Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You lost me at 3 hrs of cooking. Nobody I know does that.

It’s cooking and eating

Have you not seen time use studies in Italy?

If you measure all the time you take to cook and eat and clean up …if you are making home cooked meals, you are gonna be close to three hrs

I spend 3 hours cooking and cleaning up after cooking. But I don't cook everyday. I cook large batches 2 times a week and freeze.

n

Have you not seen the condition of the economy in Italy and the rate of unemployment and lack of opportunity for young people?

I was wondering when this would be addressed.

Anonymous wrote:My govt job only pays me $220K but the result is I have time for parenting and exercise.

I save cooking time with a precooked meal delivery service on weeknights for dinner and it is the best timesaver ever.

Only 220k. Only on DCUM is an annual 220k considered only. Lol.

Anonymous wrote:you have sex for an hour a day? jeezus.

NP. That’s A lot more than a lot of people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everywhere that has experimented with 4 day work weeks has found health benefits

Would this extend to schools? How about restaurants and stores?

Many restaurants and stores have limited hours, are closed on slow days, etc but they aren't likely using FT wage workers anyways because of benefits. And there are even some companies that keep employees under the threshold of both benefit coverage and overtime. Almost everything in Germany is closed on Sunday and people manage. Imagine if you had a 4 day work week and then had 3 days to do everything else and then even had 1 day where the world slowed down around you. Sunday closures may not change your life as much if you had two other days to do all the other stuff.

Schools should have double the staff anyways where they teach for x days and have paperwork/admin x day but a full 5 day week for students. We still have schooling set up with the idea that a parent is at home all day/SAHP, the teachers are nuns/single, and all kids can bike/walk home for lunch. Schools don't reflect our economy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1926: Henry Ford popularized the 40-hour work week after he discovered through his research that working more yielded only a small increase in productivity that lasted a short period of time.
1938: Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which required employers to pay overtime to all employees who worked more than 44 hours a week. They amended the act two years later to reduce the work week to 40 hours.
1940: The 40-hour work week became U.S. law.

So here we are stuck with archaic standards from 80 years ago when computers didn't exist and women were encouraged to stay home when they had young children.

Women can still stay home with young children theoretically. You don’t have to, but it is not a physical impossibility. Two full-time incomes takes two full-time work, anything other than this, you are really asking for someone or the government to subsidies your child rearing. I'd rather support struggling single moms or struggling old ladies first.

Actually, you would be compensating caregivers for their labor. Just because we have not compensated caregivers for their work historically doesn't mean that it cannot or should not be done.

So you are including poor single moms in your payment plans? Will all moms get the same amount of money?

I am in favor of compensating caregivers for their labor and time, yes.

Anonymous wrote:Everywhere that has experimented with 4 day work weeks has found health benefits

Would this extend to schools? How about restaurants and stores?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You lost me at 3 hrs of cooking. Nobody I know does that.

It’s cooking and eating

Have you not seen time use studies in Italy?

If you measure all the time you take to cook and eat and clean up …if you are making home cooked meals, you are gonna be close to three hrs

I spend 3 hours cooking and cleaning up after cooking. But I don't cook everyday. I cook large batches 2 times a week and freeze.

n

Have you not seen the condition of the economy in Italy and the rate of unemployment and lack of opportunity for young people?

I’m 34, female, childfree, and work full time on a hybrid schedule. There is no way I would work at my current workplace if they wanted us to RTO 5 days a week. I do personal training and go to the gym a couple of times a week and cook, but that’s about all the time I have after working.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1926: Henry Ford popularized the 40-hour work week after he discovered through his research that working more yielded only a small increase in productivity that lasted a short period of time.
1938: Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which required employers to pay overtime to all employees who worked more than 44 hours a week. They amended the act two years later to reduce the work week to 40 hours.
1940: The 40-hour work week became U.S. law.

So here we are stuck with archaic standards from 80 years ago when computers didn't exist and women were encouraged to stay home when they had young children.

Women can still stay home with young children theoretically. You don’t have to, but it is not a physical impossibility. Two full-time incomes takes two full-time work, anything other than this, you are really asking for someone or the government to subsidies your child rearing. I'd rather support struggling single moms or struggling old ladies first.

Actually, you would be compensating caregivers for their labor. Just because we have not compensated caregivers for their work historically doesn't mean that it cannot or should not be done.

Can you give a rough idea of how this would happen, accounting for where the funds to do that would come from?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1926: Henry Ford popularized the 40-hour work week after he discovered through his research that working more yielded only a small increase in productivity that lasted a short period of time.
1938: Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which required employers to pay overtime to all employees who worked more than 44 hours a week. They amended the act two years later to reduce the work week to 40 hours.
1940: The 40-hour work week became U.S. law.

So here we are stuck with archaic standards from 80 years ago when computers didn't exist and women were encouraged to stay home when they had young children.

Women can still stay home with young children theoretically. You don’t have to, but it is not a physical impossibility. Two full-time incomes takes two full-time work, anything other than this, you are really asking for someone or the government to subsidies your child rearing. I'd rather support struggling single moms or struggling old ladies first.

Actually, you would be compensating caregivers for their labor. Just because we have not compensated caregivers for their work historically doesn't mean that it cannot or should not be done.

So you are including poor single moms in your payment plans? Will all moms get the same amount of money?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1926: Henry Ford popularized the 40-hour work week after he discovered through his research that working more yielded only a small increase in productivity that lasted a short period of time.
1938: Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which required employers to pay overtime to all employees who worked more than 44 hours a week. They amended the act two years later to reduce the work week to 40 hours.
1940: The 40-hour work week became U.S. law.

So here we are stuck with archaic standards from 80 years ago when computers didn't exist and women were encouraged to stay home when they had young children.

Women can still stay home with young children theoretically. You don’t have to, but it is not a physical impossibility. Two full-time incomes takes two full-time work, anything other than this, you are really asking for someone or the government to subsidies your child rearing. I'd rather support struggling single moms or struggling old ladies first.

Actually, you would be compensating caregivers for their labor. Just because we have not compensated caregivers for their work historically doesn't mean that it cannot or should not be done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eating three times a day (and spending 3 hours cooking and eating) is not optimal for your health after the age of 22.

So I just found you an extra hour. You're welcome.

You're not running one hour of errands every day. You're not having sex for an hour every day. You're not socializing with the community for two hours every day, although you can have a job where you socialize.

?????????

You think people should eat once a day?

twice. IF. look it up.

I did this for 13 months. It darn near caused an eating disorder. I was so focused on the clock it was ridiculous.

There is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of intermittent fasting. None whatsoever.

The nice thing about working at home is that when I’m working I’m working, when I’m not, I’m doing things that benefit me. When I’m in the office, that time is just lost to boredom/distraction, not increased productivity for either me or my employer.

Anonymous wrote:8-9 hrs of sleep
3 hrs of cooking/eating
1.5-2 hrs exercise/cool down
30 mins-1 hr sex/physical pleasure
1 hr errands
2 hrs of community/socializing

4-6 hrs working max is what someone can do

You can socialize with coworkers at work. So that's 8 hours a day, and your entire schedule still works.

I do serious work for about 6 hours a day. The rest of the time, I read articles in my field ( that's e joyable and relaxed so it's leasurely), chat with coworkers, take small breaks etc.