What do you think?
Rate this book
Sexta-Feira é o Novo Sábado
Em Sexta-Feira É o Novo Sábado - Como uma semana de trabalho de quatro dias poderá salvar a economia, Pedro Gomes demonstra que uma semana de trabalho de quatro dias traria uma poderosa revitalização económica para benefício de toda a sociedade.
Esta ideia poderá parecer tão surpreendente e rebuscada como no século XVIII terá parecido a introdução do domingo como dia de descanso, mas Pedro Gomes mostra com grande agilidade intelectual como esta medida estimulará a procura, a produtividade, a inovação e os salários, reduzindo ao mesmo tempo o desemprego e os movimentos populistas.
Segundo Gomes, a introdução da semana de trabalho de quatro dias seria facilitada pela pandemia, que já veio alterar os nossos hábitos de trabalho, e entre quatro a seis anos seria suficiente para o Estado e o tecido empresarial e familiar se adaptarem.
Baseando os seus argumentos num eclético leque de teorias económicas, factos históricos e dados, os raciocínios são expostos com clareza e simplicidade. Os argumentos advêm tanto da esquerda como da direita do espectro político, reunindo o que uma sociedade polarizada tem como denominador comum.
Esta ideia poderá parecer tão surpreendente e rebuscada como no século XVIII terá parecido a introdução do domingo como dia de descanso, mas Pedro Gomes mostra com grande agilidade intelectual como esta medida estimulará a procura, a produtividade, a inovação e os salários, reduzindo ao mesmo tempo o desemprego e os movimentos populistas.
Segundo Gomes, a introdução da semana de trabalho de quatro dias seria facilitada pela pandemia, que já veio alterar os nossos hábitos de trabalho, e entre quatro a seis anos seria suficiente para o Estado e o tecido empresarial e familiar se adaptarem.
Baseando os seus argumentos num eclético leque de teorias económicas, factos históricos e dados, os raciocínios são expostos com clareza e simplicidade. Os argumentos advêm tanto da esquerda como da direita do espectro político, reunindo o que uma sociedade polarizada tem como denominador comum.
- GenresNonfiction
312 pages, Paperback
Published February 1, 2022
12 people are currently reading
410 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
July 21, 2021
I have never met the author, Pedro Gomes, but a mutual friend asked for my address so he could send me an advance copy of a book advocating a shift to a four day work week (at the time of writing this review it has still not been published). I wrote back that I only wanted it if it did not commit the “lump of labor fallacy” that shortening the workweek would keep GDP unchanged but lead to more jobs and a lower unemployment rate (a fallacious idea because there is no empirical evidence for it and a theoretical presumption against it). Gomes and my mutual friend assured me it did not commit the fallacy and with that assurance in hand I was happy to get a copy. I often just read a chapter or two of books that are sent to me but in this case I kept wanting to read more—both because of the importance of the idea, the nice manner in which it was presented, and the way in which the author’s genial and enthusiastic persona radiated through so clearly. I uncertain by sympathetic to the argument for a four day work week before reading the book, after reading it I’m a little less uncertain, a little more sympathetic, and will definitely pay more attention to it going forward because its importance as an idea is very high relative to the amount of attention it gets (the later being virtually none).
In the 1920s there were two economic predictions that fared dismally. The first was Irving Fischer’s October 1929 pronouncement that “stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau,” a prediction that was falsified two weeks later. The second was John Maynard Keynes’ 1930 prediction that a century later we would all be working 15 hour weeks. While there are a four more years to go I don’t think I’m going out very far on a limb when I predict that the typical worker will be working more than 15 hours a week nine years from now.
The problem with Keynes’ prediction wasn’t the economy, it has performed towards the upper end of Keynes prediction that “the standard of life in progressive countries one hundred years hence will be between four and eight times as high as it is to-day” (as of 2019 it was seven times higher and should be nearly eight times higher by 2030). The prediction went wrong in that we increased our material consumption by this amount while the consumption of leisure has grown much less than Keynes expected. For a while before and after Keynes hours worked fell sharply as people shifted from a dawn to dusk schedule to a more regulated six day workweek to (in 1938 in the United States) a five day workweek. Since then hours have still generally trended down but in recent decades they have stabilized and for higher-wage workers have trended up.
In general economists have a predisposition to trust consumer choices. Since Keynes wrote people are spending less on three-piece tweed suits and more on blue jeans, a choice that few would judge. But hours worked is not exactly a choice. For a given worker it is hard to get a job and advance in the job without working full-time and in some cases even more, with full time defined as five days a week and eight hours a day. For a business it is also not exactly a choice because it cannot just shutdown one day a week without disrupting relationships with suppliers, customers, and others. The only way to make the choice is more collectively by shifting laws or norms so that, as the title of the book says, Friday is the new Saturday.
Gomes points out that *no one* is advocating re-standardizing the workweek at something more than 40 hours a week or 5 days a week and a number of people argue that it should be decreased. That leads him to suspect that the current number could not be an optimum (in contrast many other numbers, like tax rates, have at least a shot at being optimal given that there are arguments for both raising and for lowering them—albeit I would fall on the side of raising them). In his book he advocates very specifically for a new standard four-day workweek from Monday through Thursday which he views as vastly superior to a flexible four days a week because of the positive leisure spillovers and also reducing the productivity issues associated with job sharing. He is more agnostic on what would happen to total hours and other policy design decisions.
Gomes’ book is very strong on the pros for a four day workweek but mostly dismissive of the cons. He presents the pros nicely through the eyes of different economists (Keynes, Schumpeter, Marx and Hayek—as well as a host Nobel prize winners) arguing that if they were alive today they would virtually all support a four day week, albeit for different reasons. The presentation is pleasant to read, has a lot of easily digestible history of economic thought, and makes some points I didn’t know before.
Gomes is not worried about wages and non-leisure consumption falling when hours fall, but his rebuttal is at times weak (one of his argument is that there need not be a cliff in the year it was implemented because nominal wage freezes in the years before would accomplish the adjustment, but this is simply a wage cut, another argument is that firms could reduce their profits but while that might be nice unless the conditions that generated excessive rents changed they would not actually charge them). I wish there was a little bit more admission that something good is worth paying for.
Gomes did raise some arguments I had not thought of or had dismissed too hastily. While the lump of labor fallacy version of job creation is wrong, Gomes semi-convinced me that in industries with declining employment (e.g., manufacturing) the decline could be less severe if hours/days were being reduced so more workers would be retained. Particularly interestingly, he pointed out that a lot of innovation was done by people in their spare time—and that if people had more of it we might have more creativity and innovation in different spheres.
Gomes devotes a few pages to the ways that a four day school week would not worsen education or might even improve it. This would be the area that would make me the most nervous and that I could imagine being a major unforced error. I would not be overly judgmental of other people’s leisure choices (I’m very open minded and like people whose idea of leisure is reading economics books, classics, science fiction and even fantasy books), but I would not trust children to make particularly good use of the extra time—let alone parents to structure good uses for them.
People have been talking about a four day week for decades. Paul Samuelson supported one in 1970 arguing that it would be a major social invention. It is potentially a much bigger deal to a much bigger group of people than just about any economic idea currently under discussion, it deserves much more discussion, debate, and possibly even it is time to consume some of our prosperity by ratcheting down the rat race a notch.
In the 1920s there were two economic predictions that fared dismally. The first was Irving Fischer’s October 1929 pronouncement that “stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau,” a prediction that was falsified two weeks later. The second was John Maynard Keynes’ 1930 prediction that a century later we would all be working 15 hour weeks. While there are a four more years to go I don’t think I’m going out very far on a limb when I predict that the typical worker will be working more than 15 hours a week nine years from now.
The problem with Keynes’ prediction wasn’t the economy, it has performed towards the upper end of Keynes prediction that “the standard of life in progressive countries one hundred years hence will be between four and eight times as high as it is to-day” (as of 2019 it was seven times higher and should be nearly eight times higher by 2030). The prediction went wrong in that we increased our material consumption by this amount while the consumption of leisure has grown much less than Keynes expected. For a while before and after Keynes hours worked fell sharply as people shifted from a dawn to dusk schedule to a more regulated six day workweek to (in 1938 in the United States) a five day workweek. Since then hours have still generally trended down but in recent decades they have stabilized and for higher-wage workers have trended up.
In general economists have a predisposition to trust consumer choices. Since Keynes wrote people are spending less on three-piece tweed suits and more on blue jeans, a choice that few would judge. But hours worked is not exactly a choice. For a given worker it is hard to get a job and advance in the job without working full-time and in some cases even more, with full time defined as five days a week and eight hours a day. For a business it is also not exactly a choice because it cannot just shutdown one day a week without disrupting relationships with suppliers, customers, and others. The only way to make the choice is more collectively by shifting laws or norms so that, as the title of the book says, Friday is the new Saturday.
Gomes points out that *no one* is advocating re-standardizing the workweek at something more than 40 hours a week or 5 days a week and a number of people argue that it should be decreased. That leads him to suspect that the current number could not be an optimum (in contrast many other numbers, like tax rates, have at least a shot at being optimal given that there are arguments for both raising and for lowering them—albeit I would fall on the side of raising them). In his book he advocates very specifically for a new standard four-day workweek from Monday through Thursday which he views as vastly superior to a flexible four days a week because of the positive leisure spillovers and also reducing the productivity issues associated with job sharing. He is more agnostic on what would happen to total hours and other policy design decisions.
Gomes’ book is very strong on the pros for a four day workweek but mostly dismissive of the cons. He presents the pros nicely through the eyes of different economists (Keynes, Schumpeter, Marx and Hayek—as well as a host Nobel prize winners) arguing that if they were alive today they would virtually all support a four day week, albeit for different reasons. The presentation is pleasant to read, has a lot of easily digestible history of economic thought, and makes some points I didn’t know before.
Gomes is not worried about wages and non-leisure consumption falling when hours fall, but his rebuttal is at times weak (one of his argument is that there need not be a cliff in the year it was implemented because nominal wage freezes in the years before would accomplish the adjustment, but this is simply a wage cut, another argument is that firms could reduce their profits but while that might be nice unless the conditions that generated excessive rents changed they would not actually charge them). I wish there was a little bit more admission that something good is worth paying for.
Gomes did raise some arguments I had not thought of or had dismissed too hastily. While the lump of labor fallacy version of job creation is wrong, Gomes semi-convinced me that in industries with declining employment (e.g., manufacturing) the decline could be less severe if hours/days were being reduced so more workers would be retained. Particularly interestingly, he pointed out that a lot of innovation was done by people in their spare time—and that if people had more of it we might have more creativity and innovation in different spheres.
Gomes devotes a few pages to the ways that a four day school week would not worsen education or might even improve it. This would be the area that would make me the most nervous and that I could imagine being a major unforced error. I would not be overly judgmental of other people’s leisure choices (I’m very open minded and like people whose idea of leisure is reading economics books, classics, science fiction and even fantasy books), but I would not trust children to make particularly good use of the extra time—let alone parents to structure good uses for them.
People have been talking about a four day week for decades. Paul Samuelson supported one in 1970 arguing that it would be a major social invention. It is potentially a much bigger deal to a much bigger group of people than just about any economic idea currently under discussion, it deserves much more discussion, debate, and possibly even it is time to consume some of our prosperity by ratcheting down the rat race a notch.
June 18, 2022
A primeira coisa a dizer é que estamos perante um livro sério, escrito por um economista experiente.
Outro aspeto que depressa vamos perceber é que muita da argumentação usada contra e a favor da redução de 5 para 4 dias de trabalho é exatamente igual à utilizada no passado aquando da redução de 6 para 5 dias de trabalho.
Sendo assim este livro, com palavras simples e enquadrado em termos de ciência económica em diversos estudos publicados, discute os argumentos contra e a favor de uma semana de 4 dias de trabalho.
No livro são analisados os impactos a nível de consumo, produtividade, inovação, salários e redução de desemprego tecnológico. Adicionalmente analisa-se as diferenças setoriais especificas como por exemplo na indústria ou na função pública.
Também são abordadas as limitações na medição do PIB ao não se dar o devido valor ao tempo livre e mesmo impactos positivos a nível da distribuição mais justa das tarefas domésticas entre homem e mulher com a redução da semana de trabalho.
Para aqueles que não querem ter discussões demagógicas e baseadas em preconceitos sobre este tema, e pelo contrário, querem ter uma opinião solidamente fundamentada, este livro é uma excelente leitura.
Outro aspeto que depressa vamos perceber é que muita da argumentação usada contra e a favor da redução de 5 para 4 dias de trabalho é exatamente igual à utilizada no passado aquando da redução de 6 para 5 dias de trabalho.
Sendo assim este livro, com palavras simples e enquadrado em termos de ciência económica em diversos estudos publicados, discute os argumentos contra e a favor de uma semana de 4 dias de trabalho.
No livro são analisados os impactos a nível de consumo, produtividade, inovação, salários e redução de desemprego tecnológico. Adicionalmente analisa-se as diferenças setoriais especificas como por exemplo na indústria ou na função pública.
Também são abordadas as limitações na medição do PIB ao não se dar o devido valor ao tempo livre e mesmo impactos positivos a nível da distribuição mais justa das tarefas domésticas entre homem e mulher com a redução da semana de trabalho.
Para aqueles que não querem ter discussões demagógicas e baseadas em preconceitos sobre este tema, e pelo contrário, querem ter uma opinião solidamente fundamentada, este livro é uma excelente leitura.
June 27, 2022
Um livro que não pretende ser académico, mas muito poderá ser absorvido, por várias razões, desde ser escrito por um economista académico e experiente, quer pelas n fundamentações científicas aqui descritas, quer pela história e visões economistas (nomeadamente de prémios nobéis).
O autor utiliza essencialmente 8 razões e justifica-as:
- porque é possível;
- estimulará a economia;
- aumentará a produtividade;
- desenvolverá a inovação;
- reduzirá o desemprego;
- subida dos salários;
- maior liberdade;
- reconciliará uma sociedade polarizada.
De fácil leitura, tenta esclarecer ao maior leigo em economia.
O autor utiliza essencialmente 8 razões e justifica-as:
- porque é possível;
- estimulará a economia;
- aumentará a produtividade;
- desenvolverá a inovação;
- reduzirá o desemprego;
- subida dos salários;
- maior liberdade;
- reconciliará uma sociedade polarizada.
De fácil leitura, tenta esclarecer ao maior leigo em economia.
August 13, 2021
A provocative but easy read outlining the case for the four day week.
Gomes’ arguments are well crafted with enthusiasm and passion demonstrating how a shift in policy creates the potential to address a range of welfare issues within modern society.
The journey he takes the reader on is far from imposing, supported by personal and often witty anecdotes along with an easily understood deconstruction of ideas from a broad range of economists.
Gomes’ arguments are well crafted with enthusiasm and passion demonstrating how a shift in policy creates the potential to address a range of welfare issues within modern society.
The journey he takes the reader on is far from imposing, supported by personal and often witty anecdotes along with an easily understood deconstruction of ideas from a broad range of economists.
October 20, 2022
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I thought the arguments in support of the 4-day working week were very convincing. I enjoyed the author's way of explaining – I think the reasoning is accessible to a general audience, including readers who do not have an Economics background.
I enjoyed how the author integrated arguments from other economists in the book and used their perspectives to argue for the 4-day working week position.
I enjoyed how the author integrated arguments from other economists in the book and used their perspectives to argue for the 4-day working week position.
June 4, 2023
I would say that this is one of the most important books I've ever read. It gives a great insight on why the society needs a 4-day workweek. Not only you become more interested in economy and its implications, but also you immediately start thinking about on what you would with an extra free day.
More, you don't need to have any previous knowledge on economy or finances - Pedro Gomes explains everything with very simple vocabulary, examples and excelente metaphores.
More, you don't need to have any previous knowledge on economy or finances - Pedro Gomes explains everything with very simple vocabulary, examples and excelente metaphores.
June 9, 2022
A great case for the 4 day workweek. Essential for anyone because this will be an important topic for the next few years. Taking from economists from Marx to Hayek, Gomes, successfully shows us that this measure can be implemented and defended from anywhere in the political spectrum. I only wished some chapters dedicated to a economist drew more from that particular economist.
July 30, 2022
Let’s all become advocates and get this shit implemented in our live times!
August 2, 2022
Ótimos argumentos a favor da semana de trabalho como um possível factor de desenvolvimento económico. Argumentos de ambos os lados do espectro político.
October 24, 2021
Este libro sobre las motivaciones para reducir la jornada laboral está escrito de forma ágil y se lee muy cómodamente. Es un libro muy documentado en el que los razonamientos económicos están bien explicados de forma sencilla. Los argumentos favorables se van asociando sistemáticamente a un economista famosos lo que permite introducir anécdotas y cuestiones económicas más generales. Está escrito desde la perspectiva de un economista "centrista" y "liberal" y es precisamente eso lo que lo hace interesante y necesario, ya que aporta una serie de argumentos e ideas que no suelen estar presentes en los libros que se escriben desde un perspectiva de más de izquierdas y que habitualmente suelen basarse más en su justicia o las ventajas para los trabajadores. Por eso, a pesar de que a veces algunos de los argumentos e ideas chirrían mucho para alguien de izquierda, es uno de los mejores libros que he leído sobre la reducción de jornada.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews