1. 2
  1.  

  2. 10

    Shorter workweek is a total win-win situation in most workplaces. The employees will be more efficient and happier and the companies will end up paying less for it.

    1. 3

      I agree. I work four days and I honestly think I do more effective work in those four than I do in 5. The day off also works great against burnout.

      1. 1

        I did the same for a while. I believe this was one of my more productive (per hour) periods. Also everything outside of work got a lot better; health, relationships, hobbies. Which naturally led to more happiness.

        1.  

          for a while

          So why did you stop?

          1.  

            I changed teams (which meant re-locating) and the new one insisted on 100%. I’ve since switched company, might go for it again if I have the opportunity.

    2. 6

      I’m trolling, but how is this on-topic for lobsters? As soon as we’re talking about capitalism, and how people work best without a tightly coupled tech context that’s politics, social issues, etc. Either we care about people or we don’t, let’s make our mind up?

      1. 3

        You’re not trolling. This isn’t on-topic for lobsters.

        1. 1

          It’d possibly be on topic if the story drilled down on that software engineering company’s study and how the work week change affected their software output; we seem to be allowed to talk about Agile, coding standards, all kinds of peripheral things that are meant to improve code quality and output (or other technical outcomes). But yeah, as is, it’s too broad and unfocused.

          Maybe a blog post that references this could add the extra emphasis on something technical that is required?

        2. 2

          Researchers have shown that working long hours can be detrimental to our physical and mental well-being.

          And fire burns and water is wet, thank you.

          Every “happiness at work” bullshit just about productivity gains and not about happiness in life at all. This topic only finds an echo in the privileged side of the society, but the rest of the working class knows it is just a doomed way to make us forget how hard it is every day.

          Go talk to your cashier, your mason, your housekeeper about happiness at work.

          1. 3

            visualcapitalist.com

            no

            1. 7

              Care to explain what the issue is?

              1. 8

                I had the same reaction. All isms are lossy and are usually a suboptimal place to frame any discussion around. It’s hard to have conversations based on them due to their lack of specificity. But capitalism is a particularly loaded term today. To me it connotes bad-faith justifications for increasing wealth gaps. It’s like eugenics - there are things that people still study which are of value to medicine etc… but the term is associated with the results of those who justified their actions through it. I probably would be turned off by a url like visualeugenics.com. Of course they are different and they mean different things to different people.

                I got turned off of ideas associated with capitalism when I was an economics student in university and we learned about externalities where it becomes obvious that markets do not capture cost. To me, people who call themselves capitalists are people who are ignorant of this fundamental concept in economics. (Adam Smith, whose book Wealth of Nations is often name-dropped constantly by self-described capitalists, actually had his other book Theory of Moral Sentiments put on his gravestone as the accomplishment he was proud of most. Theory of Moral Sentiments is basically all about how markets don’t work if left to run on their own) But because capitalism is an ism, it will mean different things to different people, and it’s unlikely to result in a productive conversation in many cases.

                1. 1

                  So you believe you can escape ideology by not employing words that end in “-ism”? That’s very ideological of you. That said, visualcapitalist is propaganda from the rich. You assume they are there to have a ’productive conversation”, when they actually get paid to push a narrative onto people.

                  1.  

                    It’s not clear to me how that follows. I think it’s a mistake to ignore ideology. I am in favor of specific language where possible, as I believe we can have better conversations when we are able to be precise. Maybe if I were more precise in my above comment, you would have been less likely to have interpreted it as wanting to escape ideology. More precision -> better conversations.

                  2. 1

                    Thank you for elaborating.

              2. 1
                • The graph clearly shows a correlation.
                • I personally am happier by working less (currently, working 4 days per week, by choice)
                • Nevertheless, I highly doubt this proves anything. There could be some confounding factor, such as wealth per capita: how about people are happier because they’re wealthier, and they work less because they can afford to (I don’t actually know)?

                That said, I do believe reducing the work week, at least in most OCDE countries, would result in better overall happiness… except for much of the ruling class. See, reducing the work week mechanically makes labour scarcer. Which will increase demand, lower unemployment, which is one of the biggest leverage employers can use to lower salaries or worsen working conditions. Scarcer labour could reverse this tendency, turn the job market into an employee’s market, and thus raise salaries and/or spur better working conditions.

                Such improvements could contribute to happiness just as much as working less might.

                1. 1

                  I’d much rather work fewer but longer days. I feel it would be more efficient since I need a few hours to get back in business every day.

                  1. 1

                    I agree with you but I don’t think the math still needs to work out to 40hrs (not sure if you are holding that constant). I would love three 12hrs instead, for instance. Then I can view that time more of a “performance” where you prepare and you go do your three days. 40hrs spread over 5 days is just so wasteful of employees time IMO