Since 2017, we've squeezed about 16% more output from our employees every hour. This is an increase to output per hour without automatic pay or hour changes. Productivity gains are here. They will be captured. On path A, corporations capture 100% of the gains. On path B, workers get some room to breathe in a world asking more and more from them.
Furthermore, there have been many studies that suggest that 4-Day work week pilots are extremely successful and have many benefits beyond output.
If your team is shipping more per hour than two years ago, you're sitting on a dividend. We as individual workers can receive it as burnout or our time.
If you’ve read this far, I presume you have some opinion about how AI has augmented your individual productivity at work.
There is a fork in the road.
In many sectors, AI tools have made workers increasingly more productive, some more modestly than others. This productivity will be captured and capitalized upon, the only question is by who.
The way I look at it, there are two main ways this can progress:
- Employers need fewer employees to deliver increasing value to shareholders.
or
- Workers capture the gains from productivity by working fewer hours (or increasing pay).
Employment is a market transaction.
Work is a trade. Both parties (employee and employer) must feel they’re getting a good deal. Right now, there is an imbalance. Workers are producing more value without adjusted compensation. Employers are getting a very good deal.
If you’re familiar with the idea of homeostasis, then you know that working systems have mechanisms to maintain balance. In our system, we will reach a homeostasis but most paths to balance this transaction favor the employer. In other words, its most likely that without worker intervention, this imbalance will yield:
-
Higher expectations
Since AI makes workers 15% more productive, then employers should maintain the headcount and enjoy 15% more output for free. Continue expecting workers to create substantially more value than they are paid for.
-
Headcount cuts
If AI makes workers 15% more productive, then cut 15% of staff to maintain output. Continue expecting workers to create substantially more value than they are paid for. In a competitive market, this isn’t a great option for a company compared to option 1.
-
Restructured roles
This is sort of a hybrid of options 1 and 2. Reduce some departments, expand others.
I assert that there is one additional path that favors employers AND employees, and actually solve for the imbalance. It is the worker’s responsibility to renegotiate for this outcome.
- Increase the price of workers' time.
Because of our employment structures (and frankly the state of the job market) in 2025, there is very little pressure for employers to resolve this imbalance in this manner on their own.
As a producer in the job market, it is the worker’s duty to renegotiate when their value increases. That is how markets work. If a company produces more value, it should increase its prices, right? This renegotiation should either improve pay (because of increased output) and keep the same hours, or reduce hours for the same pay. It's the ratio of output to pay that matters.
I assert that now is the worker’s opportunity for the 4-day work week.
The window is closing.
This leverage that workers have is temporary. Companies will adjust using one or more of the paths I laid out in the previous section. Workers who act now can capture the gains as reduced hours. Those who wait will lose them. If workers don’t act fast, the rebalancing will happen on the employer’s terms.
This won’t happen automagically.
Employers are stellar at negotiating in their favor. Their success in the market depends on it. Employees are historically not great at negotiating. This is true for numerous reasons. One is that employees are decentralized. Employees typically do not have the ability to collectively bargain or make industry wide shifts.
So, what can we do?
Depending on your individual situation, there are a number of approaches to take to accomplish whatever your specific goal is. Some ideas that come to my mind include alternating shifts if you need round-the-clock coverage, working shorter shifts, every other Friday off, etc. There are many compromises to explore here.
If you have leverage, make the case to your manager.
If you’re already outperforming, now is the time to convert that into time. Keep it simple and measurable when you meet with your lead. Show up prepared, with a plan, and be prepared to negotiate. Consider observable output metrics, setting a timeline, organizing a rollback, and emphasize transparency. This productivity increase has flown under the radar for a while now after all.
I’m meeting with you because I want to try piloting a 4-day week at the same pay for 8 weeks. We can set up some clear output metrics we both agree on, and set up a rollback in case output doesn’t align with expectations.
If you are a manager and you are already going to battle on this for your team, hats off to you. Your employees are lucky to have someone like you on their team.
If you do not have leverage individually, collective action becomes necessary. There are a number of ways to accomplish this that I don't need to state explicitly. My safe suggestion is to contact your government representatives. This is private and protected. I’ve included a template at the bottom of this post that you can work from.
The question is not whether the deal between employees and employer will change. It is a question of who benefits when that deal changes.
In either of these cases, the impetus is on the worker. This must be a bottom up solution, and as workers we have a duty to act now to seize the opportunity for a 4-day work week.
Anticipating some counterarguments
I can't always "get in the comments" and respond to every counterpoint, so I want to try my best to get ahead of a couple thoughts.
"Aggregate productivity doesn't mean my company can cut hours."
I think this is true and my solution is brief and generalized to ease communication. Your mileage may vary, truly. Productivity gains are uneven. That's why the proposals I suggest include pilot programs with metrics specific to your business. Where output has not risen, the ask is premature. Where it has, my assertion is that hours can fall without harming delivery.
"AI time savings are overstated or low quality"
My thinking is to treat AI gains as potential. The point of the post is to urge workers to get ahead of this value proposition as data trickles in. Individuals reading this post who feel that their productivity has increased, likely have experienced some measurable bump to output. The pilot suggestion remains. Run a baseline, then compare delivery, quality, and responsiveness. Roll back as needed.
"Shorter weeks will raise costs or prices."
I disagree if output per hour is improved. The idea is to match hours to current productivity. In the negotiation, the employer should still feel they are getting a good deal.
"Coverage and customer expectations require five days."
You know your business best, but I will still assert that coverage is a scheduling problem, not a productivity claim. Staggered off-days, rotating schedules, and on-call matrices can preserve SLAs. The pilot is dependent on preserving SLAs. Congrats on having clear SLAs, by the way.
"This only helps privileged knowledge workers"
The form changes by role, but my claim still holds. Share productivity gains as time or pay. For shift and customer-facing work, try shorter shifts, every-other-Friday off, or seasonal hour reductions. Ask your staff, they likely know what will work best for your customers.
"People will work the fifth day anyway"
God-willing amirite? Jokes aside, make the off-day explicit. Put it on the calendar for clarity. If off-hours creep happens, the pilot has failed, but it may not be the fault of the 4-day week per-se.
"But my Macroecon teacher told me that less labor hurts growth!"
When hours fall because productivity per hour has risen, output can continue as-is. Predictable leisure also boosts local services spending, supporting small businesses and tax bases. Tell Coach Cross, it has yet to be measured.
"This is ideological Marxist bullshit!"
It's a market adjustment.
When a producer's value rises, they renegotiate the deal. Pilots, metrics, and a clean rollback keep things pragmatic and not doctrinal.
It's more likely Adam Smith bullshit, but we can let the market decide.
Email templates for your representatives
Hi [Representative Name],
I’m a constituent in [City/ZIP]. Workers are more productive than a few years ago, but hours and compensation haven’t adjusted. I’m asking you to support policies that let workers capture some of these productivity gains as time, not just profit. Specifically, to encourage 4‑day workweek pilots without pay cuts.
Practical steps you can back:
- Fund state or city pilot programs for a 32‑hour week with no loss of pay.
- Offer incentives for employers who run data‑driven pilots and publish results.
- Strengthen overtime enforcement and right‑to‑disconnect protections.
- Track local economic indicators during pilots, like retail and service spending.
More leisure time is not idle time. It shifts spending toward local services, travel, dining, and childcare, which intuitively supports small businesses and tax revenue.
This is a retention and burnout issue as much as an equity issue. Please let me know your position and any upcoming votes.
Thank you,
[Your Name]
[Address or ZIP]
[Optional: phone]
Sources
Labor productivity, output, and hours worked indexes, nonfarm business
Loading comments...