Poll: Would you accept a 25% pay cut in exchange for a 4 day workweek? | Hacker News Reader

Poll: Would you accept a 25% pay cut in exchange for a 4 day workweek?

16 points99990000099933 comments

Corporations already expect salaried employees to work "whatever hours are necessary to get the job done", ie, often more than 40 hours a week. Assuming this remains true, people will be working 20% less for a 25% pay cut, and still be expected to work overtime for free. Sounds great for companies, not so great for employees.

I worked at a 4day work week company and this is spot on. When I left for a better offer they showed my "real comp" which included at a 25% multiplier for the day off. I worked most Fridays because they needed me to.

Absolutely. I have, in fact, done that for exactly the reason(s) you mentioned in your comment. There's a limited amount of time in my life, which I want to have real control over and spend it with the people that matter to me, and doing the things that matter to me.

Time matters indeed more than money.

Time matters more than money as long as you have more than enough money...

Especially, with a 4-day week bills and expenses remain basically the same so a 25% salary cut is a massive hit.

I disagree with that, and there are more ways to look at it, I suppose.

One aspect is that time matters more as long as you're able to keep alive, healthy and live a meaningful existence. All which are possible without "more than enough money".

Another is that, depending on a number of circumstances (many of which may be personal), time may matter more regardless of everything else.

Well you always need "enough money". What that means is indeed personal.

Some people are happy with very little, even happy to, say, live off-grid or stuff like that.

But, IMHO, it's hard to be happy when you have to watch your spending all the time or can't afford to do many things. That does not mean you have to spend your life chasing money but there has to be a balance, which is a personal preference.

This is true. But unless one close to poverty or have some fixed obligations (like care for person with special needs) there is always a way to cut 25%. Smaller house, less unnecessary buying, etc. I’m not saying it is a way to go, but for some people it looks attractive.

Agreed, imagine all the mini vacations you could take with a 3 day weekend every week. Imagine how much easier attending to family would be.

Does that include 25% less work as well? Because part time jobs I've had always involved work that spilled over to more than half time, even though the pay was merely half time.

The point of a 4 day workweek is that productivity stays the same, while idling is reduced.

So, no, I wouldn’t take a 25% pay cut for less long lunches and water cooler talk.

I agree with your premise, but not your opinion.

I don't want to get paid to be idle, talk at the water cooler, or take a long lunch.

Am essentially taxed at 50%, so a 25% paycut is actually a loss of 12.5% income... May be worth it, as long as there is no expectation to "make up for lost time". Remember, it's not just working 20% less, it's adding 50% to your current weekend. Depending on your life situation/ children, this may be a big deal.

Still a %25 loss. If your pay is 100,000 and your take home pay is 50,000 you lose %25 of 50,000=12,500

The US uses a progressive tax system. That 25% cut may bring them down under that threshold.

Also earning more money doesn't mean your take home will be less cause you're in a higher bracket.

Why would you lose 25% of the take home pay?

I already work 4 days a week. Friday essentially is such a slow day with no meetings that is virtually optional. Been this way in several companies in the US including at big tech companies that are not known for wlb. 25% cut sounds like a bad deal for me and good deal for employer as they’d get the same amount of work done as before.

We spend 1.5 out of 5 days just catching up to stuff in meetings and documenting. If it was 2.5 days of work per week, we'd just end up doing overtime to get stuff done.

I actually did do 4 hour weeks back when I was freelancing, though. It's equally efficient, assuming you don't work with a lot of people.

I guess you’re asking about 25% on the assumption that benefits (e.g. equity, health insurance) would be unchanged?

Sure, you'd still have benefits but salary, equity is reduced by 25%.

In a heartbeat. I in fact have suggested I would take a pay cut to a few prior employers in exchange for reduced hours but never went through with it because they said I’d be ineligible for health care or retirement contributions.

I'd do it at 20%. 20% less time, so 20% less salary. My hourly rate is still the same. This assumes I'm paid hourly and my performance review should reflect that. The whole compensation scheme should change if my performance would be about impact.

Yes, but with free Wednesday instead of Friday. That said, the economics of 25% cut are inevitably temporary, assuming easy-to-switch job market. People will just start to ask for up to 33% more on average, depending on the actual performance change.

Not a chance - you are paying me for my impact, not for how many hours I sit at a desk.

Exactly this. Who is clock watching the ceo…?

Your poll is a non starter in Europe

Working in Switzerland I already have the option to work 4 day weeks @ 80% salary, 3 day weeks @ 60%, and 2 day weeks @40%.

So your 4 day week @ 75% salary is a no go.

Europe is a big place, I do not think all countries have that option :)

You mean 20%?

No, my theory is time is worth more than money.

Between high inflation and subdued salary increases in recent years (at least in my experience) I'd rather be looking at how to earn more at the moment...

it's a nice sentiment, but puts a target on your back for layoffs and other unintended consequences

I accepted a 50% hourly rate cut for:

1. Moving to freelance, hourly pay

2. Moving to the South of France, 100% remote job

3. Completely flexible hours (aiming to do 22hr/week)

4. Completely flexible vacation time.

That seemed like a great deal for me.

But 25% pay cut for 20% time cut, this is a SHITTY move.

I mean, it dorsn't make much mathematical sense, to work 4/5 of the time, get 3/4 of the pay. Even if you scale pay with time, and I don't.

One person's experience or genius can bring a lot of value even in 10 minutes.

I already had to take a 25% pay cut just to be employed, so probably not, it’s just not enticing enough for me.

I would, however be willing to accept further pay cuts for two things:

1. Being fully remote again. 2. Working on something that actually interests me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com