Argument for a 3-day work week

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

Carlos Slim, the world’s second-wealthiest person according to Forbes, thinks he’s stumbled upon the solution to enable people to balance their work and home lives: A three-day work week.

Speaking at a conference in Paraguay last week, the Mexican billionaire advocated what he described as a “radical overhaul” in the way people work that would allow people to work past the age of 70, 9 years longer then the typical retirement age of a U.S. worker, according to the Financial Times. The only catch to Slim’s plan is that people would have to work 11-hour days, a trade-off that he says will generate huge benefits for both workers and employers.

“Having four days [off] would be very important to generate new entertainment activities and other ways of being occupied,” the Financial Times quotes him as saying.

Mexican businessman Carlos Slim (photo: CNN)

Mexican businessman Carlos Slim (photo: CNN)

As my colleague Kim Peterson recently noted, other business leaders such as Google CEO Larry Page has backed a four-day work week, noting: “Most people like working, but they’d also like to have more time with their family or to pursue their own interests.”

There are other, more practical reasons why many workers might find a shorter work week more appealing. For one thing, it might might make it easier for them to find a job. Unemployment, though on the decline, still remains stubbornly high at 6.1 percent while the joblessness rate among young people remains in the double digits. The figures are particularly worrisome for young African-Americans (28.2 percent) and Latinos (18.1 percent).

Sadly, many people can’t afford to retire even if they wanted to since their nest eggs have depleted by the gyrations of the stock market in recent years. Data released last year by mutual fund company Fidelity Investments found that 55 percent of workers it surveyed were in “fair” or “poor” shape to be able to completely cover their expenses during their golden years.

1 Comment

  • TruthLivesHere

    This is pure garbage. How exactly would this allow people to work past the age of 70? How exactly would it make it easier for people to find a job? And the big laugh is the “new entertainment activities” this would afford. Simple math reveals that the less you work, the less money you make. So where does the extra money for “new entertainment activities” come from? In this stagnant economy with stagnant wages, people that depend on a paycheck to function want more hours not less. This article is ludicrous, but then again it was presented by CNN, so what else would you expect?

Comments are closed.

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.