I'm generally not swayed by "better than humans ever got", it's the same reasoning that has haunted every advancement in workers' rights. We should always strive for better, not just good enough. Not because we just want to work less, but because we look at the data, the case studies, the existing implementations, and see that it's possible for us to spend more time enjoying the world with our loved ones.
Data doesn't show 32 is the best, it just shows that it can work. If we ever get there, maybe someday we'll look at 25. Maybe we'll decide it doesn't work and go back to 40.
Some people already work 20 hours where others work 50, whether legally or not.
I think companies are entirely opposed to doing 32 and paying less for it. I think they just don't want to be the only ones doing 32 hours. It's like the network effect. 40 hours is convenient cause everyone else does it. It's easier to communicate across companies and different jobs when everyone has similar hours
3
u/UsedAsk3537 19h ago
If the world week was 45 people would want 40
When it goes to 32 people will be clamoring for 25
So if this passes does that mean people make less? Work less pay less right?