Call me old fashioned but I still think that a true living wage, more employee ownership, safe working conditions, a decent benefit package, and paid sick leave would make the 5-day work week more beneficial (to say healthier) than jamming 5 into 4. I can also see that service workers would be the most vulnerable. With less days they'd get to juggle even more of their lives - a second job, family, childcare, caregiving of their elders, etc. The jury is still out in my mind and it's a very small jury so far.
Barbara, I first saw your comment on Substack's Notes platform yesterday and wrote a lengthy reply there, thinking it would show up here, too. But, nah. (Now I have the better part of the Substack development team working on this idiosyncrasy/bug.)
I wrote too long there, so here I'll just offer my thanks or sharing your perspective, which I generally agree with, of course, and concur that the jury is still out.
I read the 4 Day work week book the New Zealand guy wrote a bit ago, and the whole thing read like a big PR piece; this is really helpful context on the research.
I'm always suspicious of any hints of "one true solution!", and in this case, feels like an intervention with great intention, that because it's not addressing deeper systems level issues, often magnifies them.
Kate, I wrote that months ago (fyi, at the time I think my 'stack was targeting more of an HR-maverick crowd) and, as I've implied to you elsewhere, the response I've received has largely felt alienating to me. You've made me feel heard, and I'm so appreciative.
I haven't read the New Zealand guy's book. But, man, if I were a full-time investigative reporter I'd be eager to look into how somewhat in a position like that manages to execute such a powerful, worldwide PR campaign (e.g. where's the funding source?). I heard yet another uninspired story about it just a couple of hours ago on NPR.
Thanks again for your encouraging comment and for taking the time to read the post.
Great essay Bob! What do we think about two retirement age tracks: one for blue collar and one for white collar? And first responders--appropriately--have younger retirement ages to start their pensions, so not a totally unheard of idea....
Sounds like you're referring to the NY Times article about ideal retirement age for your health, @Mmerikani. I like the fact that you're thinking outside of the box (pardon the cliché).
The Times never makes clear how what it calls retirement age actually affects when people retire. It's not like we have forced retirement (in most industries) or a national pension that folks can actually live off of.
I think there'd be many complicating factors about 2 retirement tracks:
It's not always clear what's a white-collar and what's a blue-collar job (where, for example, would call center reps fit in?). And I'd want to know how many people crossover, or shift back and forth, between the two during the course of their working lives.
Either way, a younger retirement age for a lower-wage worker would, if I'm not mistaken, mean greater government payouts to those who earned less across their lifetime. To me, that makes sense (in the same way that universal basic income *might* make sense), but I can't imagine that the US — based on our "values" around work and safety nets — would even consider the idea in the foreseeable future, as illustrated by the acceptance of Work Requirements in the recent debt ceiling bill. A lot of people believe that we should work until we die and/or that only wealthy people deserve to ever experience freedom from work.
But I'm going to give your idea more thought, for sure. Thanks for sharing it.
Interesting points made that I had never considered! I like the audio you’ve made available. Is it ironic that I enjoy listening to these during work?
Thanks, Shilo.
I'm glad you like the audio. Listening at work makes total sense to me. :)
Call me old fashioned but I still think that a true living wage, more employee ownership, safe working conditions, a decent benefit package, and paid sick leave would make the 5-day work week more beneficial (to say healthier) than jamming 5 into 4. I can also see that service workers would be the most vulnerable. With less days they'd get to juggle even more of their lives - a second job, family, childcare, caregiving of their elders, etc. The jury is still out in my mind and it's a very small jury so far.
Barbara, I first saw your comment on Substack's Notes platform yesterday and wrote a lengthy reply there, thinking it would show up here, too. But, nah. (Now I have the better part of the Substack development team working on this idiosyncrasy/bug.)
I wrote too long there, so here I'll just offer my thanks or sharing your perspective, which I generally agree with, of course, and concur that the jury is still out.
I read the 4 Day work week book the New Zealand guy wrote a bit ago, and the whole thing read like a big PR piece; this is really helpful context on the research.
I'm always suspicious of any hints of "one true solution!", and in this case, feels like an intervention with great intention, that because it's not addressing deeper systems level issues, often magnifies them.
Thanks for pointing me here Bob!
Kate, I wrote that months ago (fyi, at the time I think my 'stack was targeting more of an HR-maverick crowd) and, as I've implied to you elsewhere, the response I've received has largely felt alienating to me. You've made me feel heard, and I'm so appreciative.
I haven't read the New Zealand guy's book. But, man, if I were a full-time investigative reporter I'd be eager to look into how somewhat in a position like that manages to execute such a powerful, worldwide PR campaign (e.g. where's the funding source?). I heard yet another uninspired story about it just a couple of hours ago on NPR.
Thanks again for your encouraging comment and for taking the time to read the post.
Great essay Bob! What do we think about two retirement age tracks: one for blue collar and one for white collar? And first responders--appropriately--have younger retirement ages to start their pensions, so not a totally unheard of idea....
Sounds like you're referring to the NY Times article about ideal retirement age for your health, @Mmerikani. I like the fact that you're thinking outside of the box (pardon the cliché).
The Times never makes clear how what it calls retirement age actually affects when people retire. It's not like we have forced retirement (in most industries) or a national pension that folks can actually live off of.
I think there'd be many complicating factors about 2 retirement tracks:
It's not always clear what's a white-collar and what's a blue-collar job (where, for example, would call center reps fit in?). And I'd want to know how many people crossover, or shift back and forth, between the two during the course of their working lives.
Either way, a younger retirement age for a lower-wage worker would, if I'm not mistaken, mean greater government payouts to those who earned less across their lifetime. To me, that makes sense (in the same way that universal basic income *might* make sense), but I can't imagine that the US — based on our "values" around work and safety nets — would even consider the idea in the foreseeable future, as illustrated by the acceptance of Work Requirements in the recent debt ceiling bill. A lot of people believe that we should work until we die and/or that only wealthy people deserve to ever experience freedom from work.
But I'm going to give your idea more thought, for sure. Thanks for sharing it.