I am totally fine with 40-hours a week. However, what I am not fine with is people like you speaking for everyone else. You can work less then 40 hours already, volutnarily. But you are not qualified to determine how long other people are supposed to work, or actually knowing how long they would want to work.

This "we need to work less" attitude comes from people that dont like they work. That is sad. But it doesn't apply to me, for instance.

I like my work and I like my life and I like my hobbies and I like my family and I like my friends and I like learning new skills in my free time. I chose to work 80% of the time for 80% of the pay but I'm fully aware that most people don't have that option (either because it is not offered to them or because it is not financially viable). Which I think is unfortunate.

Over 2/3 of the workforce actually does not like their job. Maybe start there, instead of reducing work time for everyone and likely dropping wages for everyone too.

Liking your job or not has nothing to do with this. I'm not saying that reducing work time should be enforced, either.

Rather that _overall_ we should all benefit from the increase in productivity, whether that's reflected in a proportionate increase in wages, or in being given the choice to work less. The point is that most employees are not even given this option, while also being compensated much less. This is what I'm objecting to.

The issue isn't the number of hours, it's the stagnant wages despite increased productivity.

Wages in the USA have not stagnated, actually

We need to decouple income from hours worked, lest workers with your position force everyone else to work as long as you or else lose purchasing power.

Should probably invert all the multiples on overtime and make it (legally) strictly optional as well: 1.5x -> 66.67% pay, 2x -> 50% pay.

Get out of work sooner, take some days off! Quantum-damn!

Well, my position was serious, and you're mocking my sincere post with your cynism. It is fine that you are not a work-guy, but don't mock me for not being you, OK?

I never deeply understood economics to be honest. But if we people wages start growing, won't it automatically mean that there are more money circling around which means inflation, which means we're back at square one?

Only if supply can't meet demand

Yes, but also consider that you are not paid for value created but rather your skills are a market. Business makes money arbitraging your time and skill for profit; basically buy your labor for less than your productivity.

So productivity gains will only be experienced by the workers where demand for their labor is high.

This is a complicated discussion, but for any given "technology" (i.e. set of available methods for producing every good/service in a society) and set of preferences among agents (e.g. households, firms) it is generally the case that there are many possible profit rates and wage schedules that allow for equilibrium.

For a very formal an influential discussion of this, see Sraffa's "Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities".

Historically, an idea closely related to the one you are articulating has been known as the "iron law of wages".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_wages