Could AI Bring Us Four-Day Workweeks? (yahoo.com) 94
"While a growing number of U.S. employers are mandating workers return to the office five days a week," reports the Washington Post, "some companies say AI is saving them enough time to launch or sustain a four-day workweek.
"More companies may move toward a shortened workweek, several executives and researchers predict, as workers, especially those in younger generations, continue to push for better work-life balance." And "several companies — especially those with a largely remote workforce — have adjusted their work rhythm after delegating many tasks to AI..." AI "has such a potential to have so much labor savings, you'll see firms shift to a four-day week in an evolutionary way," said Juliet Schor, an economist and sociologist at Boston College who has studied the subject. "There's enough social consensus that people are exhausted and stressed...." Small and medium businesses often adopt shortened workweeks to compete with big salaries for new hires and retention, Schor said. That's how Peak PEO, a London-based service that helps companies expand globally with teams in different locations, thought about its strategy... CEO Alex Voakes said that job openings that used to get two applications jumped to 350 after the change.
"Some of the world's most influential business leaders have publicly suggested the shift may be inevitable," adds Fortune: Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has said advancing technology could eventually push the workweek down to just three-and-a-half days. Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates has gone further, openly questioning whether a two-day workweek could be the future. Elon Musk has taken the idea to its logical extreme, positing that the need to work altogether could cease... Tech innovation could "probably" lead to a transition toward four-day workweeks, [Nvidia CEO Jensen] Huang said on Fox Business in August...
"More companies may move toward a shortened workweek, several executives and researchers predict, as workers, especially those in younger generations, continue to push for better work-life balance." And "several companies — especially those with a largely remote workforce — have adjusted their work rhythm after delegating many tasks to AI..." AI "has such a potential to have so much labor savings, you'll see firms shift to a four-day week in an evolutionary way," said Juliet Schor, an economist and sociologist at Boston College who has studied the subject. "There's enough social consensus that people are exhausted and stressed...." Small and medium businesses often adopt shortened workweeks to compete with big salaries for new hires and retention, Schor said. That's how Peak PEO, a London-based service that helps companies expand globally with teams in different locations, thought about its strategy... CEO Alex Voakes said that job openings that used to get two applications jumped to 350 after the change.
"Some of the world's most influential business leaders have publicly suggested the shift may be inevitable," adds Fortune: Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has said advancing technology could eventually push the workweek down to just three-and-a-half days. Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates has gone further, openly questioning whether a two-day workweek could be the future. Elon Musk has taken the idea to its logical extreme, positing that the need to work altogether could cease... Tech innovation could "probably" lead to a transition toward four-day workweeks, [Nvidia CEO Jensen] Huang said on Fox Business in August...
Sure, we'll get 4 day work weeks (Score:5, Insightful)
and 4 day pay days
Re: Sure, we'll get 4 day work weeks (Score:2)
My girlfriend just got put on a 4-day week with her same salary.
Re: Sure, we'll get 4 day work weeks (Score:2)
Re: Sure, we'll get 4 day work weeks (Score:2)
Re: Sure, we'll get 4 day work weeks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It actually yields the same performance, but less sick days, less employee fluctuation and has other benefits. With some exceptions, 5 day weeks are simply stupid toady. There are tons of people stuck in the past that are blind to actual reality though and quite a bit or research.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The point about 4 day work weeks is, that people get more productive. If one isn't stressed out, one delivers better work. This doesn't work out on tight schedules for the company, but with AI it might.
Re: Sure, we'll get 4 day work weeks (Score:2)
it's not about "better work".
it's about equilibrium between production and consumption.
https://www.scry.llc/2025/01/2... [scry.llc]
Re: (Score:2)
They also make fewer mistakes, are less sick and are more likely to stay in their job. In the majority of cases, total productivity for 4 days per week is basically the same as 5 days per week and cost is lower. The "work heroes" just cannot deal with that.
Re: (Score:2)
The point about 4 day work weeks is, that people get more productive. If one isn't stressed out, one delivers better work.
if that works for you, great. It doesn't match my experience. I am more stressed knowing I have to close the same number of Jiras in four days instead of five.
Re: Sure, we'll get 4 day work weeks (Score:4, Interesting)
the difference will come largely out of real estate prices.
https://www.scry.llc/2025/12/1... [scry.llc]
"The "K-shaped economy" is a hot topic now. Check my workhour graph above from 1873 to 1897 when the job market bifurcated into "new, high income jobs" and "existing, low wage" jobs. That's a variation of the same economic pattern as this "K" curve.
That period was known as The Gilded Age aka The Robber Baron Era and I mention it briefly as my model for today's era in Cost Of Information:"
there's a graph of history of the US workweek from 1850 to 1940.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that. There are two recent articles in the WSJ: (1) rise of family "companies", (2) private stock issues before the main issue on the exchanges. The former means that people with a lot of money set up their own family "company" to manage it. So far, the rich family companies control about $6.9 Trillion, and that's expected to reach $9+ Trillion by 2030. The latter means that companies are issuing the opportunity to buy stocks by invitation only to "select" investors. You might call them insi
Re: (Score:3)
If our culture experiences any shift involving a lowering of working hours without a lowering of salaries, AI will have nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing at all, even if the promises of enhanced worker productivity are true.
The one and only thing that would result in fewer working hours would be the application of significant political and cultural pressure on the part of the workers. All AI will do, assuming productivity gains are actually realized, is allow employers to reduce staff, since they
Re: (Score:2)
and 4 day pay days
We've been over this in /. a zillion times.
My priors: I firmly believe wages more or less track productivity. I know not everyone believes that.
If I and the economists I read are right:
1. If four day work weeks are so great, why do so few companies use them?
2. If my productivity is boosted by 25%, I'd rather keep working five days and get a pay raise, thank you.
3. Riddle me this: why would AI lead to four day work weeks when previous productivity boosts have not?
Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Nope. (Score:2)
Re:Nope. (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, the AI-revolution will be hugely different to various "revolutions" that came before and not in a good way.
The industrial revolution saw manufacturing automated -- but the jobs that were eliminated were usually low-skill laboring ones. People could retrain and take on more skilled work with higher pay so the net earnings of the workforce actually increased.
The IT-revolution once again saw relatively unskilled roles automated by computers and once again people could retrain for more skilled rolls that grew due to the productivity improvements that IT systems offered.
However, the AI-age is hugely different.
That's because the roles being displaced are what we already consider to be "skilled" ones. Programmers, artists, writers, musicians, management -- in fact a huge swathe of professional or semi-professional roles will be hugely affected by AI systems. There no *new* jobs being created by AI (other than a handful of people to dust the server racks in the data-centers) so this will mean unemployment will rise.
Rising unemployment means less money in the pockets of the average citizen so the economy as a whole will suffer - despite the vastly improved productivity of AI-enabled companies. Without a market for the products and services that AI-enabled companies make, their revenues and profits will also be negatively impacted, despite that higher productivity.
This downward economic spiral could be even worse than a bursting AI bubble and lead to huge socio-economic problems with massive destabilizing effects.
I'm pretty sure that during the great depression of the 1920s, lots of people were on four, three or even zero day working weeks and that didn't work out too well for them.
Re: Nope. (Score:2)
you can create two linear equations to model the optimum work week given a certain degree of productivity.
https://www.scry.llc/2024/12/2... [scry.llc]
as productivity increases, the work week has to decline to stay at the optimum point.
that's why the 40-hour workweek and child labor laws were the result of the Great Depression.
and we have robo cars with EULA's that wipe away l (Score:2)
and we have robo cars with EULA's that wipe away liability
Re: (Score:2)
If it really gets that bad then I expect there will be new skilled jobs, such as making guillotines and hunting billionaires.
Re: Nope. (Score:2)
because you get more customers if you redistribute the increased income.
layoffs means less customers.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Reducing worker labor through productivity improvements does not naturally happen under capitalism and in fact is naturally opposed by it. The reason most people work 5 days a week rather than 7 now is solely due to artificial restrictions on labor hours won by labor unions. The reason most people aren't working 3 days a week for what takes 5 days to make now is because labor unions haven't prevented the ownership class from taking the entirety of the last half-century of productivity gains for themse
Every singe one of those (Score:3)
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you ever have a lazy coworker? Somebody who didn't do their job and you had to pull their weight? Of course you did everybody's had that experience.
You remember that feeling of resentment? Again of course you do.
When AI puts a shitload of people out of work permanently are you going to have your taxpayer money given to them while you're working 40 50 or 60 hours a week so that they can sit around playing Xbox? No because you resent them.
That feeling of resentment is easily exploitable by the people who are going to own all the ai. Because AI is capital.
There isn't going to be any Ubi because the majority of people are going to get angry at the thought of what they have being taken from them and given to somebody else. And that feeling is going to be used by trillionaires to prevent any effort to take the money from them and spread it along.
Unless you can figure out a solution to that resentment then we're going to become a techno funeral civilization with a few thousand people living like gods, a few thousand more engineers keeping those gods going and then a few thousand thugs keeping the engineers in line. The rest of us will live like American native Americans of the kind on the worst reservations before the casinos. There won't be any capitalism and I won't be any money or exchange of goods because the people in charge have had enough of being dependent on consumers and employees.
I don't know what you do about that resentment. I know the majority of people here heavily experience it.
I can tell you whenever I brought up that resentment nobody has had an answer for it. They try to explain away why we need to do such and such solution they have to the automation crisis but you can't explain away that resentment it's too deep a feeling.
Re: No. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"There is no need for immigration for example when humans are costs rather than resources..."
That is because your concepts of "need", "costs" and "resources" are driven by a capitalistic view of society that would no longer work in a "post scarcity" future.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right about one thing. There isn't going to be any UBI, because it can't exist, any more than a perpetual motion machine can exist, and for the same reason. With each cycle (of the machine or the money), some momentum is lost. Eventually, the whole thing grinds to a halt.
All those people who are the "rest of us" who will live like Native Americans? What's to keep them from developing their own economy, separate from the New World Order? Nobody's forcing them to do business with the ultra-rich or the
Re: (Score:2)
What's to keep them from developing their own economy, separate from the New World Order? Nobody's forcing them to do business with the ultra-rich or the engineers.
Because whatever goods and services you're planning on offering in that parallel economy, you're still ultimately reliant upon outside supply chains controlled by those "ultra-rich" folks.
Re: (Score:2)
you're still ultimately reliant upon outside supply chains
Why's that? The "parallel economy" can develop its own supply chains.
Re: (Score:2)
To deliver what supplies? When billionaires own all resources what are new economies based one?
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever. Billionaires will never own *all* the resources. Suggesting that they will, is a very, very big leap of logic.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right about one thing. There isn't going to be any UBI, because it can't exist, any more than a perpetual motion machine can exist, and for the same reason. With each cycle (of the machine or the money), some momentum is lost.
Nope.
A perpetual motion machine required energy to operate, to replace the lost momentum. Likewise, a Universal Basic Income requires productivity to operate. The productivity here would come from artificial intelligence. This productivity could support UBI... in principle. In practice, however, the people who own the means of production-- which is to say, the capitalists-- will keep the profit from the AI. Why should use the excess productivity for UBI?
News flash: AI will *not* be able to automate all human labor! It's not nearly as capable as the evangelists proclaim, nor as capable as the doomsayers fear.
AI doesn't have to automate all human labor. Just en
Re: (Score:2)
In principle, but not in practice? That's exactly how egghead academics think. "It *could* work, if everybody just cooperated and did their part!" That's also how Marx thought. The problem is, people have to be motivated to do their part. UBI does exactly the opposite. If you get income without doing anything, why on earth would people do anything?
Yes, of course Capitalists will keep the profits from AI, as they should. They risked their own money to build the AI, so why wouldn't they keep the profits? Tha
Still No. (Score:3)
In principle, but not in practice?
Correct. This is an important distinction to make. You said it can't work, and made an analogy to a perpetual motion machine, which violates the first or second law of thermodynamics (depending on which kind.) You're wrong.
Like a perpetual motion machine, which required input of energy, universal basic income requires an input of money. There is no "can't" about it.
That's exactly how egghead academics think.
In general, once you see somebody dismissing "egghead academics," you know that they have nothing useful to contribute, and have no likelihood
Re: (Score:2)
universal basic income requires an input of money
And what, exactly, is that input of money? It doesn't just come from thin air! If AI destroys people's ability to earn money, they won't be contributing.
One thing engineers learn quickly, is that things rarely work as they should "in theory." Many academics don't put their theories into practice, and so never learn that the theories have no substance. This is what I meant when I described "egghead academics."
Re: (Score:3)
"It doesn't just come from thin air! If AI destroys people's ability to earn money, they won't be contributing."
But the productivity still exists, and in capitalism that "earns money". AI doesn't destroy anyone's ability, it replaces it.
You are an idiot.
"One thing engineers learn quickly, is that things rarely work as they should "in theory." "
Another thing engineers know from the very beginning, things never work when "theory" says they won't.
"Many academics don't put their theories into practice, and so
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe AI can replace you, but for most average people I work with, it merely augments their abilities by a small percentage. In many cases, it actually makes *more* work for them, like all the false-positive security vulnerabilities "found" by the AI code scanner my company uses.
You go ahead and hide under a rock. Me, I'm going to embrace and leverage AI for all it's worth.
Re: (Score:2)
universal basic income requires an input of money
And what, exactly, is that input of money? It doesn't just come from thin air!
In the proposed model, it comes from from the productivity of AI.
Re: (Score:2)
AI doesn't "input" money, it *costs* money. And it's really, really expensive. It's no wonder that AI products charge by the token, because charging a monthly subscription is often not enough to cover costs. But hey, maybe they can make up for the financial losses in volume.
Productiviy [Re:Still No.] (Score:2)
What I originally written was "a Universal Basic Income requires productivity to operate." Money is commonly used as a measurement of productivity, and is the medium by which we fund things, but it is productivity that is the driver.
Yes, obviously if artificial intelligence does not increase productivity, you can't use the productivity increase from artificial intelligence for UBI. If that is your actual point, you could have just said so: "Since in my professional opinion artificial intelligence will neve
Re: (Score:2)
I do actually believe AI will increase productivity. But productivity alone doesn't produce money. In our civilization, money can only be created by the government. When it does this, the value of each dollar decreases.
The fundamental problem is that UBI is at its core, a redistribution of money. It goes *from* those who have it, *to* those who need it. Those who have money, don't make enough to give everyone a UBI, even if *all* of their income goes to fund UBI. So let's say we have the government create m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From *your* statement I take it you don't know anything about economics, because anybody who actually knew something about it, would be able to explain their position and would want to do so. The real reason you don't want to continue this conversation, is because you know you've encountered somebody who doesn't buy your progressive BS talking points and can back up his position. Perhaps you are...a coward?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me help you out, since I can see you're struggling. Just tell me where else money comes from, beyond what is created by the government! Good luck!
Re: (Score:3)
"UBI does exactly the opposite."
You mean what you think is "UBI" does the opposite. UBI isn't anything beyond a concept.
"If you get income without doing anything, why on earth would people do anything?"
That tells us about you, not about us.
"They risked their own money to build the AI, so why wouldn't they keep the profits?"
No they didn't. And where did their "own" money come from? And in an AI society, why are you worshipping capitalism?
"That's how business works, those who risk capital to make a busines
Re: (Score:2)
You made a lot of opinion statements, with no substantiation.
Communism tried collective farming. It failed. People were not motivated to do move because there was nothing in it for them to do better. It's not me, it's human nature..
Capitalism is the worst imaginable economic system, except for all the others. Yes, I do believe in capitalism. It's the only economic system that leverages human nature, and the result is that *everyone* is better off. As Mr. Yeltsin said when he spontaneously visited a Houston-
Re: (Score:2)
"Eventually, the whole thing grinds to a halt."
Right, because economies are all zero sum games.
"What's to keep them from developing their own economy, separate from the New World Order? Nobody's forcing them to do business with the ultra-rich or the engineers."
Military, police and lack of resources. But why would they want to? Economies are zero sum games, that's your position.
"Your tirades are so pathetic..."
Look who's talking.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, economies are not zero-sum games. That is, as long as people are contributing to it. If they are only taking from it (UBI), then yes, it is a zero-sum game. For it to be otherwise, people have to be producing, providing value by creating things or performing work.
Yes (Score:1)
AI can give many a 0 day work week, is that good enough for you? A 0 day work week and also 0 pay for it. I think that's fair.
As to 'resentment', what does that have to do with having fewer resources than you actually earned? If you earn something and people take it away we have a proper name for it - theft.
Why? (Score:3)
Funny (Score:2)
No. (Score:4, Insightful)
It cannot do so. Neither "AI" nor a path to achieving it exist. For now you get LLMs.
That aside, the trend over most of the last century now has been that as productivity enhancement tools have continue to improve and workers produce more value, that value keeps getting directed to the most wealthy overall and real wages tend to remain flat. This trend is not going to change without major societal shakeup.
This is possible (Score:1)
4 day work week, two month pto, ubi, blah blah (Score:1)
If AI makes people more productive, it would stand to reason that it would create more wealth with the same amount of effort.
In such an environment, what exactly would be the incentive to work less given that you can get more from working the same?
Mechanization didn't shorten the work week. Automation didn't shorten the work week.
Why would AI be different?
Re: (Score:2)
Automation didn't shorten the work week. Automation didn't shorten the work week.
Yes it did. It shortened the work week from six days to five, and shortened the work day to eight hours.
Hard to believe in these our enlightened times, but yes, in 1830, people used to work 69.1 hour work weeks.
Re: 4 day work week, two month pto, ubi, blah blah (Score:1)
If it's mostly subsistence agriculture, I would think it's logically a little hard to draw the distinction between work and not work in the sense of punching the clock and kicking back after 5.
I'm willing to be corrected here, but I'd assume back in 1830 is farmer bob and fam worked the soil so they could eat 70 hours a week and sold maybe a 10% surplus at market, they had a 7 hour work week.
Re: (Score:1)
Automation didn't shorten the work week. Automation didn't shorten the work week.
Yes it did. It shortened the work week from six days to five, and shortened the work day to eight hours.
This part needs clarification. Automation shortened the work week in the sense that it exacerbated a problem whose resolution was the 40 hour workweek. What I mean to clarify is, employers didn't just say, great, now with automation we only need our employees to work 40 hours per week. They said the opposite. Industrial machines could run long hours tirelessly, so employers (factory owners, etc.) had empl
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
AI does not make people more productive, but a 4 day workweek often will. The AI claim is a pretext. The evidence from all experiments run with 4 day workweeks are compelling, but there are so many "heroes of work" that are deeply stuck in the 5 day week that it is very risky to put people on a 4 day week with the same salary for political/psychological reasons. But doing so pays off in lower costs at basically the same productivity, so your overall profits increase.
Yes (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It's going to come.
But there will be a transition period of around 10-ish years (I predicted 20 years in slashdot about 15-20 years ago, I correct myself due to the fast development and the current world situation) where chaos will reign.
AI tools are fantastic, I use them extensively too, but right now it's so early that it needs a lot of hand-holding, agent management, scaffolding and more so it's going to rule out a TON of people who think they can just replace professionals just like that, ain't gonna ha
Re: (Score:2)
- Then slowly new governments arise, challenge the old powers and introduce UBI in selected areas.
"Selected" areas? I can agree with that, but only if you allow that those areas will cover between 50% and 90% of the population.
- Mandatory activation programs like civil duty, street patrolling, elderly neighborhood care, clean streets etc. will be introduced for them.
That's probably impractical if my 50%-to-90% contention is anywhere close to accurate. I think it more likely that the roles you mention will be combined with private policing / security activities funded by and under the control of the corporations; which by then will also be the official and only governments, because what we're facing is the "company town" concept extended acros
Re: (Score:2)
AI tools are fantastic, I use them extensively too, but right now it's so early that it needs a lot of hand-holding
AI tools are not "fantastic". The need for "hand-holding" will not go away. LLMs are decades old tech, there are no easy improvements or easy wins, which is why 3 years into the hype they are basically still as incapable as they were at the start.
Re: (Score:2)
It will come to this, you're either competent with a tool or not, nothing will change this.
It can be a terrific assistant, but your mileage may vary. I can only use myself as an example, for example I can't remember the last time I got to be this productive, I coded 10+ games (one of them is actually good, which is better than my previous track record) with LLM assisting me. I set up a Linux gaming server with 4 windows specific games, which I had zero chance of doing myself in a little time (I work as an I
Re: (Score:2)
Soo, when you are semi- or incompetent, LLMs are more competent than you? No question about that, but LLMs are incapable of producing reasonable production code without somebody that can actually do it manually spending a lot of time fixing what the LLM produced. And that process is _slower_ than having that somebody competent do it directly. Add systematic errors, bad code maintainability and that fixing code is more stressful than writing it and results in less reliable and less secure code, and the whole
Re: (Score:2)
... manually spending a lot of time fixing what the LLM produced. And that process is _slower_ than having that somebody competent do it directly. Add systematic errors, bad code maintainability and that fixing code is more stressful than writing it and results in less reliable and less secure code, and the whole thing is just an expensive ...
Yes, you're probably right about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
First a 4 day work week, then 3, then 2, then 1. Everyone knows what comes next after 0 and hopefully it's UBI.
I think we're more likely to normalize suicide for people who have nothing valuable to contribute to society than normalize UBI.
Plus, I doubt most people imagine what it'd actually be like to know that a minimal government stipend is all they have to look forward to in life. Yeah, you might imagine that you'd supplement it with some sort of side hustle, but keep in mind you'll be competing with everyone and their brother who has exactly the same idea.
No, only govt regulation can bring 4 day weeks (Score:2)
'nuff said.
Betteridge's Law of Headlines (Score:2)
... applies again.
More specifically, it could, but it won't.
lazy (Score:3)
Propagandistic puff pieces (Score:3)
Previous discussions of and experiments with 4-day work weeks were always predicated on maintaining the same compensation as 5-day weeks provided. I read both articles; conspicuous by its absence was anything indicating that workers in this new AI utopia would continue to receive 5 days' worth of pay for their oh-so-wonderful 4-day weeks. I think the AI fluffers were counting on readers overlooking that minor detail.
However, the Yahoo article did yield yet another brain addled Elon bloviation stating that "There will be no poverty in the future and so no need to save money. There will be universal high income.” Ya gotta know that when Musk says shit like that, the future reality will be the polar opposite.
These "news" pieces are an embarrassment to serious journalism.
need to cap the extreme OT / unpaid on call (Score:2)
need to cap the extreme OT / unpaid on call
Trying to sell it (Score:2)
No (Score:2)
They'll just want more work to be done (Score:2)
Certainly when it comes to software development, there is always a years-long backlog, because no company will pay enough to hire a team large enough to do all they want to do. With AI, maybe they'll get a higher percentage done, of the long list of things they want.
Don't know about four day workweeks... (Score:2)
I'd be more worried about zero day workweeks brought about by AI.
Inevitably!! (Score:2)
"job openings that used to get two applications" (Score:2)
I call BS. Job openings that get two applications are not real. As in nonexistent.
No, now get back to the heat mines (Score:2)
You're not going to work less. You're just going to get less.
Obviously not! (Score:1)
Give a boss an opportunity to make money+ with a 4-day week and AI vs money++ with a 5-day week and AI, and every single one without exception will choose the latter.
Could but won't (Score:2)
Not for Me (Score:2)
I’ve never been one to idle well. Back when I worked in industry, I would take on consulting work because I was pretty bored by Sunday, but then I became an academic. There’s an infinite supply of work to do! I can teach, research, code, and plot subterfuge to my heart’s content. I do that six days a week and then read and binge watch stuff on Saturdays. It’s great, and AI will have to pry those two days out of my cold dead hands if it wants to make me work four days only!
Then again,
Greed says no (Score:2)
Productivity has increased by a huge amount since the 1980s, yet real wages(when taking inflation into account) have not gone up anywhere near as much. So, while AI should allow for shorter work weeks, greed by employers and the conservatives that run most businesses will just make people work even harder with fewer resources. You see the nonsense with "return to office" when many employees are more productive while remote because "they didn't teach THAT in business school, so it must be bad" in so many
dangerous ignorance (Score:2)
Could it? (Score:2)
ROTFLMAO!!!
No.
In the mid-eighties, I have a 37.5hour work week. They gave us half an hour for lunch. Pay covered it.
Now? Are you getting paid for every freakin' time you're called off-hours, on weekends, or holidays? Of course not, you're not in a union, and you have *such* leverage with the company, and are *so* important... that you have no life.
AI will bring homelessness--even in Silicon Valley (Score:2)
Ref: https://news.santaclaracounty.... [santaclaracounty.gov]
We should have had this years ago (Score:1)
Economists like Keynes thought shortened work weeks were just around the corner. The real reason we don't have them now is that the owner class wants to wring as much surplus value out of workers as possible for the least amount of money. Until that dynamic is rectified, we'll still see declining wages and a growing overworked precariate class.