SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Perhaps not a surprise. But working less, for the same pay, makes workers feel better and more relaxed.
we study how an organization-wide 4-day workweek intervention—with no reduction in pay—affects workers' well-being.
These are the findings from new peer-reviewed research published in Nature Human Behaviour, where researchers monitored the effects of a four-day work week for six months.
About 2,896 employees across 141 organisations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, Ireland and the United Kingdom took part.
They answered surveys before and after the trial. Their answers were then compared with 285 employees from 12 companies who worked a normal five-day week.
shows improvements in burnout, job satisfaction, mental health and physical health—a pattern not observed in 12 control companies.
Three key factors mediate the relationship: improved self-reported work ability, reduced sleep problems and decreased fatigue. The results indicate that income-preserving 4-day workweeks are an effective organizational intervention for enhancing workers' well-being.
[...] "We know when people are really stressed and burnt out and not sleeping well, productivity doesn't just continue upwards," Dr Sander said.
Who wouldn't want to work one day less per week for the same pay ...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-22/four-day-work-week-health-burnout/105555392
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-025-02259-6
(Score: 5, Funny) by Mojibake Tengu on Saturday July 26 2025, @02:12PM (7 children)
That does not seem right. Productivity in the West is already dwindling. In global scale, this is obviously a competitive downgrade.
I tell you what: instead of 20% work time reduction, what about keeping it as it is and put 20% of productive population in military, to secure more resources cheaply?
The kinder you are, the easier it is for wicked people to morally coerce you.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Ox0000 on Saturday July 26 2025, @02:50PM (2 children)
Did you just suggest acquiring resources Manu Militari? Something like a "Lebensraum" thing maybe: because "we need them and are therefore justified in just taking them from whoever holds them right now"?
This somehow rings familiar but I can't quite place it in time or space.......
(Score: 5, Informative) by mrpg on Saturday July 26 2025, @03:41PM (1 child)
Here are historical examples of "manu militari" resource acquisition justified by claiming necessity:
**Colonial Era Examples:**
- **British in India**: Justified controlling spice trade and textile production as "necessary for empire"
- **European scramble for Africa**: Claimed need for raw materials, markets, and "civilizing mission"
- **Spanish conquistadors**: Justified seizing Aztec/Inca gold as divine right and economic necessity
**Modern Examples:**
- **Japan in WWII**: "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" - claimed need for oil and raw materials justified invading Southeast Asia
- **Soviet Union in Eastern Europe**: Claimed security needs justified occupying buffer states and extracting resources
- **Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (1990)**: Saddam claimed economic necessity and historical rights to Kuwaiti oil
**Cold War Resource Wars:**
- **US interventions in Latin America**: Justified by "protecting American business interests" (United Fruit Company in Guatemala, etc.)
- **Soviet influence in Africa**: Claimed ideological necessity to secure mineral resources
**Contemporary Concerns:**
- **China's South China Sea claims**: Justified by "historical rights" and resource needs
- **Russia's actions in Ukraine**: Partly framed around energy resources and agricultural land
- **Water conflicts**: Various nations claiming "vital national interests" over river systems
**The Pattern:**
Each case follows the same logic: "We need these resources for our survival/prosperity/security, therefore we're justified in taking them." The justification always frames it as defensive or necessary rather than aggressive expansion.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2025, @05:54PM
So, basically, we are just dogs marking our territory. Our big brains only exist to rationalize it
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Saturday July 26 2025, @04:29PM (3 children)
> put 20% of productive population in military, to secure more resources cheaply?
If you haven't noticed, the military seems to be one of the least productive segments of the economy overall. Not only do they do very little constructive, but they do it at tremendous expense when they do.
The only thing the military is good for is doing things that "polite society" isn't allowed to, like murder.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2025, @04:46PM
If you think about it, the military, and everyone in it, is a tool - in all meanings of the word - to be wielded or deployed by the government of the day in whatever capacity it pleases. People who join the military literally and explicitly declare "I will obey any and all order regardless of its morality, without question(*), I will not think for myself and obey like an automaton".
I do not understand why the military or its members are so revered in the USA.
(*) And don't give me the crap about "you are told to disobey illegal orders", the side that wins makes everything they did 'legal' anyway.
(Score: 3, Touché) by gawdonblue on Saturday July 26 2025, @11:26PM (1 child)
Using the military for anything other than (small "d") defence is wrong, but empires will always justify its use otherwise by claiming that it was necessary for some unjustifiable reason (these days it's usually false claims about WMDs).
But to say that the military does very little that is constructive except at tremendous expense seems short-sighted. Space travel, the internet and GPS were all military programmes that benefit many of us every day.
Two of those (space travel/GPS) were both incredibly expensive but the costs have come down over time and they are now usable by the vast majority of countries and individuals.
Rolling out the internet has possibly cost more than the total spent in space but the costs were born by civilian entities and the military programme that developed it was not that expensive, and we're all here using it now.
(Never thought that I'd ever defend the military. Maybe 1960s military programmes weren't as bad as current ones.)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday July 26 2025, @11:34PM
>Space travel, the internet and GPS were all military programmes that benefit many of us every day.
I prefer the NASA approach: obvious military but with a figleaf of "in peace, for all mankind."
>the military programme that developed it was not that expensive, and we're all here using it now.
DARPA is a strange bird, not always useless, rarely as beneficial as they seem to be aiming for.
>Maybe 1960s military programmes weren't as bad as current ones.
Are you referring to Vietnam, or the end of the Korean adventure?
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]