Please provide a citation to some scholarly or historical work to that effect. The last time I looked into this any way seriously there was nothing suggesting 40 hours was chosen for reasons of productivity. One of the extremely few studies that was decent was of productivity on building sites which found that total (not average) productivity increased up until 60 hour weeks.
I'm skeptical that this study is any better than whatever studies may have got us here in the first place. 4 day work weeks seem as arbitrary as as what we have now. If happiness and well-being is productive, then a 3 day work week might even be better. Some might be more productive by never working at all.
> One of the extremely few studies that was decent was of productivity on building sites which found that total (not average) productivity increased up until 60 hour weeks.
If we're talking anecdotes, I'd much rather have 5 days in a typical week (with provision for exceptions) and the excess put into a pot for longer vacations.
It may be worth pointing out as well that the stereotypical 40 hour/5 day week applies primarily for people commuting from their homes to a factory/office. There are lots of situations where people commute to a remote location and work ~12 hour days in a week/2 week/month on-off schedule.
Probably not based on scientific study but just a practical response to crews that need to be transported to a remote location and operate 24 hours a day collectively.
Interesting, I had an idea there were studies from WWII aircraft plants or the like, but have never tried to look them up.
The optimum must depend strongly on what work you are doing, how expensive tired mistakes are to fix, how much downtime there is waiting for someone else, etc.
