Hey Walker, Finally read your piece. If it is true that, in some given instances, a shorter work-week can increase output per week, which is plausible enough, how do you address the issue of a new regime where one dude has to work four days and another five for the same pay? Another question, why don't individual employers figure out they should reduce their hours (and pay, presumably) to make more money? The incentive to use overtime rather than additional workers is obvious enough, given fixed costs of employment, and it's also obvious why more people providing the same lump of hours could produce more output, but how much does your case rest simply on working the same group of workers fewer hours and producing more? One big lump o' labor
