There are currently laws built around a 40-hour work week, so it seems to make sense that if this were to change, it would _have_ to change at the state/federal level.

It's not so much a question of whose business it is. It is more a case of policy being a very strong force in creating (sometimes positive) change.

If societies had relied on individuals to negotiate these types of deals themselves, we'd still be working 60-hour 6 day work weeks with 2 weeks of annual vacation days (which is very little in places like Europe).

> Individuals and their employers should work out any deal that makes sense for both parties.

Let me know how that works out for 99.9% of the population.

Who do you think negotiated 40 hour work weeks before your time? What business did they have to do that for you?

> What business is this of the California government?

What business of this is yours?

The classic libertarian position that naively assumes that companies and individuals have equal negotiating power.

It's the business of the government because for most people otherwise it's a race to the bottom. If you are in a position where you could negotiate a 32h work week for most of your life you're in a privileged position. From your bio you hold 55 patents and have written 20 books, do you think that's the position most workers are in? Most people in the US have practically no vacation compared to the rest of the developed world because there's no mandatory baseline.

Thanks for your reply and other people’s replies. I have rethought my position, and have changed my mind. Having a mandated 32 or 36 hour a week work-week has some advantages, including something not mentioned here in the replies: it is healthy having work to do and with more AI and automation, it makes sense to share available work. Most of my family and friends think that I am very wrong about this: I expect a good future for most people. I think technology will fix climate change, and I believe that AI and automation will give most people the opportunity to do human stuff: cooking, sports, fellowship, etc. In my little world view, politics and greed-driven inequality are the big problems to solve.

Your skills must have been uniquely valuable, and you must have been well compensated to be able to afford living on 80% of a full time salary.

Unless you are starving, it is a matter of tradeoffs. At least half of people could take some sort of pay cut, as demonstrated by the fact that 50% of people do in fact make less.

"Marketing manager" go for around $140k / year. That's a job that requires some skill but definitely not in the realm of "uniquely valuable".

80% of that is $112k / year or 1.6 times the US median salary. Enough to comfortably live with, especially since the job is not physically demanding, allows remote working etc.

What does marketing manager have anything to do with anything? The GP's profile shows they certainly aren't a marketing manager and probably make quite a bit more than $140k/yr.