Comment by dspillett
3 months ago
> In fact – plenty of [smart] people will take pay cuts for better qualify of life.
Yep, I dropped to a 4-day week prorated (so a 20% cut, a little less if you consider that changed my position with respect to tax boundaries, for 20% less work) a while back, to deal with family health issues and my own burn-out. As things are fixing up I'm considering keeping to this routine despite the fact the extra money would be useful – the extra time is _very_ nice too.
[Not sure how far into “smart” territory I'd be considered though :)]
Do you think this is a counterargument? The implication is that for 20% + n% you'd go back to a 5 day week.
I thought I was agreeing. What were you thinking I was thinking I was countering?
There are three forms of pay cut: reducing pay for the same time spent working, reducing pay for the same work done (when pay is awarded piecemeal rather than by time), or indirectly by a reducing in work. Ask anyone on a zero-hours contract who unexpectedly gets a zero-hours week: it feels like a pay cut to them more than a joyful temporary freedom from work.
There are a number of companies experimenting with a 4-day working week with no change in pay or other conditions, some are finding the reduction in working time often doesn't reduce useful work output. A 20%-ish drop in income for a 4-day week is a pay cut when compared to that.
I thought, with your example of not accepting money in exchange for an extra day of work. you were addressing GP's argument that:
"The notion that if you just pay enough, people who are otherwise qualified will do anything, is amazingly reductive. ... It's totally non-obvious this is true."
But perhaps you were just responding to the narrower assertion that some people will be happy to trade money for more leisure time. Apologies if I misunderstood which point you were addressing.