independent of productivity, obviously). Working less is perceived
as a dangerous moral failure (“Idle hands are the devil's workshop”, in
christian cultures).

------
vermilingua
I’m sure this is great for some people, but what about casual workers? What
about people that rely on overtime to get by? I can only see this pushing
employers into further reducing hours, screwing those people.

~~~
coldtea
We shouldn't optimize society based on the needs of "people that rely on
overtime to get by", we should optimize so that people don't have to rely on
overtime to get by.

It's like someone was asking back in the day: "Abolishing child labor? What
about all those 10 and 12 year olds that depend on their job to eat?"

------
SubiculumCode
I submit that the problem is the denominator: 7

The ratios:

5|2. Just right and too little

4|3. Too little and just right

Weeks should be 8 days

5|3. Just right and just right.

7 has nothing to do with human health and happiness. Why stick with that week
length dogma?

8 days a week, thr Beatles had it right.

------
xtrimsky1234
Would be only great if my kids stay in school 5 days a week. Otherwise it will
be just another day I need to entertain my kids. Sure 3 day weekends for
traveling would be great, but I already do that with PTOs.

I want 6 hour work days 5 times a week. Not 4 work days. And banks being
closed an extra day would just be annoying. (not that I go to a physical bank,
but just transfers and such).

------
Causality1
I would be happy just to switch to a five day 40 hour work week.

------
johnmarinelli
A few months ago, I requested a 32 hour work week at my job. I took the
appropriate paycut (I'm a single bachelor that doesn't spend much anyway).
Instead of a 4-day workweek, I do ~6.5 hours for 5 days. It's been great and I
couldn't recommend it more.

edit - I should add that I started the job at 40 hours/week, and after 1 year
of being there I asked for 32 hours/week.

------
stmfreak
I have been trying to work from home one day per week and wish we could
standardize on this. It would reduce traffic 20%. It saves everyone a round
trip commute and that is time that can be put to productive use. I also
appreciate having a solid day of few meetings.

Four day work week would be fine, but I suspect people would just cram more
meetings in and it may become less productive.

------
chemmail
I've been doing 4 day work weeks and its like i'm on vacation all the time. We
need this.

------
jowdones
"The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on".

"the caravan" == employers.

------
mycall
I would love to but a 10 hour day would increase my time stuck in traffic 50%,
so I would actually lose free time overall.

------
deevolution
How do I go about convincing my company to give me a 4 day work week? Will I
need to sacrifice part of my wage?

------
RandomInteger4
How would this affect service workers?

------
triplee
I've been saying this for years, so I'm glad I agree with the experts.

------
ppcelery
we are switching to a six-day working week, in china...

------
amelius
Good news, except we've justed started a trade war with China.

------
amiga_500
But then my rent would drop 20% and I'd just be better off.

------
wrong_variable
The idea is good in principal but its going to be gamed to death.

Some people derive satisfaction from their work !

Others don't.

Also will the pay be the same ? Call me a cynic but knowing business owners
they will never accept lower hours for same pay. They will spend all their
time figuring out how to game it.

All these solutions, studies seem like busy work for though leaders who have
nothing better to do.

The best solution is quite simple - Universal Basic Income.

It can't be gamed as easily and by definition it costs less and gives
everybody more freedom at the same time.

Normally I feel like rules that restrict freedom ( like you can ONLY work 40
hours ), you have to be skeptical.

~~~
perfunctory
The same logic could be applied back in the day when 40-hour week was
introduced. Yet somehow we managed. There is no reason we can't do again.

~~~
wrong_variable
I never said the introduction of 40-hour week was bad.

Its just more economically efficient to have UBI.

