h is a user on social.coop. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse.
h @h

The eight-hour day is an anachronism when at current levels of productivity most people should be working only three. It was an achievement more than a hundred years ago when Uruguay made it the law in 1915, but it's not a great thing to not make any progress in a hundred years.

The show must move on.

@h Let's limit the work week to a four hour day and raise munimum wage to $1000/hour for MAXIMUM FAIRNESS.

@h

I agree, but I think some exceptions would have to be made in the medical field. We're absolutely overworked & hard limits on things like double & triple shifts would be most welcome. However, handing patients off to different staff every few hours would be a disaster. We'd need to find the happy medium.

@Farrell That seems relatively easy to solve, if you work in pairs.

@h
Not to forget that there are yet part time workers in health care. Seems to work already for the system. The problems in majority effect the part time workers themselves because they often work longer or have to be more efficient than their full time colleagues. This would be out ruled when working hours would be reduced in general.
@Farrell

@h I'm pretty happy with my 30 hour week (5 days, 6 hours each).

If I could earn a (weekly) living in five 3-hour days, I'd probably compress it to three 5-hour days instead, and have the rest for myself.

@zatnosk That's cool, as some other people have pointed out, different work demands different spans of attention.
Personally, I'm happy to work 16-hour days, it takes me 3 hours to load all the information needed to "get in the zone", and 1 hour to unwind and document. But that's not something I can do every week.
The point is that, if the benefits of increased productivity were evenly distributed, no one who has the ability to work should be forced by need to work more than 3 hours on average

@zatnosk Some ideologies appear to be pathologically incapable to learn the difference between positive freedom (the freedom to do something) and negative freedom (the freedom from having to do something).

Some like myself believe that a better world would be one where most people are at liberty of working as much as they want, without being forced by need to work unhealthy shifts, or deplorable conditions, or jobs they abhor, or against their own well-being, or against their will in any way.

@zatnosk That is, I'm as much for positive freedoms of absolutely everybody, as I am for negative freedoms of absolutely everybody.

Some pretend-libertarians of the voluntary unpersuasion and other vulgar libertarians can only hold one type of freedom in their heads at once.
The same goes for some variants of uniformist Marxists and other socialists who are at odds with Karl Marx, whose whole point was that workers should be free from being chained to a job mandated by an overlord.

@h this seems especially stupid when you consider that many modern jobs are of creative kind, take programmers.
I've noticed that I know how much I can do during the day and I just adjust my tempo to that.

@charlag Yeah, why not assume that the absolute worst case scenario of the stupidest idea that fits in your worldview is what I'm thinking without asking for clarification? (j/k)

On a more serious note, I'm a knowledge worker, a programmer, and art aficionado and I agree 100% with you.

I've ellaborated further in the toots pasted below, I'm sure you will agree with most of it.

Cheers!

social.coop/@h/999608996366575

@h that would be nice but for now I'd settle for just 8 tbh

@corndog It's not everybody's cup of tea, but many of us will do the work that's needed so that everybody benefits.