We are talking about something that is nonsense.
What are we talking about?
People ought to be able to work no more than six hours a day.
Really?
Why does anyone work eight? Or ten? Or twelve?
Did this 8 to 10 hour per day thing get sprung on people and forced upon them from nowhere?
No. Of course not. It's something that achieved a "natural" balance over decades (centuries?). And the balance has hundreds of variables driving it. From personal happiness to international competitiveness and productivity with even more variables across varied industries and cultures.
Nonsense is picking a number out of thin air, be it six or four hours and proclaiming that, not only will this work but it will result in happiness and a real improvement in employment figures.
It's like going into an ecosystem with some balance and killing off all the rats. There will be consequences. And they will likely not be positive.
You can't force a nation into a six hour work day without leaving behind measurable destruction. And this destruction would range from the personal (individual, family, kids, social groups) to corporate and national. You just can't do that and expect positive results.
This isn't about not liking the idea of working less and devoting more time to "living life". No, this has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the reality that these decisions exist in the reality of a very complex local, regional, national and international competitive marketplace.
A change of the sort being discussed would forcefully move away from a balanced position that allows everyone to earn a reasonable living, companies to remain viable while facing a myriad of competitors operating under different rules and society to function.
And so, proposing that people would be happy while facing a massive change in their standard of living, their ability to save for their future, feed their kids, take trips, have free time (because they will need two jobs), etc. simply isn't in alignment with reality.
To further propose that this would also improve employment is equally misplaced because this metric --the number of people being employed-- isn't a measure of anything other than a head count. A more useful measurement would combine head count with standard of living, savings rate, leisure time, quality of child care, etc.
These conclusions are faulty to such an extent that suggesting this approach would work could only be done from a less than lucid frame of mind.
In other words, it's nonsense and you'd have to be on dope to believe it would actually make society better.
Could we make such a thing work?
Yes, we could.
How?
Through massive global changes that are likely to require centuries to achieve. In other words, Star Trek territory. Not impossible, but, today, highly improbable because it would require dozens of nations to agree on terms and coordinate such changes over extended periods of time while making significant concessions.
People work 8 hour days because left wing labour movements, unions, and politicians argued for it. Much like some people in Sweden are doing now. Some companies / countries tried it and found it to be good, so it spread. Prior to that working days would be between 10 and 16 hours, six days a week. I'm sure many people argued as you are now, 'only the lazy want to work less than 16 hours a day', 'it won't work logically', 'it will be impossible to implement'. Turns out they were wrong and you probably are too.
Did this 8 to 10 hour per day thing get sprung on people
and forced upon them from nowhere?
No. Of course not. It's something that achieved a
"natural" balance over decades (centuries?).
In the United States, the eight-hour day for everyone came from the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937. Australia got it state by state starting in 1916 (Victoria 8 Hours Act) and nationally in 1948. The Mexican constitution of 1917 also prescribed an 8 hour day. None of these are "centuries" old.
Obviously, individuals and unions demanded shorter working hours before these acts were passed. However, if you look at the spread of these demands, it all happened pretty fast--and at a time when communication and coordination were significantly more difficult than at present.
I don't know the answer to this. It'd be interesting to understand how long the work day was in ancient times. Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc.
Even with slavery, there had to be a forced optimization of labor hours simply due to the fact that people would get sick or even die if subjected to unreasonable schedules.
The world somehow seems to have achieved labor balance at eight hours per day. It's interesting that this seems to be the case in most nations and cultures on the planet. That's what I mean by it being the "natural" work day.
To force something different at a national level (less or more hours) would put that particular nation at odds with other nations. It would also have detrimental effects at all levels, from the individual to the nation itself.
I insist these changes are possible but not through forced legislative approaches. This is where I think, in the long term, robotics and AI will have a positive effect on society. If less people can produce more in less time and we can figure out how to cope with the societal changes this will spur, we could be on a path where people will be able to exist with much less (in financial terms) yet have good lives and achieve balance.
I can almost see an evolutionary path towards what today looks like utopia. I just don't know how to get there. Being in robotics myself I always worry about what it means to make machines that can displace humans. Not sure where the answers on that might lie.