Discussion (3)
Grab this poll for your site
Votes cast anywhere this poll is embedded count toward the same live total.
Sponsored
More in Business & Money
- When buying a home, is it smarter to pay all cash if you can, or take a mortgage and invest the difference? · 1 votes
- Should the sales-tax-included price be shown on U.S. store shelves, so the sticker matches what you actually pay at checkout? · 1 votes
- When tipping at a restaurant, do you calculate it on the pre-tax amount or the total after tax? · 1 votes
- Would you rather retire early with a smaller income or work longer for a bigger one? · 1 votes
The primary advantage is to enable more 'weekend' activities, which can also help boost the economy. Also it discourages the excessive mandatory and unpaid overtime too many companies pressure their workers to provide. Studies have shown that work over 40 hours per week results in actually less overall productivity (due no doubt to increased mistakes, burnout, lower motivation...).
At some point it'd be great if we could get to four 8-hour days. Those same studies suggest that a modest reduction in work hours don't proportionately decrease total productivity. There's a tendency, I think, to fill the time we're provided, and with less time, we're often more focused and productive.
I do agree. the study I heard about found that 36 hours per week was the optimal number for maximum results. Unfortunately management is usually too stupid to grasp these concepts. First, they are selected either from people who never worked the level of job where hard work, intelligence and attention to detail mattered, or they did do that job, but were not very good at it, which is why they were removed from that position, because a truly competent person is generally too valuable to be wasted. Read "The Peter Principle".