4 days or fewer
May 3, 2:56pm: 10% or more Britons will only work a 4 day week by 2030 → 10% or more working Britons will only work a 4 day week by 2030 or at any time before
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ128 | |
| 2 | Ṁ65 | |
| 3 | Ṁ57 | |
| 4 | Ṁ36 | |
| 5 | Ṁ4 |
@NathanpmYoung I'm not convinced that "full time four day week" is a coherent concept. There are two things I can think of that "full time" could mean:
Some rough social consensus on what a "normal" working week is. (Perhaps 37.5 hours is the current value in the UK, but I could see a case to be made for anything from 35 to 45.)
Any number of hours as long as your employer won't permit you to do more.
I don't think either of these really makes sense as a "full time four day week". If we use definition 1, that's just "compressed hours", i.e. somebody works a normal number of hours but they work fewer, longer days. If we use definition 2, then there's loads of shift workers and people on zero hours contracts where the number of hours is limited by the employer. (I know somebody who works in a shop on average one day a week. He'd love to have more shifts but can't get them. Feels weird to consider that a "full time one day week" though.)
N/A resolutions are always regrettable, but if the wording of the question contradicts your intentions as market creator it may be an acceptable option.
I think a YES resolution would be the most reasonable option (acknowledging my bias of course!) because
I think based on the wording of the question the answer is YES. If some bettors (me) came up with evidence that it was YES contrary to the expectations of the NO bettors (and market creator) then there's an argument that's just bad luck for the people who didn't realise before betting NO that a YES resolution was implied by the criteria and the state of the world. We all make bad bets sometimes because we didn't understand the subtleties of the question.
As I said above I'm not convinced the concept you were trying to get at is a coherent concept. I don't think this is really a case of "well pedantically the interpretation is X but obviously I meant Y" because Y isn't a real thing.
There are probably interesting questions to ask along the lines of "will x% of employers implement a four day week as standard" or something, but I think that's very different from this question.
Of course, you're the market creator and I don't think anybody will blame you for NAing. :)
(There's a third option, which is to rewrite the resolution criteria to encode your "full time four day week" concept, say that was what you meant all along, and bad luck to the YES bettors who misinterpreted you by interpreting the original criteria literally. I would see this as a mistake because I think it's too big a deviation from the initial criteria (even if it's closer to what you meant) but I'm kind of intrigued to see how you'd do it. As I've said twice now, I don't think your original intention is easy to codify.)
I think this can resolve YES
Unless you think that the majority of "part time" workers are working greater than 80% FTE.
@NathanpmYoung any comment on whether this is sufficient for early YES resolution?
Lots of Britons work part time, and most of those are less than 80%. I'll put more effort into finding more comprehensive sources if necessary, but personally I think it's clear that the YES criteria are already satisfied.
@NathanpmYoung if it happens before 2030 will this market resolve early, or will you wait to see if it's true in 2030?