https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_s...

As I read it, they didn't even measure working hours directly because "we have another issue in examining the effects of labor hours on cognitive functioning, that is, labor hours are censored (that is, retirees report zero working hours). Rather than directly using variables which correlate with labor hours, but do not correlate with cognitive functioning, we use these variables for creating the fitted values for squared of working hours and working hours as instruments."

And they run a regression to infer working hours from the region they live in, parent being alive, number of children and so forth.

Let me just get to the main point: I think they're just picking up a decline in cognition from lack of sleep. If someone is stressed out with all these obligations, then longer work hours will cut into their sleep.

Also, I don't see how they figure out which way that causality runs: could those who have good cognitive function afford to work fewer hours than those who don't?

There was a downside, though. Between working less than full time and working from home, I sometimes felt pretty disconnected, marginalized, etc. Mostly I was OK with that, welcomed it even, but I eventually came back to full time because I didn't feel like I could drive the things I needed to from that kind of position.

Overall, I highly recommend it. Just be aware that there are downsides. Like working from home, there's also a greater need for self-motivation, self-discipline, and self-reliance than if you're working in a more traditional arrangement.

I believe the word you're looking for is "continue".

Not even in our very ageist software industry is this consistent, if you take a look at things like mobile or web development when compared to lower level or legacy stuff.

(If this ends up as a threshold, it will become yet another factor encouraging the middle classes to delay having children...)

Or, put it another way, The Guardian can't even summarize it's own articles properly, because there was no recommendation as to how those 30 hours should be split up.

Personally, I'd prefer 5 6-hour days to 3 10-hour days.

Are there times you have to be available, or are you able to be entirely async?

I'm over 40 and would love to work a 30 hour week. But there is a cost for hiring each employee and so it's better to have fewer employees working longer. The cost includes interviewing and recruitment costs, payroll systems, management time, IT systems (email, systems access, hardware and licenses).

If we could slash all these costs and make it easier and cheaper to hire people, the 30 hour week might work. It might also make it easier for companies to fire people though, so less good for the 'youth'.

* For them, a lot of my value is in what I know rather than what I do. Let's say it's half and half. So they were getting somewhat less of that first half (direct hands-on work) but darn near all of the rest (ability to solve certain problems or make certain connections instantly instead of spending half a day).

* For me, a significant part of my job's value is not salary but other benefits, plus the ability to tap into the collective resources of a team to get things done.

Thus, even though the deal was nominally 75% of the hours for 75% of the salary, each side was really getting way more than 75% of the value from that relationship (compared to when I was full time). In the end, neither of us were so easily or cheaply replaced. Employees aren't as fungible as many seem to think.

Let's postulate an annual corporate tax deduction of $16015 for each employee working 30 or more hours per week. This would be compensated by increasing corporate tax rates until all changes are revenue-neutral.

This probably means that every last person able to work could get a job warming chairs at $7.25/hr for 30 hr/wk. What unforeseen consequences could that have on the labor market?

I am coming from Europe and always admired capitalist systems but I think the americans and others are probably stressing it too much.

I have experienced large US corporations firing people that had 2-3 years till retirement, people that spent 30years with company and have been replaced with cheap offshore resources.

I think companies could keep these employees but incrementally decreasing their salaries and working hours. They could still earn more (overtime) but I would dynamically adjust the salaries.

I mean anyway...95% people are just slacking at their jobs

> I have experienced large US corporations firing people that had 2-3 years till retirement, people that spent 30years with company and have been replaced with cheap offshore resources.

Is there any capitalist argument that a company should hold on to someone who has become redundant because they have only a small period of time until retirement? My gut reaction as a capitalist to someone being outsourced at age 63 with 2 years to retirement is "so what" but of course when I think about it from the human perspective it seems horrible. They either need to find another job (very hard at that age regardless of the sector, but especially in tech) or cut their standard of living beyond what they expected for the rest of their lives.

In some sense loyalty begets loyalty.

We already do.

The cost benefit for the employer and employee is non-linear, so I think we need a better way to look at employment than either the hourly or salaried methods. Something that incentivizes 30 hour work weeks (assuming 30 hours is somehow an optimal compromise for both employer and employee).

I believe it to be much better to work 4 days at 7.5 hours a day to reach the 30 hours. This gives some continuity in a workweek and much better productive time.

I actually support five 6-hour days even more. They are trying this in Sweden. With nurses, they find stress levels go down, productivity goes up, more self-reported happiness, and decreased absenteeism.

1. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/redqueen.html