Economist Juliet Schor Speaks on Benefits of Four-Day Workweek in Second Point/Counterpoint Event

The Point/Counterpoint series returned for its second conversation on Thursday, Nov. 21, featuring Juliet Schor, an economist, professor of sociology at Boston College, and author of the New York Times bestseller “The Overworked American.” The event centered around consumer culture, climate change, and her long-standing research on the four-day workweek.

Schor sat down in conversation with Professor of American Studies and Sociology Leah Schmalzbauer in a fully packed Red Room of students and faculty. Schor began by expressing her concern about climate change — claiming that mitigation responsibility should fall on the more affluent countries of the global north, which have been the main source of carbon emissions.

“You still have lots of poor people, poor countries [in the global south], and asking them to sacrifice so that the global north can continue to pollute is ethically not defensible,” she said.

The way to reduce emissions, Schor argued, is by centering productivity growth on shorter work hours and more free time, rather than just producing more. She pointed out that the world is in a period of “great acceleration,” where the rates of production for “material stuff” have accelerated, alongside rates of ecological degradation and carbon emissions.

“Slowing down is really a key thing that we need to think about to respond to the climate crisis.”

Schor first wrote about these ideas in her 1992 book “The Overworked American,” but since then, she said that putting her ideas into practice was a challenge due to a lack of interest in the topic.

It was not until the pandemic that Schor was approached by an Irish CEO who was planning to run a trial of a four-day workweek with the equivalent of five days’ worth of pay at his company.

Now, Schor says, they have over 250 organizations and 10,000 workers participating in the four-day workweek study — including companies, non-profits, and local governments.

According to Schor, employees described the change to four days as “life-changing,” reporting increased productivity and both physical and mental positive health outcomes.

“Honestly, I could never have imagined what a powerful transformation the four-day week has been for people,” Schor said, referring to the data on productivity and health measures collected by her team during the various trials.

The secret, Schor said, is the benefit of more free time for employees. In turn, collaboration and personal efficiency increase as workers come to work happier, less fatigued, and more motivated.

In terms of prolonged success with the four-day week trial, Schor explained that work culture is a driving factor in the turnover rate. She hinted at a broader issue at hand with white-collar American work culture, where constant competition with co-workers motivates employees to one-up each other by doing extra work outside of the four-day week schedule.

“If they had more white men in [the organization], they were more likely to revert. So make of that what you will,” she said.

Hannah Adhikari ’28 was particularly struck by this statistic.  

“She had really good insights on grind culture and how that’s a product of whiteness, especially the white, male perspective. I think it’s something that's not talked about enough,” she said.

When asked how economists feel about the four-day week, Schor said that many have proposed simply boosting efficiency while remaining on a five-day workweek. She rebutted these claims, saying the forced deadline of four days of work per week and the benefits of having more free time are the main drivers of the efficiency increase; both would be eliminated with a return to five days.

“The four-day week forces companies to do things they really should do, that they just never get around to,” Schor said.

For the most part, students in attendance agreed with Schor’s assessment of work culture and the four-day week idea.

“America is just insanely overworked, and I feel like we can see that with burnout at every age level,” Adhikari said.

Finn O’Hara ’28 felt that the fact Schor had evidence to prove her ideas work in practice made them all the more viable.

“All of her stances she backs up with a bunch of studies [and] data. So it’s not like she’s just making these unfounded claims,” he said.

Schor also talked about the feasibility of applying the four-day model to universities, saying that it would be viable, just more complex. She described the university standards for students and faculty as an “unhealthy system.”

O’Hara disagreed with this part of Schor’s assessment, arguing that it would not be possible without a huge cultural change in universities — something he does not see happening any time soon.

“​​Even if there were only four days of classes, kids would still be doing homework, trying to find other opportunities in those other three days.”

Adhikari agreed with O’Hara because of her own experience with four days of classes.

“This semester, I do have a four-day work week in terms of classes, but on Friday, I still find some way of doing a lot of homework.”