Society should definitely have a debate about working less. Right now we are very productively warming up the planet 40 hours a week. Just working less is a big part of the solution.
As I was writing this comment I opened [0]. Fascinating read.
"The front runners for lowest average weekly work hours are the Netherlands with 27 hours,..."
"The New Economics Foundation has recommended moving to a 21-hour standard work week to address problems with unemployment, high carbon emissions, low well-being, entrenched inequalities, overworking, family care, and the general lack of free time."
Let's get away from the notion that 40 hours is the norm.
Assuming that cutting work hours per position would allow for more positions. How would this achieve both less unemployment and less carbon emissions? Would you not need to choose one over the other?
Moving to 21-hour week is almost 50% reduction from the current level. But unemployment is not 50%, it's much much lower. I guess it's a matter of degree. If reduction of working hours is radical enough it could reduce both unemployment and emissions.
As I was writing this comment I opened [0]. Fascinating read.
"The front runners for lowest average weekly work hours are the Netherlands with 27 hours,..."
"The New Economics Foundation has recommended moving to a 21-hour standard work week to address problems with unemployment, high carbon emissions, low well-being, entrenched inequalities, overworking, family care, and the general lack of free time."
Let's get away from the notion that 40 hours is the norm.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time