"From 2015 to 2019, ran the world's largest trial of a shorter working week. An analysis of the results was finally published this week, and surprise! Everyone was happier, healthier, and more productive. Please pretend to be surprised."

🇮🇸 :blobaww:

"This study shows that the world's largest ever trial of a shorter working week in the public sector was by all measures an overwhelming success"

That is the catch, you are only surveying the people enjoying the benefits of the measure and silencing those who will pay the price.

In the private sector you can't shorten the hours worked and keep the same wedges without compulsively plundering the employers...

...Then don't be surpriced if less business are willing to open in places with that regulation...

...In the publisc sector, by definition you are plundering the thaxpayer who will pay for the rise in the cost of each hour worked by the public employee.

If people didn't voluntarily accepted without state cohersion, it is becaus it can't be done without damaging other sectors, the whole picture must be taken into account if you are really looking to understand how things work.

@lovizio oh man, no seriously, which part of "productivity stayed the same or improved" do you not understand?


It begs the question: then if productivity increases why you need to force people to adopt it?

Why didn't other company developed that and used to their advantage like historically companies have made by developing improvements on the human resouces?

@lovizio I literally *just* linked you to a Microsoft study with very similar results.

But the question is valid: indeed, *why* didn't businesses adopt a shorter work week it yet, even though there are multiple studies showing increased productivity?

To me, it speaks volumes about the wastefulness and irrationality of the private sector.

· · Web · 2 · 0 · 3


To me is because someone in that sistem is not willing to voluntarily accept it for some resason and that shuld be taken seriously because that is how the things that are hard to see or understand are expressed. The provate sector acting in freedom os not irratoonal, is so complex and above our understanding that *looks* irrational for people.

Similar to the Artur C. Clarke quote

"Any sufficiently advanced tecnology is indistiguishable from magic"

@lovizio well that's just hand-waving and saying capitalism is magic and whatever corporate overlords do is good, and if it seems bad, it's because we can't understand their intricate reasoning. :blobwizard:

Meanwhile, Canada is burning due to short-sighted decisions of these same corporate overlords.

To use capitalist parlance: I ain't buying what you're selling here.


In part you are right, not all things irrational in apperience are sometimg we don't undertand, is good to state ot clear. But at least you got my point 👍

You don't *have to* that wouldn be interesting, just wanted some different perspective

*Is not the intricated reasoning of "their" (overlord) os the intrincated *consequences* of our day to day choices, who said that our understanding of everything is unlimitted?

Some effects are hard to undrstand, the long lasting comsequences of a policie implemented, and the casual relatipn in wich produced some ouput - Give ot a read to " Which We See and That Which We Do Not See" | Frédéric Bastiat


In short, if you have to enforce a policie you can bet that someone is being harmed in some way, it may be a more obvious way or maybe something imposible to articulate.

The policie maker don't (and can't) know how te people affected by the regulations subjectively value the "things they are givin up"(money, time, etc...) an the things they are gainin, so there is no way that person A can decide for person B what is best for him/her. It is a matter of information.



I'm just against social engeneering in general, that never go well in the long run.

As I shared in this thread yesterday, an article by Frederic Bastiat, "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen" will explain the idea better infinitly than me. And show why se really bad policies are so easy to "sell" and really tempting at first glance.



They can certainly try, but people (particular cases aside) learn how to deal with new things, new behabiours are discovered over time with the power of trial and error of millions of people and keeping the practices that turn out to be the best.



If social networks are something adictive and harmfull, what make you belive that the people won't react in consequence?, the mere fact that you and me are discussing this using mastodon as an alternative to the problem that you're showing kind of proves my point, we are learning how to deal with this, time will tell

For the sources you can take a look at

{Analitical backgrond, praxeology}
- Human Action | von Mises

{For the metodology of the study, what thy show and what they don't}
- How to lie with statistics (short and kind of fun reading, independently of political views)

{Historical references and some other perpectives}
- Why the nations fail | Acemoglue & Robinson

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!