For generations, Americans have been told that working five days a week for roughly eight hours a day is simply a normal part of adult life. For many people, the workweek is treated almost like a fact of nature. You grow up, get a job, work Monday through Friday, and spend the weekend recovering before doing it all again.

But the five-day workweek is not a law of nature. It is a social system that people created, and systems created by people can also be changed.

The United States should seriously consider moving toward a shorter standard workweek, including the possibility of a four-day workweek without reducing workers’ pay. Such a change would not solve every economic problem, but it could improve people’s quality of life, strengthen families and communities, and give workers more control over their time.

From a progressive perspective, economic progress should not only be measured by how much money companies make. It should also be measured by whether ordinary people have enough time to actually enjoy their lives.

Work Should Support Life

Work is important. People need income to pay for housing, food, healthcare, transportation, and other necessities. Work can also provide people with a sense of purpose and accomplishment.

The problem begins when employment takes up so much of a person’s time and energy that there is little left for anything else.

A person can technically have two days away from work and still feel as if they never have enough time. One day may be spent doing laundry, cleaning the house, buying groceries, paying bills, or completing other responsibilities. The other day may be spent recovering from the previous week and preparing for the next one.

This leaves many workers with very little uninterrupted time for their families, friends, hobbies, education, or communities.

A healthy society should ask whether this is really the best arrangement.

The purpose of an economy should ultimately be to improve people’s lives. People should not exist simply to keep an economy running.

A Shorter Workweek Is Not an Attack on Work

Some critics may hear the phrase “four-day workweek” and assume that supporters are against working.

That is not the argument.

The argument is that productivity and hours worked are not exactly the same thing.

A worker who spends forty hours at a workplace is not necessarily productive for every minute of those forty hours. People become tired. Concentration decreases. Meetings take up time. Employees deal with unnecessary administrative tasks. Long hours can also contribute to burnout.

If workers can accomplish their responsibilities in less time, then requiring them to remain at work simply because a traditional schedule says they should may not make much sense.

A shorter workweek could encourage employers to think more carefully about how work is organized.

Instead of asking, “How can we keep employees here for eight hours?” employers could ask, “How can we help employees accomplish important work efficiently?”

That is a healthier question.

The Progressive Argument

Progressive politics has often been connected to the idea that workers deserve a reasonable balance between economic productivity and human well-being.

This idea is not particularly radical. American workers did not always have the labor protections that exist today. The eight-hour workday and the weekend were themselves products of political and labor struggles.

At one point, a shorter workday was considered unrealistic by people who benefited from the existing system.

Today, we should be willing to have the same conversation about the five-day workweek.

A Progressive Liberal might argue that government should encourage employers to experiment with shorter schedules while allowing businesses flexibility.

A Social Democrat might go further and support stronger labor standards that give workers a genuine right to reasonable working hours and paid time off.

A Democratic Socialist could make an even broader argument: workers should have more democratic control over the conditions under which they work, because employees are human beings rather than simply inputs into a production system.

These perspectives are different, but they can reach a similar conclusion.

Economic growth should improve people’s lives.

What About Businesses?

Businesses obviously have legitimate concerns about changing their schedules.

A restaurant, hospital, factory, transportation company, or other organization cannot necessarily operate according to the exact same schedule as an office.

That does not mean a shorter workweek is impossible.

Different industries could use different systems. Some workplaces could operate with four longer days. Others could use rotating schedules so that the business remains open five or seven days a week while individual employees receive more time off.

The important question is not whether every workplace can use exactly the same schedule.

The important question is whether employers should be encouraged to find more efficient ways of organizing work.

Businesses could also benefit from shorter workweeks if employees experience less burnout and are more satisfied with their jobs.

Reducing turnover can save employers money. Recruiting and training new employees takes time and resources. If a better schedule helps companies retain experienced workers, then the policy could benefit employers as well as employees.

The Four-Day Workweek Could Help Families

One of the biggest benefits of a shorter workweek could be something that economic statistics do not always capture: time.

Parents need time with their children.

People need time to care for elderly relatives.

Friends need time to maintain relationships.

People need time to exercise, cook, read, participate in community organizations, or simply rest.

These activities are not economically worthless just because they do not produce a paycheck.

In fact, many of them contribute to society in ways that are difficult to measure.

A parent taking care of a child is performing an important social responsibility. A person caring for an elderly family member is providing something that would otherwise cost someone else money. A volunteer helping at a community organization is contributing to the community without necessarily receiving a salary.

A society that values only paid employment can overlook all of this work.

A shorter workweek could give people more time to participate in these parts of life.

It Could Also Give People More Freedom

Freedom is usually discussed in political terms.

People talk about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, voting rights, and other civil liberties. These freedoms are extremely important.

But economic circumstances also influence how much freedom a person actually experiences.

Someone who works constantly and barely has enough money to survive has fewer practical choices than someone who has both financial security and free time.

Time is a resource.

If someone has no free time, it becomes harder to go back to school, participate in politics, take care of family members, develop a hobby, or simply decide what they want to do with their own life.

A shorter workweek would not create complete economic freedom, but it could give ordinary people more control over one of their most limited resources: their time.

The United States Should Not Be Afraid of Change

One reason the five-day workweek survives is because it is familiar.

People sometimes confuse familiarity with necessity.

Just because something has been normal for a long time does not mean it is the best possible arrangement.

The United States has changed its expectations about work many times. Child labor laws became stronger. Workplace safety regulations developed. Paid leave became common in many workplaces. The forty-hour workweek became a major labor standard.

These changes did not destroy the economy.

They changed the relationship between workers and employers.

The same thing could happen with a shorter workweek.

A More Human Economy

The debate over working hours is ultimately a debate about what an economy is supposed to accomplish.

If the only goal is to maximize production, then workers can always be told to work longer.

But if the goal is to create a society in which people can live healthy, meaningful, and fulfilling lives, then time matters.

Progressives should not be satisfied with an economy that produces more while leaving people exhausted.

Social Democrats should recognize that labor standards can protect workers without eliminating private businesses.

Democratic Socialists should continue asking an even deeper question: Why should ordinary people have so little control over how much of their lives must be spent working?

The answer should not simply be, “Because that is how things have always been.”

The United States should begin experimenting with shorter workweeks, stronger worker protections, and employment policies that recognize the importance of life outside the workplace.

A four-day workweek is not a magic solution. It will not eliminate poverty, inequality, or every problem facing American workers.

But it could represent something important: the belief that economic progress should give people more life, not simply demand more of it.

Americans should not have to spend most of their waking hours working just to prove that they are productive members of society.

A good economy should give people the ability to make a living. A great society should also give them enough time to live.

Latest Podcast: Spectacular AI Slopocalypse

Back to: The Spectacular Misfits