Mexican Billionaire Carlos Slim Calls for Three-Day Workweek to Improve Quality of Life
Mexican billionaire tycoon, Carlos Slim, has called for the introduction of a three-day working week, offset by longer hours and a later retirement, as a way to improve people's quality of life and create a more productive labour force.
Slim made the comments when speaking to a business conference in Paraguay, suggesting that the workforce could be spread over a full week, with employees working up to 10 or 11 hours a day.
"With three work days a week, we would have more time to relax; for quality of life," the Financial Times reports Slim saying. (paywalled)
The business conference, Growing Together - States and Enterprises, was held in Asuncion and was attended by business and political leaders from across Latin America.
"Having four days [off] would be very important to generate new entertainment activities and other ways of being occupied," Slim said. He said current retirement ages come from a time of lower life expectancies, and should rise to 70 or 75.
Anybody want a 75 year old hauling away his trash?
Related Stories
A study has found that there is a correlation between someone making poor long term heath decisions and them making poor long term financial decisions.
Are poor physical and financial health driven by the same underlying psychological factors? We found that the decision to contribute to a 401(k) retirement plan predicted whether an individual acted to correct poor physical-health indicators revealed during an employer-sponsored health examination. Using this examination as a quasi-exogenous shock to employees' personal-health knowledge, we examined which employees were more likely to improve their health, controlling for differences in initial health, demographics, job type, and income. We found that existing retirement-contribution patterns and future health improvements were highly correlated. Employees who saved for the future by contributing to a 401(k) showed improvements in their abnormal blood-test results and health behaviors approximately 27% more often than noncontributors did. These findings are consistent with an underlying individual time-discounting trait that is both difficult to change and domain interdependent, and that predicts long-term individual behaviors in multiple dimensions.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JeanCroix on Wednesday July 23 2014, @06:04PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Wednesday July 23 2014, @06:15PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @10:32PM
But who will be working at these new entertainment activities to keep them going? Everybody's off work.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday July 23 2014, @06:36PM
To explain to non-Americans: Workers who are paid hourly (who are nonexempt)are paid at a rate of 1.5 times for every hour worked in excess of 40 hours, per week.
In California where I live, workers get additional benefits:
It's for that reason that hourly workers who are "promoted" to salaried positions often make less than they did before -- because the extra overtime pay they had before is lost, and they are paid a constant salary no matter how many hours they work. It's also for that reason that employers don't like having hourly employees linger longer than 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week (although is is often cheaper for employers who provide benefits to just pay few employees overtime and get their money's worth rather than lay somebody off later and have to pay out unemployment).
Carlos' idea is actually a pretty good one, especially to those with families or who have to endure a painful daily commute. Just as long as the pay remains the same, and this is not some underhanded excuse to screw people into an even lower standard of living -- the point of having that extra time off from an American's perspective would be not only an opportunity to hang out at home and raise family, but to stimulate the economy by spending those piles of cash I'd be making entertaining myself.
Too bad all that hourly overtime I've been making from 48-60 hour workweeks is going right into the bloated tuition of higher education.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 23 2014, @07:33PM
Actually, the real story about this is that millions of people are mis-classified as exempt, and many people who should be getting overtime pay under federal law are not because they don't realize that they're not supposed to be exempt. Just because you are salaried does not mean you are necessarily exempt, even though most employers will treat you that way if you let them get away with it (which most workers will, because if you make a fuss that's a quick way to lose your job).
There are also special FLSA rules for software developers [dol.gov] that make them exempt even when they otherwise wouldn't be. And you'll notice that if you make under the oddly specific amounts per week, you still aren't exempt from overtime pay. I'm sure some lobbyists from Microsoft, Google, Oracle, etc paid good money for those rules.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Wednesday July 23 2014, @06:44PM
yes, but these schemes are only approved when they benefit the employer, not the employee. This method is often used to stop giving "personal" days, by trading a week day that would otherwise be a personal day.
Nothing is EVER done for the employees benefit.
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Wednesday July 23 2014, @07:26PM
Well, that might be a bit extreme. "Executives are employees, too, my friend."
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Wednesday July 23 2014, @08:07PM
not so long as they are paid on a different scale than the lowest employee in the company.
Stock options do not exists for the vast majority of employees, and yet, they make up a significant fraction of "executive" pay.
It is a fact of life , that is what companies do. They legally have to make money, and the more effect you can have on that process, the more money you can earn for yourself...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23 2014, @08:35PM
Stock options[...]make up a significant fraction of "executive" pay
Those are "capital gains", which are taxed at a lower rate than wages/salary.
...and there are no taxes until they are sold.
If you are a wage earner, there is no way you can win this game.
The deck is stacked.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 23 2014, @11:18PM
By that definition, even a journeyman machine operator is not an employee simply because he's on a different pay scale than a flunky broom pusher.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday July 24 2014, @02:02AM
Can we PLEASE stop the "they legally have to be douchebags" meme that has been told as truth by extreme factions of certain parties, because its bullshit, mmkay? If it were true then any major shareholder could just scream at any company that hasn't moved to the cheapest shithole on the planet because "you aren't maximizing shareholder value, herpa derp". This of course isn't even counting the majority of businesses which are private and can exist to be or do anything the owners want, but even the public businesses only have to show they are doing what THEY, the board, consider is best for the company.
As for TFA? I'll get screams of racism but fuck it, none of this shit is gonna matter as long as corps can hire illegals by the truckload and pass the costs on to the taxpayer when they get hurt or sick. In my area you go into the ER and its NOTHING but illegals, most of whom have gotten hurt or worked until they get sick on job sites only to be kicked out at the ER for the next warm body. In less than 20 years construction as a career has been completely wiped out by an endless flood of easily abused illegals and any company that gets caught gets a slap on the wrist that is MUCH less than what they save by hiring illegals.
So scream all you want but Carlos can offer 10 hour weeks and ice cream for all but as long as you can buy illegals like cattle for pennies on the dollar it ain't gonna happen here. What you WILL get is increased crime, poverty, diseases from lack of proper nutrition and being packed like sardines into ghettos, because they can get Paco for a pittance compared what they have to pay Peter.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @02:56AM
yeah, capitalism, aint it grand?
what do you propose instead?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:29AM
> none of this shit is gonna matter as long as corps can hire illegals by the
> truckload and pass the costs on to the taxpayer when they get hurt or sick.
Just like legalization is the fix for the overwhelming majority of problems associated with drugs, legalization of migrant workers is the fix for that. Open borders means we can start to properly tax all of those workers in order to pay for the state resources they use.
Legalize them, don't criticize them.
Legalize them, yeah, yeah, and I will advertise them!
Keep on telling you, legalize them.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 23 2014, @10:34PM
I wonder if this has nothing to do with benefiting the employer or the employee, but rather trying to help the unemployed.
I suspect it is to get more people working. True, Mexican unemployment rate is pretty low, 4.8% in 2014, but it doesn't take into account the number that just don't work at all and aren't looking, because there is nothing to do.
In Mexico, the employment rate is defined as the percent of the economically active population are counted as employed or unemployed but seeking employment, but the labor force (actual number of people available for work) only reaches 58.45 percent of the population. In the US the labor force is typically around 76%, EU around 72% of population. Clearly, there is a significant number that have just given up finding work. (Allowing for larger family sizes, etc)
Splitting the jobs up among many workers makes many more (lower paying jobs), but might actually bring more people into the work force.
Just my guess.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday July 24 2014, @12:18AM
Back when I was a young'un, late 70's, paid hourly, working night shift, we were busting our humps to meet unexpected demand (first microproprocessor based doohickie in a hidebound industry). 10 hour days 4 days a week, 8 hours friday, overtime paid. When the surge ended we went to 9 hours M-Th, 8 hours friday, and every other friday off. This was great, we all loved it. Then the government found out about it and demanded we get paid overtime for the extra hour we worked M-Th. Needless to say, we went back to 8 hour days M-F, and nobody was happy about it.
Compare to today. Salaried, my normal week is 9 hours M-Th and 8 F. When a gnat farts in China those hours skyrocket fast.
The point? IMHO, longer hours for more days off is well worth it.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by emg on Wednesday July 23 2014, @06:18PM
"Anybody want a 75 year old hauling away his trash?"
Hauling away our trash consists of driving the truck alongside the bin, grabbing it with the mechanical arm, raising it with the arm until it dumps the contents into the back of the truck, then lowering it again and driving on to the next house. Not only could a 75-year-old do it easily, but it will probably be automated before long.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday July 23 2014, @06:39PM
I don't give a fuck how old they are, in real-life I can relate to old crusty cynical geezers a lot more than I can effeminate snot-nosed millennial punks.
I can respect somebody who works at age 75. I cannot respect a little punk who runs and cries to mommy and insists that the rest of the world bend to their whims.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday July 23 2014, @07:02PM
Dude, how in the world do you have any karma left!?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday July 23 2014, @11:37PM
I mod him up on occasion. Sometimes insight doesn't come in the most palatable flavours.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @03:02AM
yeah me too.
and also, fish dont swim in water thats too pure.
(Score: 2) by ragequit on Wednesday July 23 2014, @07:49PM
Something we agree on. However, if said geezer has a heart attack in his trash truck and mangles my Agave, I'll be a bit pissed. They take forever to grow.
The above views are fabricated for your reading pleasure.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:54AM
As a bonus, the operator still gets paid as if they have to physically get out of the truck and lift each bag into the back of the truck without falling into the crusher.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday July 24 2014, @02:00PM
In most of the country they do. Where my parents live they don't even have cans; they just chuck the bag on the curb. Only big cities have the automated arms and the special cans for them to pick up. And even then, not everyone uses those, so they do have to pick up the bags occasionally...
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday July 24 2014, @02:56PM
Umm, I currently live in an impoverished town of ~20,000 and they have "armed" trucks. So did the town of 7000 I briefly lived in a year ago. Either you are woefully misinformed, or you have a rather unique definition of "big city"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by bziman on Wednesday July 23 2014, @06:23PM
I would be just as productive with a twenty hour work week as I am with a forty hour work week. I'm lucky I work at a place that doesn't count every minute. After a certain amount of mental production, my brain needs to shut off for a while to re-charge. I also spend a lot of time waiting for other things to happen - for people to get back to me, for tests to run, etc, and I can only context switch so many times in a day. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of part-time software engineering gigs for people like me.
But I don't know if I will be able to work much past 40... no way I could work until my 70s! I have things to do, aside from making other people rich (which is what you're doing if you work for someone else).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23 2014, @07:19PM
Cutting an individual's work week to 12 hours would surely not result in many businesses switching to 3-day weeks. They would surely move to 6-day weeks with staggered staffs.
Then one of two things happens. In one case, those businesses maintain everyone's salary, double their number of employees, and hope that increased business from all of those 4-day weekenders pays for the new staff. In the other case, businesses complain about the costs of increased staff, and cut everyone's wage, to the point that people start spending those convenient 4-day weekends working a second 3-day workweek.
Calculating the probabilities of those outcomes is left as an exercise to the reader.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by strattitarius on Wednesday July 23 2014, @07:47PM
But at the same time I consider myself an extremely hard worker. If a full 8, or 12, hours are needed I have no issue with that. I put in 4-8 hours of physical work on my house each Sat and Sun.
Can you be hard working and still goof off for 2-3 hours a day? I want to think I am a hard worker, but maybe not.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lhsi on Wednesday July 23 2014, @06:23PM
I would have thought that once someone is old enough that they can't do physically demanding jobs that being a teacher or trainer (of something related to what they did as a job) would be a good move, what with decades of experience and all.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Wednesday July 23 2014, @06:53PM
That is the fundamental problem with all schemes that say "we can all work 20 hours a week, so there will be more jobs".
There will not, as a research scientist developing clinical cancer cure, cannot be replaced with someone working in Starbucks.
There is an astonishing range of employment in a modern western economy, the only jobs that are interchangeable by definition are the ones requiring equivalent skill - that's whats CVs are for... It isn't perfect system, but it does work.
The problem is always companies want to pay peanuts for THEIR profit...that's the mechanism of capitalism. The best system we know of so far...
Perhaps we as a society need to find a way that companies that grow large, cannot grow beyond %30 of the market. It is quite possible. the availability of employment is due to the centralisation of corporate power....
Just my $0.02.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23 2014, @07:43PM
companies want to pay peanuts
We (the working class) were TOO successful (in reproducing)--geometric growth is NOT sustainable.
Somewhere between 1968 and 1972, [thinkprogress.org] companies realized that the labor market was saturated (more working class people than jobs) and corporations did NOT have to compete for workers; they could use up "human resources" and cast them aside.
Note that worker productivity continued to increase; it was the wages that flattened out.
...then came Ronald Reagan (a former president of the Screen Actors Guild) who promptly let it be known that busting unions was OK (PATCO strike).
.
find a way that companies that grow large, cannot grow beyond %30 of the market
Even before we do that, let's stop bailing out FAILED corporations with taxpayer money.
In addition, reinstate tariffs to offset low-cost foreign labor--as we did back when the USA had a prosperous working class and the country was booming.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23 2014, @08:45PM
How many people do you work with who are roughly the same age as you?
Will it be a good idea for all of you to be in training or management roles when you're older?
Older workers help retain and pass on experience but three older workers do not pass on three times as much experience as one older worker.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday July 23 2014, @06:39PM
I wish I was a millionaire. That way I could pull stupid ideas out of my ass in front of a lot of people and they'd be too afraid to laugh at me. And I could even get newspapers publishing my shit ideas! What could possibly go wrong?
If anything, everybody could be working less hours and retiring earlier. The economy doesn't generate enough jobs for everyone. And it's only going to get worse, because automation is all the rage.
It's so fucking stupid. The lucky ones who can find a job are working more and more hours and taking more and more tasks. People can't get anything from coworkers, bosses, customers, suppliers, etc. because they're all overworked and overwhelmed. A reply to an email, if it ever comes, takes 2 weeks of nagging. Yet, there's more and more people unemployed. This can't end well.
Increasing the retirement age is even more stupid. When you reach 40, everybody starts looking at you like an old fart that needs to be sacked. If you lose your job over 35 you can't find any job any more. What will society do with millions of people too old to be hired but too young to retire? Gas them?
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23 2014, @06:48PM
I hate the people that are hanging on to their job while they are too sick to work. They are old and their bodies are shutting down, and/or they are the age for retirement, but they are selfish. My mother does this. She says she feels bored, etc. but ya know, take up basket weaving or something. Open up your job so someone that can work more than one week per month can take it and get the job done. Who knows, maybe you'll recover because you aren't so stressed out all day long. Why can't these people that are of the age to retire champion a cause and raise some money for orphans or something? Sorry to get off topic, but dammit, when I'm of the retiring age, I'm going to do it and love every second of it. IF I ever get to retire because the fucking age of retirement keeps getting bumped further away. I'm so pissed!
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 24 2014, @01:54AM
Sure, How much are you willing to pay for that to happen?
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday July 23 2014, @06:50PM
Right there with you.
Really, what we need is for some of the massive increases in productivity to be shared with the worker, but that's not going to happen without rising up, seizing the means of production, nothing to lose but our chains, etc etc. Per capita GDP has doubled over the last forty years while real median income has fallen. All the benefits of this increased productivity have accumulated at the top, and none of it has "trickled down." If there were social justice, we would absolutely be working 30 hours a week at higher pay. But alas, this is a capitalist society, so capital gets the gains, and labor gets more labor.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23 2014, @07:56PM
If there were social justice, we would absolutely be working 30 hours a week at higher pay
I already linked to a chart that shows we are ever more productive as workers, but the compensation flattened over 4 decades ago. [thinkprogress.org]
France, OTOH, recognized the truth of your position and their workers now have a 35-hour workweek with no pay cut.
...and to the GP: Meeellions aren't enough.
To be this whacko and be given this kind of attention, you have to have BILLIONS.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23 2014, @06:55PM
He's not just a millionaire, he's one of the three richest people in the world (I'm not sure where he stands this year).
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday July 23 2014, @07:02PM
My work just downsized and cut about 1/3 of the work force. Only took a few days to realize that there was far more work than workers. Ours was a budget constraint but people were still very surprised. It's taking forever to get anything done now. The VC thinks we have enough "product" and wants to cut spending until sales ramp up to consume the "product". Meanwhile, all the expected features that fed a full dev team are still on the table. I've been failing sprint after sprint : / The answer is certainly not to work more hours. Sometimes life just sucks for everyone.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23 2014, @08:13PM
My work just downsized and cut about 1/3 of the work force
In contrast:
In Spain the house-building industry is in the crapper.
As a result, people aren't buying as many appliances as they used to.
The worker-owned cooperative, Mondragon, had fewer orders for its appliance-producing arm.
Did they lay off workers? NOPE. Again, the workers are the owners.
What they did was shift everyone's schedule a bit so that there was work for everyone to do.
Everyone took a slight ding, but everyone is still working and still has a paycheck.
THAT is how a proper operation (a Marxian operation) does things.
The problem with your workplace is that it is Capitalist.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday July 23 2014, @08:47PM
The effect is about the same. Those employees who are worth the money will be poached by another company who is willing to pay the fair price. I would agree with your solution in a world of no competition though. In your case it is an entire industry that is down, where would employees go? In mine it is very localized to just my company. We burned through a few mil of the VC money and now they want to stabilize and actually balance the budget. We technically could have been "in the black" the whole time. Then nobody would have to be fired. If i lost 20% of my pay here then i would just get a different job. Plenty of jobs where i live but it is chaotic.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @01:15AM
employees who are worth the money will be poached by another company
First, you need to switch off any lamestream media you are consuming.
Any time you spend paying attention to what is on TeeVee or AM radio or is in ad-driven corporate print media is wasted time: All you will get there is propaganda that has been filtered to contain only pro-corporate, pro-regime viewpoints.
Next, it appears you need to have your eyes and ears checked.
In their current state, they don't appear to be perceiving the world as it actually is for the 99 Percent.
Finally, you need to get out among the 99 Percent.
It appears you are noshing at places that cater to people who still have decent jobs and decent paychecks.
Try a down-scale diner for a change and experience a little reality.
Companies aren't hiring because PEOPLE AREN'T BUYING; it's a vicious circle.
When we had a president who had economic advisors who *weren't* from the (Neoliberal) Chicago School of Economics, the gov't actually helped *solve* the unemployment problem:
FDR put 15 million Americans on the public payroll when the Capitalists weren't hiring and he got the country back on its feet because people had money in their pockets to go out and BUY stuff.
Obama (like Bush before him) is a Crony Capitalist cheerleader (a whore for the corporations), so he will never do anything that will actually get the country back up off the canvas.
Now, in the 2012 election, Green Party candidate Jill Stein ran on a New Green Deal platform.
Lamestream media ignored her and the USA lost its only real chance for a recovery for the working class.
The misery index in the USA is very high.
It's rare when there is an opening that is not the result of someone dying or getting fired.
Job creation isn't even keeping up with population growth.
23 percent of people can't get a fulltime job and the number is growing.
The govt's unemployment numbers are a complete sham:
Since Clinton, people who are so discouraged that they have just given up looking for jobs (that they have discovered are non-existent) AREN'T COUNTED as unemployed.
As such, not only does the gov't give an unemployment number that is incorrect, they don't even get the trend right.
There is a glut of labor and a dearth of openings; it's a 1 Percenter's dream.
To get work, people are having to bid down their wages and benefits.
Those who are the most desperate are the ones who are getting hired.
THAT is what most people are experiencing in the job market.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday July 24 2014, @03:02AM
Wasn't expecting all that. To each their own : ) I'm actually okay with organized social structure. But not as the core of society. For the record though, i don't have tv (though i do have A tv) and radio blows compared to pandora. I don't have facebook. I have zero formal education and am entirely self taught. Mom signed a waiver allowing me to join the US Army at 17. I served 5.5 years as a Scout (stop loss). Easily the best and worst times of my life. So please don't rub my face in my happiness like i'm a 1% snob. I am very passionate about programming. It's not only my job but my hobby (though in different languages).
My area does have jobs though. I think it's mostly because outsiders dismiss it out of hand as they fly over : ) I have no doubt that people from all over the nation see job openings here. But the salary is 20-50k less than they are use to making. Doesn't matter. You can rent a three bedroom house for 800-1000$ depending on neighborhood and the trimmings. That would only get you a shoebox with a toilet in some places : /
I think there is a lot of lying about unemployment on all sides. The biggest problem, imo, is that companies do not like green people. They do not want to train new people or retrain old people on new systems. They'd rather throw up their hands and say nobody is qualified and outsource the whole project (which robs the local area of money).
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 23 2014, @11:47PM
I suspect those over 35-year olds will find ways to employ their talents and anger in directions that the millionaires won't like. At all.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday July 23 2014, @06:53PM
I work 4x10 hour days as part of a deal with my employer. Four day work weeks are awesome. I use my 5th day for freelance/contract work or take the day to myself. Since I make my hours for fridays I get to sleep better and have more energy on a friday night. Then I am raring to go on saturday and cool off on sunday with house work and hobbies.
BUT: A 10 hour work day is is much more draining. I am less productive during work day nights when I get home. From the time I get up, plus commute, plus 10 hours working, plus 45 min lunch, I am working for nearly 14 hours. I have only a few hours to myself when I get home. Daily chores including preparing food, taking care of pets and cleaning eat most of that up. So it can be a mixed bag.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23 2014, @07:32PM
This is exactly the flaw in the "3-day workweek" scheme. You're working a 4-day week for one employer, and spending the extra day working another job. A 7-day calendar week conveniently holds two complete 3-day work weeks. So you get Job #1 cramming 40 hours into 3x13 hour days, leaving Jose free to spend the next three days working 13-hour shifts at Job #2. Bonus points if Jobs #1 and #2 are with the same employer.
(Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Wednesday July 23 2014, @06:54PM
Mr. Slim is a very intelligent and powerful man. Anyone at his level making statements should be careful about what they say. Because the rest of the world will try to interpret the secondary gains he has in saying what he does.
That said, he's making a bad assumption about human nature.
Ask yourself. If you could work half as hard until you're 70ish, or work as hard as you are now and save hard and retire at 60ish, which would you choose?
I see it at the hospital where I work. Nurses are clamoring for overtime slots. Their base pay is ~$50K but the extra days added up over a year can add $10-20k on top of that. Easy.
Telling them to work less and spend more... Who benefits but the person who will sell them the things they want to buy? Of course we understand that that more people will be employed because they have to make the extra stuff.
Maybe this flies in Europe, but in the U.S. people will work the extra hours. (And burn the money on the weekends and their 2 weeks off a year.)
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:11AM
Yet in the economy today, many people are unlikely to be able to retire until their '70s anyway.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by WillAdams on Wednesday July 23 2014, @06:58PM
This sort of idea assumes that people aren't constrained by schedules for taking care of children.
Will schools adapt the same schedule?
Moreover there's basic logistics:
- half the workforce is MWF
- half is WTF
- will there be enough parking or desks or workstations available on Wednesdays?
Will people have sufficiently increased efficiency to make up for the almost 20% of work hours lost? If not see the last bullet item above.
I'd rather see 32 hours declared as the new full-time standard w/ companies required to either pay overtime or reduce hours (but maintain current levels of pay) and making a 4-day workweek standard (and requiring further compensation for employees working 5 shorter days).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23 2014, @07:31PM
Does no one work on Tuesdays in your world? Why double up on Wednesday and Friday?
Have blue shift work MTW, and gold shift work RFS, with no one working on Sunday. Parking problem solved. They can hot-bunk the desks. Sucks if you end up sharing a desk with someone who likes filling it with crap and then spilling coffee all over it.
Thomas More proposed in the Utopia that everyone work, eliminating the leisure classes like the nobility and priesthood; if everyone worked equally, they'd only have to work three or four hours a day by his calculations. It's pretty much the same result (less working time, more leisure for all) but via a different path.
In the end, something like reduced hours will be necessary. Automation has cut back on the amount of work that needs to be done in everything from manufacturing, where that was always an expectation, to law and finance. In the end, the machines will end up forcing a reduction in employment, and the "surplus labor" needs something to do to keep from becoming idle hands and the devil's workshop, or welfare dependencies, depending on your point of view.
(Score: 2) by WillAdams on Thursday July 24 2014, @02:03PM
Naturally, that first should've been MTW.
Agree society is failing to deal w/ the benison of automation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23 2014, @08:20PM
MWF[...]WTF
will there be enough parking or desks or workstations available on Wednesdays?
I'm guessing you never worked retail.
There a lot of people who work Saturdays.
It's not a holy day (unless you're Jewish).
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by caffeinated bacon on Thursday July 24 2014, @01:32AM
I'm guessing you never went outside on a Sunday.
When you go out to spend your money, surely someone is there to take it?
Or does your country shut down 1 day a week?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:14AM
Worker productivity has more than doubled in the past few decades. Certainly a drop off of 20% should be sustainable (and really, a cut of 50% would be fair and sustainable).
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Wednesday July 23 2014, @07:41PM
This scheme makes no sense to me, and seems poorly thought out.
If you work three days a week, do you get three days' pay? Would an employer pay you for five days if you worked three? If you get paid less, how do you make ends meet? This reminds me of the Google guy who blurted out people should share jobs and make half as much money - how do complete idiots become billionaires, anyway?
A few young people may be able to routinely work back-to-back-to-back 10-11 hour days, but not many and the rest of us can't. You would have to be very healthy and have a lot of stamina. What do people who can't work 10-11hr days do?
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23 2014, @08:51PM
You are stepping dangerously close to the hidden agenda here. As stated, the desire is to pay people the same but only require them to work for 3 days. Any semi-intelligent simian knows that's just not going to happen...unless benefits are dropped, which is basically a pay-cut. Here's what these sneaky bastards are really trying to do:
1. end full-time 'with benefits' employment
2. stimulate the economy
How does this stimulate the economy? The majority of the human race, if not engaged in making money, will spend money...on those 2 extra days they have off. This creates more business and allows companies to hire more part-time people. Sounds kinda like minimum wage work, doesn't it? What a coincidence that billionaires are also in favor of raising minimum wage.
Honestly, I don't like these changes but I'm afraid they may be necessary and more human than letting millions of people loose their jobs, become homeless, and starve to death. If you could see into a crystal ball and see that we were heading for this kind of mass-destitution, how would you prevent it? By implementing these changes. How would you sell these changes to the public? You sure wouldn't say 'we're going to hell in handbasket' if we don't do things this way. No, use these sort of marketing techniques. 'I'm for the people! People shouldn't have to work more than 3 days a week?' You would keep dropping these ideas on the public in seamingly isolated and unrelated PR until the people are chanting along with you.
(Score: 1) by dcollins on Wednesday July 23 2014, @09:33PM
"how do complete idiots become billionaires, anyway?"
Hint: They only work three days a week.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by oldmac31310 on Wednesday July 23 2014, @08:53PM
I agree with most of the comments here. I would be happy to have that kind of work schedule. I think it would definitely improve my quality of life - BUT - how could such a huge change be implemented across all areas of employment?
My personal experience: I worked 8 years at a company that went out of business. Two weeks severance pay and no savings to fall back on. 5 months unemployed. Finally got a job in a related field, but quite different to what I had been doing.
In a job market like that, how could this guys pipe dream be put into operation?
(Score: 2) by kaganar on Wednesday July 23 2014, @09:07PM
This sounds like the suggestion of someone who can afford to be ideal.
I'm fairly likely to be diagnosed with cancer or a neurological disease, find out one of my family members is, have my house catch on fire, have all my belongings or my identity stolen, find out my car's transmission was engineered by the lowest bidder, discover my wife is pregnant, be rendered unable to work by a car accident, or one of a million other "expensive" things for the middle-class. I want more money NOW. And if I don't need it NOW, I will invest it for later when bad shit inevitably happens. Honestly, I can't afford to wait. Until I'm certain I can cover my own interests for life, it's just too risky.
And I'm solidly middle class. I can only imagine those less financially fortunate than I are screwed in any one of these events, and that's with their 40 hour/week job with no retirement plan.
Do I think things could be better? Sure. But this alone isn't it -- too many sources of risk need to be patched before this would be acceptable.
(Score: 2) by prospectacle on Thursday July 24 2014, @01:21AM
For years I assumed the 5 day week was mandatory and my boss wouldn't accept any less. But a few months ago I asked to work four days and just take a 20% pay cut. There was no hint of an objection. My (pre-cut) pay was about the national average so I'm not rich, but I can eat and pay rent.
Anyway, 3 day weekends are great. They're worth far more than I'm paying for them:
- You've got time for some of those projects you wish you had time for.
- You can rest or tidy up the house on friday and still have a whole two day weekend remaining.
- You're not as tired at the end of the week anyway as it wasn't as long.
- It's always closer, on average, until the next weekend. This makes work days easier to put up with.
- After a few weeks, you start looking forward to going back to work (weird, right?)
So now I'm wondering why I ever thought the five day week was mandatory. If you think your employer would go for it, and you can afford it, I recommend it highly. If more people do this maybe it will become the new standard.
If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic