<p>Based on the OP's comment directed at @StevenLandsburg, it appears that what we are discussing here is "same $L$abor amount, more $H$eads". So if currently we have $H = L/40$ we will roughly have $H' = (1/0.8)\cdot(L/40) \Rightarrow H' = 1.25H$.  </p>

<p>Assuming that there are $25$% more Heads to go to work, this is a redistribution of the same labor income from current earners to non-earners, possibly partly offset by the reduction of unemployment benefits and other transfers that are somehow related to non-earners, which could materialize as lower taxes.  </p>

<p>Another interesting aspect here would be the effect on savings: if savings are non-linearly related to income, and then, reasonably expected to be a <em>convex</em> function of it (the higher the income, the higher <em>proportion</em> of it is saved), then such a redistribution would lower savings in favor of consumption (but only partially, since part of this +$25$% would come from households that had already some earners, thus tending to re-instate <em>family</em> income). In any case, lower savings would mean lower available funds for loans and investments. What would that do to capital accumulation, capital level and hence profit maximizing demand for labor? </p>

<p>Also, part of the non-earners that they will now go to paid work, may have been engaged in "non-market", "home production". What will happen with this aspect? </p>

<p>In other words, as comments suggested this needs a fully specified model, even if it is only a highly abstract one, and depending on the assumptions of the model, even within the "usual" variety of assumptions, conclusions will most probably differ.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-14T16:01:16.943Z
You give great answers
123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-14T17:26:12.980Z
@mathtastic Thank you, such kind words are much appreciated.
Alecos Papadopoulos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-14T13:36:17.510Z
2015-01-15T05:40:23.953Z
2015-01-15T05:40:23.953Z
Alecos Papadopoulos
<p>What would happen if the entire world switched to the 4-day work week?</p>

<p>Specifically would someone's quality of life drop significantly in a developed or a non-developed country?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-12T10:35:23.173Z
This seems rather broad. But [worldbuilding.se] seem to relish this sort of question.
410 gone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-12T10:37:48.437Z
@EnergyNumbers I would not mind if someone moved it there. It's just a matter of curiosity and I prefer SE to Quora.
Den
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-12T18:40:53.977Z
Are we talking about a transition in norms? A move to a lower hour threshold for overtime hours? More hours worked per day but only 4 days per week? Did you have in mind that schools would also be 4 days a week? Would the extra day be more like a Saturday (stores open) or Sunday (many stores closed?_?
BKay
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-12T19:02:46.797Z
The answer depends entirely on *why* the world switches to a 4-day week.  Is this due to a change in tastes?  A change in technology?  A regulation?  Without some story behind it, this is a nonsense question, like asking "What if a price changes?".  I hope this is quickly closed.
Steven Landsburg
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-12T19:11:35.753Z
Well...it would immediately follow that I would be really really happy!
123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-12T22:20:43.587Z
@BKay 8-hour work day, 4-day work week. Uneven work week allowed by state, so that stores will rotate staff (boosts employment levels by the way) to keep stores open 7/7.  BTW take your arguments and change 4 to 5: "But schools would only be open 5 days, no way we can switch from a 6 day work week!".
Den
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-12T22:25:45.357Z
@StevenLandsburg it's a thought exercise. Let's say public's pressure resulted in serious consideration of the guaranteed minimal income in some near future, and the 4 day work week was suggested as an alternative to increase the number of people at work while keeping same productivity levels.
Den
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-14T15:20:47.110Z
@BKay, sounds like essentially a quantity ceiling. Den's note also indicates that the Q includes gen eqlm effects, which I think makes it a somewhat more interesting "fun theory" question. :) One way to rephrase his Q: "can we think of a model in which a quantity ceiling on labor shifts an economy from a poor equlm to a better equlm, in welfare terms?" Seems that a necessary ingredient is a model with multiple equilibria and coordination failure among decentralized decision-makers, s.t. they land in a lower-welfare "work too much" state. Now my Q is: what characteristics produce this model?
CompEcon
<macroeconomics><labor-economics><gdp>
What would happen if the entire world switched to the 4-day work week?
Den
# What would happen if the entire world switched to the 4-day work week?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-01-12)

What would happen if the entire world switched to the 4-day work week?

Specifically would someone's quality of life drop significantly in a developed or a non-developed country?

**Tags:** macroeconomics, labor-economics, gdp
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This seems rather broad. But [worldbuilding.se] seem to relish this sort of question.  
> **username_0**: @EnergyNumbers I would not mind if someone moved it there. It's just a matter of curiosity and I prefer SE to Quora.  
> **username_2**: Are we talking about a transition in norms? A move to a lower hour threshold for overtime hours? More hours worked per day but only 4 days per week? Did you have in mind that schools would also be 4 days a week? Would the extra day be more like a Saturday (stores open) or Sunday (many stores closed?_?  
> **username_3**: The answer depends entirely on *why* the world switches to a 4-day week.  Is this due to a change in tastes?  A change in technology?  A regulation?  Without some story behind it, this is a nonsense question, like asking "What if a price changes?".  I hope this is quickly closed.  
> **username_4**: Well...it would immediately follow that I would be really really happy!  
> **username_0**: @BKay 8-hour work day, 4-day work week. Uneven work week allowed by state, so that stores will rotate staff (boosts employment levels by the way) to keep stores open 7/7.  BTW take your arguments and change 4 to 5: "But schools would only be open 5 days, no way we can switch from a 6 day work week!".  
> **username_0**: @StevenLandsburg it's a thought exercise. Let's say public's pressure resulted in serious consideration of the guaranteed minimal income in some near future, and the 4 day work week was suggested as an alternative to increase the number of people at work while keeping same productivity levels.  
> **username_5**: @BKay, sounds like essentially a quantity ceiling. Den's note also indicates that the Q includes gen eqlm effects, which I think makes it a somewhat more interesting "fun theory" question. :) One way to rephrase his Q: "can we think of a model in which a quantity ceiling on labor shifts an economy from a poor equlm to a better equlm, in welfare terms?" Seems that a necessary ingredient is a model with multiple equilibria and coordination failure among decentralized decision-makers, s.t. they land in a lower-welfare "work too much" state. Now my Q is: what characteristics produce this model?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2015-01-14. Score: 4

Based on the OP's comment directed at @StevenLandsburg, it appears that what we are discussing here is "same $L$abor amount, more $H$eads". So if currently we have $H = L/40$ we will roughly have $H' = (1/0.8)\cdot(L/40) \Rightarrow H' = 1.25H$.

Assuming that there are $25$% more Heads to go to work, this is a redistribution of the same labor income from current earners to non-earners, possibly partly offset by the reduction of unemployment benefits and other transfers that are somehow related to non-earners, which could materialize as lower taxes.

Another interesting aspect here would be the effect on savings: if savings are non-linearly related to income, and then, reasonably expected to be a *convex* function of it (the higher the income, the higher *proportion* of it is saved), then such a redistribution would lower savings in favor of consumption (but only partially, since part of this +$25$% would come from households that had already some earners, thus tending to re-instate *family* income). In any case, lower savings would mean lower available funds for loans and investments. What would that do to capital accumulation, capital level and hence profit maximizing demand for labor?

Also, part of the non-earners that they will now go to paid work, may have been engaged in "non-market", "home production". What will happen with this aspect?

In other words, as comments suggested this needs a fully specified model, even if it is only a highly abstract one, and depending on the assumptions of the model, even within the "usual" variety of assumptions, conclusions will most probably differ.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: You give great answers  
> **username_6**: @mathtastic Thank you, such kind words are much appreciated.  

---

