These hybrid schedules have some merit in some businesses but my experience concluded it is disruptive to a major company. I shut it down in by business after the HR guys finally agreed. Other business units followed suit. Size was 15 k personnel with the businesses needing to operate 24/7.

We were subsidizing a soft work force who really focused on themselves as opposed to being balanced.

Yeah, and I agree with you guys as well. It's what I preach to my boys.....There are always additional opportunities to move up, if you do a little more than your counter-parts. Work hard. Be reliable. It will go a looong way.

But man, I guess the older I get....the more my priorities seem to change.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Gonna be honest, if you really think about it, most people aren't working 40 hours in a 40-hour work week anyway.

Makes sense if you can find a way to condense it down.

---

And with a 32 hour work week, those same people would not be working 32 hours. Productivity would just drop more.

It's like raising the minimum wage. When you raise the minimum wage, the price of everything goes up, so the value of your wage doesn't really rise.

Logos Stick said:

---

Those who hate WFH are really gonna hate this.

If an employee can do the same amount of work in 32 hours, then they were slacking, were they not?

Although it does talk about meeting bloat.

---

Cue the militant WFH crowd.
This is one way to bring down wages.

With a computer he probably is.

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

TommyBrady said:

---

32 hour work week but getting paid for 40…what could go wrong???

---

TBF, you and I are both 2-4x as productive as an employee from the 50's. Yet we make drastically less when accounting for inflation.

---

You are NOT 2x / 4x more productive than an employee from the 1950s.

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Gonna be honest, if you really think about it, most people aren't working 40 hours in a 40-hour work week anyway.

Makes sense if you can find a way to condense it down.

---

I don't disagree, but like Ellis said... the new Friday will become Thursday. Even less work gets done.

---

Does this mean we'll start getting Wednesday night football?

---

Never heard of the MAC I see.

---

I already have my Tuesdays blocked off.

Logos Stick said:

---

"Once a workers' pipe dream, the four-day, 32-hour workweek is gaining ground as hundreds of employers try the schedules and businesses rethink the conventional ways of work.

...

Organizations that have dipped a toe into shortened workweeks say it has resulted in happier, healthier staff, less turnover and a wave of interest from job applicantsusually with little to no loss in productivity."


How Four-Day Workweeks Actually Work, From Companies Pulling It Off https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-4-day-workweek-actually-works-from-the-companies-pulling-it-off-1a5c0e2a




Those who hate WFH are really gonna hate this.

If an employee can do the same amount of work in 32 hours, then they were slacking, were they not?

Although it does talk about meeting bloat.

---

Simple solution.. Work 32 hours get paid for 32 hours.

hunterntexas said:

---

We tried it. Didn't last. Construction doesn't stop just because different departments aren't working and that became a real pain in the ass.

---

There are so many other scenarios this applies to as well.

A few years back, I was flying in remote Alaska and the plane had an issue while on the ground. It could not be fixed with local resources, so they were going to have to fly in a mechanic from Seattle. Problem was, it was after work hours in Seattle, so the plane was just stuck with all the passengers, schedule be damned. That left 100+ people without a place to stay and no alternative transportation. The issue could not be resolved until someone in Seattle was back on the clock.

When work continues in one sector/department but not in another, it just creates chaos. The one that is continuously operating still has needs to be addressed by those areas that are "off." This would magnify the problem.

I was about to post the same thing?
What does that do to benefits, which are traditionally based on 40 hours?

I know a number of folks who did four tens and loved it.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

TommyBrady said:

---

32 hour work week but getting paid for 40…what could go wrong???

---

TBF, you and I are both 2-4x as productive as an employee from the 50's. Yet we make drastically less when accounting for inflation.

---

You are NOT 2x / 4x more productive than an employee from the 1950s.

---

Um. Yeah we are. And it's not even close when you factor in computers, emails, the internet, AI, online references.

Think accounting done with a slide rule versus a PC.

Now maybe if you're in sales it's not that drastic, but finance and tech are vastly different. Hell were operating on half the budget with a larger scope than we did in 2017.

---

Accounting undergrad, masters in MIS. Worked in public accounting, corp america and as a business owner.

You simplistic assertions fail to factor in tons of other things. Saying we a 2x / 4x more efficient and deserve more compensation utterly ignores the seismic shift in the US workforce moving away from low level, low skill jobs offshoring that to other countries.

I will stipulate efficiencies in the average white collar job has improved, but that still ignores shifts in jobs / roles that changed due to technology and overall labor force shift.

DamnGood86 said:

---

I never had a pipe dream to work less. I always dreamt of opportunity to do more and thereby have more.

If you get all your tasks done in a short period of time, you need more tasks.

---

That is what a$$kickers do.



As other posters said about hushtrips in the WFH economy:

"Who cares as long as they do their jobs?"

"Metrics speak for themselves. "

"There are a few companies (very few) that have moved to performance based employment. Get the projects/service done we've asked you to get done in the timeline we've asked you to get it done, and I don't give a crap how many hours it takes."

"People who complain about the poor work ethic of WFH employees are just anachronistic Luddites."

one MEEN Ag said:

---

I think there has been a big ethos change around corporate jobs that only the companies, government, and big education have themselves to blame. If you were to look at businesses from the 1980s to today, the gains have really only gone to capital not labor. All productivity increases, headcount reduction, reduced insurance coverages, no more pensions, underinvesting in employees 401k. Practically all gains have gone to the house.

There is a significant undercurrent where people do not think they can move up in this world anymore. Merit based compensation and promotion being chipped away in favor of DEI has affected the technical class as well. Perpetual inflation taking money from your wallet as well.

---

Government has done nothing but erect barriers to employers, which increase costs and have forced employers to cut costs where they can. At the same time, government has moved in the opposite direction. They have added benefits. They are more entitled. Those employees have become untouchable. They always get paid no matter what. They get paid disproportionately better and have better benefits than actual producers.

fka ftc said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

TommyBrady said:

---

32 hour work week but getting paid for 40…what could go wrong???

---

TBF, you and I are both 2-4x as productive as an employee from the 50's. Yet we make drastically less when accounting for inflation.

---

You are NOT 2x / 4x more productive than an employee from the 1950s.

---

Um. Yeah we are. And it's not even close when you factor in computers, emails, the internet, AI, online references.

Think accounting done with a slide rule versus a PC.

Now maybe if you're in sales it's not that drastic, but finance and tech are vastly different. Hell were operating on half the budget with a larger scope than we did in 2017.

---

Accounting undergrad, masters in MIS. Worked in public accounting, corp america and as a business owner.

You simplistic assertions fail to factor in tons of other things. Saying we a 2x / 4x more efficient and deserve more compensation utterly ignores the seismic shift in the US workforce moving away from low level, low skill jobs offshoring that to other countries.

I will stipulate efficiencies in the average white collar job has improved, but that still ignores shifts in jobs / roles that changed due to technology and overall labor force shift.

---

You should work on your reading comprehension.

I never said we deserve a 4 day work week nor increased wages. But it's ridiculous to think we're not vastly more productive than a worker who didn't even have access to a calculator.

fka ftc said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

TommyBrady said:

---

32 hour work week but getting paid for 40…what could go wrong???

---

TBF, you and I are both 2-4x as productive as an employee from the 50's. Yet we make drastically less when accounting for inflation.

---

You are NOT 2x / 4x more productive than an employee from the 1950s.

---

Um. Yeah we are. And it's not even close when you factor in computers, emails, the internet, AI, online references.

Think accounting done with a slide rule versus a PC.

Now maybe if you're in sales it's not that drastic, but finance and tech are vastly different. Hell were operating on half the budget with a larger scope than we did in 2017.

---

Accounting undergrad, masters in MIS. Worked in public accounting, corp america and as a business owner.

You simplistic assertions fail to factor in tons of other things. Saying we a 2x / 4x more efficient and deserve more compensation utterly ignores the seismic shift in the US workforce moving away from low level, low skill jobs offshoring that to other countries.

I will stipulate efficiencies in the average white collar job has improved, but that still ignores shifts in jobs / roles that changed due to technology and overall labor force shift.

---

That's not what you originally said.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

TommyBrady said:

---

32 hour work week but getting paid for 40…what could go wrong???

---

TBF, you and I are both 2-4x as productive as an employee from the 50's. Yet we make drastically less when accounting for inflation.

---

You are NOT 2x / 4x more productive than an employee from the 1950s.

---

What are you talking about? Of course you are. Take your laptop, phone, and calculator away. Replace email with written memos. No phone lines directly to anyone. See how much work you actually get done across a business quarter.

Now go try to place an order. Anywhere. For anything. Try to dictate what is being worked on and why. Try to change what is being worked on by responding to a market need or failure.

There's a reason NASA doesn't have a pool anymore of very smart but slightly under educated people whose sole job is to solve second order differential equations. (hint: its because we all have computers).

---

Anecdotals aside, measuring productivity is a fun game people play not unlike political polling and measuring global warming / climate change.

CAD and improvements in construction definitely made the act of building a home more productive / efficient. But then that productivity "gain" was consumed in more complex product and methods. Both result in a place to rest your head at night, and yes the current home may be nicer, have more features, but the overall function to society remains the same.

Overall point, its an way overly simplistic assertion and then tying that to a discussion on compensation overlooks a ton of things.

Proposition Joe said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

TommyBrady said:

---

32 hour work week but getting paid for 40…what could go wrong???

---

TBF, you and I are both 2-4x as productive as an employee from the 50's. Yet we make drastically less when accounting for inflation.

---

You are NOT 2x / 4x more productive than an employee from the 1950s.

---

Um. Yeah we are. And it's not even close when you factor in computers, emails, the internet, AI, online references.

Think accounting done with a slide rule versus a PC.

Now maybe if you're in sales it's not that drastic, but finance and tech are vastly different. Hell were operating on half the budget with a larger scope than we did in 2017.

---

Accounting undergrad, masters in MIS. Worked in public accounting, corp america and as a business owner.

You simplistic assertions fail to factor in tons of other things. Saying we a 2x / 4x more efficient and deserve more compensation utterly ignores the seismic shift in the US workforce moving away from low level, low skill jobs offshoring that to other countries.

I will stipulate efficiencies in the average white collar job has improved, but that still ignores shifts in jobs / roles that changed due to technology and overall labor force shift.

---

That's not what you originally said.

---

Not following what point you are trying to make.

fka ftc said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

TommyBrady said:

---

32 hour work week but getting paid for 40…what could go wrong???

---

TBF, you and I are both 2-4x as productive as an employee from the 50's. Yet we make drastically less when accounting for inflation.

---

You are NOT 2x / 4x more productive than an employee from the 1950s.

---

Um. Yeah we are. And it's not even close when you factor in computers, emails, the internet, AI, online references.

Think accounting done with a slide rule versus a PC.

Now maybe if you're in sales it's not that drastic, but finance and tech are vastly different. Hell were operating on half the budget with a larger scope than we did in 2017.

---

Accounting undergrad, masters in MIS. Worked in public accounting, corp america and as a business owner.

You simplistic assertions fail to factor in tons of other things. Saying we a 2x / 4x more efficient and deserve more compensation utterly ignores the seismic shift in the US workforce moving away from low level, low skill jobs offshoring that to other countries.

I will stipulate efficiencies in the average white collar job has improved, but that still ignores shifts in jobs / roles that changed due to technology and overall labor force shift.

---

Bingo. You are not more productive than the old timer, you simply using tools there more productive.

Those tools take capital to purchase and maintain. The owner has determined that he can improve his bottom line by spending more money on better tools. It is the owner that should benefit financially from the investment risk and pay off of that decision, not the worker.

You are no better or more productive than the worker from the 50s. You just happen to have been handed a more efficient tool.

If you were actually a 2X-4X superstar compared to the typical 1950s worker, you would own the business and be highly successful rather than sitting around griping about your wages.

When I say "you", I don't actually mean you personally, I mean the typical "woe is me" American.

Does any white collar professional really only work 40 hours a week?

Thanks. I think you said you point in a more diplomatic way than I did and appreciate the clarity it may provide to some.

Worker "productivity" is a very squishy, oft manipulated term.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

I think there has been a big ethos change around corporate jobs that only the companies, government, and big education have themselves to blame. If you were to look at businesses from the 1980s to today, the gains have really only gone to capital not labor. All productivity increases, headcount reduction, reduced insurance coverages, no more pensions, underinvesting in employees 401k. Practically all gains have gone to the house.

There is a significant undercurrent where people do not think they can move up in this world anymore. Merit based compensation and promotion being chipped away in favor of DEI has affected the technical class as well. Perpetual inflation taking money from your wallet as well.

---

Government has done nothing but erect barriers to employers, which increase costs and have forced employers to cut costs where they can. At the same time, government has moved in the opposite direction. They have added benefits. They are more entitled. Those employees have become untouchable. They always get paid no matter what. They get paid disproportionately better and have better benefits than actual producers.

---

Again, government has played a role and they only have themselves to blame. 50% of government jobs are patronage workfare. I'm not saying government has been saints, I'm saying they've played a role by shaping the ground beneath the workers feet, for both labor and capital.

DamnGood86 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

TommyBrady said:

---

32 hour work week but getting paid for 40…what could go wrong???

---

TBF, you and I are both 2-4x as productive as an employee from the 50's. Yet we make drastically less when accounting for inflation.

---

You are NOT 2x / 4x more productive than an employee from the 1950s.

---

Um. Yeah we are. And it's not even close when you factor in computers, emails, the internet, AI, online references.

Think accounting done with a slide rule versus a PC.

Now maybe if you're in sales it's not that drastic, but finance and tech are vastly different. Hell were operating on half the budget with a larger scope than we did in 2017.

---

Accounting undergrad, masters in MIS. Worked in public accounting, corp america and as a business owner.

You simplistic assertions fail to factor in tons of other things. Saying we a 2x / 4x more efficient and deserve more compensation utterly ignores the seismic shift in the US workforce moving away from low level, low skill jobs offshoring that to other countries.

I will stipulate efficiencies in the average white collar job has improved, but that still ignores shifts in jobs / roles that changed due to technology and overall labor force shift.

---

Bingo. You are not more productive than the old timer, you simply using tools there more productive.

Those tools take capital to purchase and maintain. The owner has determined that he can improve his bottom line by spending more money on better tools. It is the owner that should benefit financially from the investment risk and pay off of that decision, not the worker.

You are no better or more productive than the worker from the 50s. You just happen to have been handed a more efficient tool.

If you were actually a 2X-4X superstar compared to the typical 1950s worker, you would own the business and be highly successful rather than sitting around griping about your wages.

When I say "you", I don't actually mean you personally, I mean the typical "woe is me" American.

---

The cost of equipping a modern office worker compared to one from the 1950s is marginally the same in real purchasing power. They might have needed fewer things, but things costed way more in real dollars back then. Take for example, a gallon of milk, it was 10cents, but its equivalent to $8.50 in todays terms. Multiply that by every piece of office equipment that you bought locally instead just get from a random chinese importer of laminated particle board.

And what is the real cost born to provide the bare minimum of technology to nontechnical office workers today anyway? An 800 laptop with microsoft office? The most standard issue of technological improvements have gone through the most cost reductions. Any factory from the 1950s had huge capex considerations that are still obviously there today. Your machinist still had to work within the cost structure of buying a Bridgeport.

'Me' as a commoditized unit, ready to work within the technology backdrop of 2023 is 4x more productive than '1950s version of me' given equivalent access to technology that was in the 1950s. Technology has always aided productivity, unless you want to start talking about the stone age.

I do a 4 day work week but with 10 hour shifts so I still do 40 a week. It's nice having a longer weekend with no loss of hours.

I better not lose a minute of time to this lazy ass BS telling me I can only work 32 hours a week because I promise you companies are either not going to pay you for the lost 8 or they'll do mass layoffs

And lefty demanding this will act shocked and blame the corporations

fka ftc said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

TommyBrady said:

---

32 hour work week but getting paid for 40…what could go wrong???

---

TBF, you and I are both 2-4x as productive as an employee from the 50's. Yet we make drastically less when accounting for inflation.

---

You are NOT 2x / 4x more productive than an employee from the 1950s.

---

What are you talking about? Of course you are. Take your laptop, phone, and calculator away. Replace email with written memos. No phone lines directly to anyone. See how much work you actually get done across a business quarter.

Now go try to place an order. Anywhere. For anything. Try to dictate what is being worked on and why. Try to change what is being worked on by responding to a market need or failure.

There's a reason NASA doesn't have a pool anymore of very smart but slightly under educated people whose sole job is to solve second order differential equations. (hint: its because we all have computers).

---

Anecdotals aside, measuring productivity is a fun game people play not unlike political polling and measuring global warming / climate change.

CAD and improvements in construction definitely made the act of building a home more productive / efficient. But then that productivity "gain" was consumed in more complex product and methods. Both result in a place to rest your head at night, and yes the current home may be nicer, have more features, but the overall function to society remains the same.

Overall point, its an way overly simplistic assertion and then tying that to a discussion on compensation overlooks a ton of things.

---

Clearly, you're not interested in actually discussing the topic and just want to waive your hands and say it can't be calculated or can't point to any meaning.

Lets just go back to our day jobs we're currently being 4x more unproductive at than a 1950s worker.

DamnGood86 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

TommyBrady said:

---

32 hour work week but getting paid for 40…what could go wrong???

---

TBF, you and I are both 2-4x as productive as an employee from the 50's. Yet we make drastically less when accounting for inflation.

---

You are NOT 2x / 4x more productive than an employee from the 1950s.

---

Um. Yeah we are. And it's not even close when you factor in computers, emails, the internet, AI, online references.

Think accounting done with a slide rule versus a PC.

Now maybe if you're in sales it's not that drastic, but finance and tech are vastly different. Hell were operating on half the budget with a larger scope than we did in 2017.

---

Accounting undergrad, masters in MIS. Worked in public accounting, corp america and as a business owner.

You simplistic assertions fail to factor in tons of other things. Saying we a 2x / 4x more efficient and deserve more compensation utterly ignores the seismic shift in the US workforce moving away from low level, low skill jobs offshoring that to other countries.

I will stipulate efficiencies in the average white collar job has improved, but that still ignores shifts in jobs / roles that changed due to technology and overall labor force shift.

---

Bingo. You are not more productive than the old timer, you simply using tools there more productive.

Those tools take capital to purchase and maintain. The owner has determined that he can improve his bottom line by spending more money on better tools. It is the owner that should benefit financially from the investment risk and pay off of that decision, not the worker.

You are no better or more productive than the worker from the 50s. You just happen to have been handed a more efficient tool.

If you were actually a 2X-4X superstar compared to the typical 1950s worker, you would own the business and be highly successful rather than sitting around griping about your wages.

When I say "you", I don't actually mean you personally, I mean the typical "woe is me" American.

---

Nah. I pay for my phone, plenty of things I take to work. Taxes paid for a huge % of the overall modernization. The companies are meeting market demands and paying market salaries... but suggesting they are responsible for much of the investment for the increase in productivity is false. The real issue is government bloat and inflation after stealing our money through taxes and not making our lives better. There should be a balance and then wages would be even with inflation year after year... your personal wages continually besting inflation over time as the older generation dies off. We're Fd because government screwed up the balance and the easy target is greedy capitalists. People are people... 1950s people probably worked the exact same just without a way to ***** about it as easily.

DamnGood86 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

TommyBrady said:

---

32 hour work week but getting paid for 40…what could go wrong???

---

TBF, you and I are both 2-4x as productive as an employee from the 50's. Yet we make drastically less when accounting for inflation.

---

You are NOT 2x / 4x more productive than an employee from the 1950s.

---

Um. Yeah we are. And it's not even close when you factor in computers, emails, the internet, AI, online references.

Think accounting done with a slide rule versus a PC.

Now maybe if you're in sales it's not that drastic, but finance and tech are vastly different. Hell were operating on half the budget with a larger scope than we did in 2017.

---

Accounting undergrad, masters in MIS. Worked in public accounting, corp america and as a business owner.

You simplistic assertions fail to factor in tons of other things. Saying we a 2x / 4x more efficient and deserve more compensation utterly ignores the seismic shift in the US workforce moving away from low level, low skill jobs offshoring that to other countries.

I will stipulate efficiencies in the average white collar job has improved, but that still ignores shifts in jobs / roles that changed due to technology and overall labor force shift.

---

Bingo. You are not more productive than the old timer, you simply using tools there more productive.

Those tools take capital to purchase and maintain. The owner has determined that he can improve his bottom line by spending more money on better tools. It is the owner that should benefit financially from the investment risk and pay off of that decision, not the worker.

You are no better or more productive than the worker from the 50s. You just happen to have been handed a more efficient tool.

If you were actually a 2X-4X superstar compared to the typical 1950s worker, you would own the business and be highly successful rather than sitting around griping about your wages.

When I say "you", I don't actually mean you personally, I mean the typical "woe is me" American.

---

Yes if you define productivity in a way that nobody ever does, and then don't apply the same logic to the worker's wages, you are absolutely correct.

You can say that the worker's productivity did increase but his wages stayed stagnant, and you would be right. Or you can make the argument that the value of his productivity stayed the same while the value of his job decreased, and you would be right. It makes no difference to me as long as you are consistent.

In the veterinary world, repeated shown that reducing to a four day work week actually INCREASES revenue.

gkaggie08 said:

---

Schools are pushing this also. My local school district started an early release at 1:15 on Fridays. Superintendent says they will eventually go to 4 day school weeks in the next few years. Other districts in the area are already exploring that option.

I'm lucky that my wife is a SAHM, but this is going to suck for the 2 income households

---

From the point of view as a single parent that would be a huge problem, unless somehow the kids were big and responsible enough to entertain themselves at home all day. Terrible idea, and I'm glad that isn't something that's being talked about over here.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Gonna be honest, if you really think about it, most people aren't working 40 hours in a 40-hour work week anyway.

Makes sense if you can find a way to condense it down.

---

This. It doesn't take me 40 hours to do my job well. Lots of careers are like that. Sure, if you are an hourly worker, or if you get paid based on the number of widgets you turn out, then yeah working 40 hours might make sense. But most of us are not "working" the entire 8-9 hours we're at the office.

"I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work."
-Peter Gibbons

I have always wanted to work a 4x10 but never landed one yet.

My wife is a nurse and worked 3x12 for years. With shift change it was closer to 3x14. I would love that as well, but I am in the wrong profession.

I don't believe that reducing the number of days in the office has to limit output.

I do believe that limiting hours will reduce output.

The Fife said:

---

gkaggie08 said:

---

Schools are pushing this also. My local school district started an early release at 1:15 on Fridays. Superintendent says they will eventually go to 4 day school weeks in the next few years. Other districts in the area are already exploring that option.

I'm lucky that my wife is a SAHM, but this is going to suck for the 2 income households

---

From the point of view as a single parent that would be a huge problem, unless somehow the kids were big and responsible enough to entertain themselves at home all day. Terrible idea, and I'm glad that isn't something that's being talked about over here.

---

All the more reason for school choice to be adopted if you ask me.

Childcare always seems to be a complete afterthought.

I'm for it, but have made my school choice by living in an area that feeds into one of the best charter schools in the state.

NoahAg said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Gonna be honest, if you really think about it, most people aren't working 40 hours in a 40-hour work week anyway.

Makes sense if you can find a way to condense it down.

---

This. It doesn't take me 40 hours to do my job well. Lots of careers are like that. Sure, if you are an hourly worker, or if you get paid based on the number of widgets you turn out, then yeah working 40 hours might make sense. But most of us are not "working" the entire 8-9 hours we're at the office.

"I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work."
-Peter Gibbons

---

This is an important nuance that is an excellent counterpoint to the 2x/4x more productive. Back in the days of typewriter pools and slide rules, those 1950 workers did real work for those 8 to 9 hour days.

Thanks for pointing that out. Really chops the legs off the "Im so productive but my wages have not kept up" brigade.