[1] https://youtu.be/rnso4nfdM9w
I also think the productivity gain or lack of loss comes from excitement and a feeling of responsibility for having the extra day off. It's mentioned in the article
>“The biggest concern from an employer point of view is ensuring that the full-time introduction of the policy doesn’t lead to complacency, with the risk that people’s productivity will slip back,” Barker said.
“To guard against this happening we’ve spent a lot of time making sure every person in every team has their own plan as to how they’re going to maintain and even improve their productivity.”
I think this makes sense but, as time passes and 4 days becomes the norm the feeling of excitement and responsibility will fall and output will follow. If everyone has a 4 day work week we will probably be as lazy as we are now in our 5 days.
At that point we can start experimenting with a 3 day workweek, and find that it too doesn’t reduce productivity.
At some point in time, we’ll find out that all our work is essentially automated, and the step from one to zero days of work will seem reasonable.
How Many Productive Hours in a Work Day? Just 2 Hours, 23 Minutes... https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/as3cyv/how_many_...
It’s only a 4-hour workweek for you. There’s still someone doing the work.
I have also found they need to be consecutive.
Or what about two? One? Surely at zero, productivity will not match the old standard of 40 hours a week. But it seems like the next logical question to me. If employees are just as productive at 32 hours as 40, at what point does productivity fall? Maybe 32 just happens to be that breaking point. Or it might turn out to be 25 or even 15. But let's at least ask the question.
I'm talking about averages, of course.