The Hell in Healthcare

Many people see the United States as one of the most significant countries in the world. How can this be when one of the most essential systems, the healthcare system, is not the strongest it can be? Many countries worldwide have a free healthcare system that citizens can access when needed. However, that is not the case in the US. The US healthcare system causes many Americans to choose not to see a doctor due to the unreasonable cost. Many things are implemented to help Americans afford medical attention when necessary, like insurance, Medicare, and places like retail health clinics. Yet, these implementations still have many flaws that come with them. When you or someone close to you becomes sick, the first thing on everyone’s mind is to find a way to get better. However, that is not the case today, whether going to the doctor, getting rest, or just pushing through the sickness to deal with it. Many people prefer not to go to the doctor for many reasons. From the absurd amount of money, these doctors are asking for only a thirty-minute appointment to the accessibility of these doctors to the everyday person. Why should Americans have to worry about the accessibility and money troubles of the healthcare system, while many other countries have free healthcare for all citizens? This is the best option for the US to have free healthcare, but that is not the case and will most likely never be.

The corruption of the US healthcare system is due to many different factors. One is the political aspect of healthcare. To explain simply and efficiently, the government and political parties that have a say in our healthcare system are mostly money-driven. Fees are associated with everything from pharmaceutical companies to general practitioners’ offices.  The economy is considered the most important, so the healthcare system has high costs. These high costs affect ordinary Americans daily, whether through yearly doctor visits or life-threatening surgeries. The article “Examining quality and efficiency of the US healthcare system” by Kumar S, Ghildayal, N.S, and Shah, R.N states, “The US healthcare system is characterized as the world’s most expensive yet least effective compared with other nations. Growing healthcare costs have made millions of citizens vulnerable.” It can be summarized as a numbers game.  How many patients can we push through an office, and how many scripts can we write for additional costs?  The focus is not on the sick; the focus is on the deepening of the pockets of the healthcare providers. Due to the corruption of the US healthcare system from the political point of view, the costs of necessary doctor visits are being taken away from Americans. 

In comparison to other countries, we need to do better.  In the article US vs. Canadian Healthcare: What is The Difference? states, “Since 1984, the Canada Health Act (CHA) has provided all Canadians with publicly funded healthcare insurance, a program often called “single payer” because all funding and payments come from a single source: the Canadian federal government. The government distributes funds to the provinces and territories, which must each provide care and fulfill CHA requirements for its citizens. Insured health services include inpatient and outpatient hospital care; medically necessary care for maintaining health; disease prevention and the diagnosis and treatment of injuries, illnesses, and disabilities; and medically required physician services.”  Here we can see that a country can sustain and provide this service while not accruing more national debt.  Remember that the system they have created is provided through clearly stated guidelines.  Many of the Medicare costs in Canada come from collected taxes the citizens pay.  This makes sense.   The government uses the money citizens already pay to provide this service back to the public.   Ironically, most of their tax rates are similar if not the same as here in the US. The article goes on to state, “Canada’s health system works pretty well, and it is often cited as a well-functioning example of universal healthcare. But out of 11 high-income country health systems compared in a recent Commonwealth Fund study, Canadian Medicare ranked 10th overall…”  Although this is only one rank ahead of the US, the medical services provided far surpass the US.  Countries like Norway, Netherlands, and Australia rank one, two, and three.  These rankings were based on efficiency, affordability, equity, and outcomes and clearly seen that the American healthcare system falls short in all of these areas.

In understanding why these other countries see success in their healthcare, several factors are taken into consideration.  They are universal coverage and the removal of cost barriers, investment in primary care systems to ensure equitable services, reduction of administrative burdens, and investment in social services, particularly for children and working-age adults.  If our healthcare administration could adopt or replicate this model used in other countries, we could slowly change the view many have on US healthcare.  It seems easier to turn a blind eye and let people (the sick) figure it out as they go.  We, the American Government and Healthcare System, need to do better for our people. 

Many Americans are trying to find another way other than going to their primary doctor for visits, which are seen to cost more than other options that have recently been new to the US. One of these options is urgent care. Urgent care is one of the new and most popular ways Americans today save money when they are sick or need medical attention. Even though urgent care still costs more than it should or is compared to free healthcare in other countries. It is still seen as a better option for many Americans who may have little money or don’t have insurance/access to a primary doctor. Some may say these urgent cares aren’t as good as primary doctors; however, they are becoming increasingly popular. As stated in the article, “Urgent Care Utilization Skyrocketed by 1725% in Last Decade” by Thomas Beaton, “Payers spent an average of $294 for a 30-minute primary care office visit compared to the $255 amount in urgent care centers.” These high costs for a thirty-minute doctor visit are unbelievable. There isn’t much difference between urgent care and primary doctor costs. However, many Americans who go to the primary doctor are not paying the total price. They are not paying $255 for a doctor’s visit because most of these Americans have insurance that covers most of the payment for a doctor’s visit. While most Americans using urgent care do not have insurance, $294 is the best option. Without an insurance plan, this is frequently the only option. Sadly, a lot of the time, it is since many places of business do not offer packages to their employees solely because of the premium costs they are charged for the plans. It simply is not feasible for them to offer their employees a healthcare plan.

Around 15% of Americans don’t even have insurance due to its high costs and the little coverage it gives. Americans who do have insurance are forced to pay high prices since there are not many insurance companies, and because of that, these insurance companies can charge whatever they please. The article “Is our Healthcare System broken?” states, “High costs combined with high numbers of underinsured or uninsured means many people risk bankruptcy if they develop a serious illness.” The high costs of medical attention in the US can have severe and detrimental consequences that come with it.  When it is paying to put food on your table, for your family, or going to urgent care for an antibiotic, a financially struggling person would put food on their table for their families.  This shouldn’t be the case. These adverse effects on Americans can trickle down their lives, causing many different things, like debt. Unlike citizens in other countries, they have to think twice when seeking medical attention for any sickness or injury, mainly due to the financial consequences of seeking medical attention.

Another way the US healthcare system tries to help Americans afford medical attention after age sixty-five is through Medicare. Americans pay for Medicare through taxes until they are sixty-five years old, when they become eligible. Medicare provides help for over sixty million seniors or disabled Americans every day. However, even after paying for Medicare through taxes for sixty-five years, it still has many flaws that come with it. One of the significant flaws of Medicare is the added out-of-pocket expenses that Medicare does not cover. Many Americans with Medicare are retired and no longer have an income so these extra out-of-pocket expenses can cause a burden to these senior citizens. The article “What Are the Pros and Cons of Medicare?” states, “Some beneficiaries may choose to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan because these plans must include an annual out-of-pocket spending limit. Other beneficiaries may choose instead to apply for a Medicare Supplement Insurance plan, which pays for certain out-of-pocket costs such as Medicare copays, coinsurance, deductibles, and more.” Considering what has been stated, Americans with Medicare need to pay monthly for supplemental plans that will cover the out-of-pocket costs they would have to pay otherwise if they just had Medicare. With this being said, the only pro to this kind of plan is eliminating the surprise out-of-pocket costs that come with the visits for these Americans. However, not all Americans can afford to pay extra monthly for a better insurance plan to cover the out-of-pocket expenses and are forced to pay the out-of-pocket expenses after doctor visits or medical attention. Some Americans may find that the extra plan is unnecessary due to it not constantly breaking even with the amount of money they would have to pay monthly to cover the out-of-pocket costs when they cannot predict how much they would have to spend on out-of-pocket costs.

Furthermore, the article “What Are the Pros and Cons of Medicare?” states, “While Medicare is widely accepted across the U.S., it’s not necessarily accepted by every health care provider.” Therefore, after all of the money spent towards Medicare through taxes and if the American pays an additional amount of money monthly for a supplemental plan, they can still find a disadvantage within the medicare plan of not being accepted by all healthcare providers. This often leads to switching doctors and may have additional costs for various reasons.  Accessibility to the office, relationship with a new medical staff, starting over with the process of treatment/diagnosis, etc.  All are even more difficult when you consider that, in most cases, these Americans are older and may not be as in tune with what is happening throughout the process. 

Additionally, the US healthcare system has retail clinics that can benefit many Americans, but that comes at a cost. Most Americans will go to retail health clinics for affordable prices and time efficiency. Yet, these retail healthcare clinics are only sometimes seen as providing the best care. In the article “Retail health clinics: The pros and cons,” it states, “Geriatrician Dr. Suzanne Salamon, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, is concerned that the details of a patient’s visit to a retail health clinic might not be sent to her. Although clinics offer this service, not everyone takes them up on it. ‘The risk with that is, scattered care from multiple places can lead to mix-ups,’ says Dr. Salamon. ‘And if people don’t bring their complete medication lists to a clinic, the clinic may prescribe something that will interact with medications they’re taking.” It has been found that these retail health clinics may not be fully treating their patients at their highest capability due to a lack of knowledge. With this occurring, patients who choose this route when seeking medical attention might worsen their health due to choosing to go to a retail health clinic compared to their primary doctor for the low cost or time efficiency of the retail health clinic. “Desperate times call for desperate measures” should not be the motto attached to US Healthcare, yet this is America’s only option in so many cases.  

Although there are many downfalls within the US healthcare system, the US government still tries to find ways to benefit Americans. One of the many ways US healthcare has done this is through urgent care, retail health clinics, and health insurance for those who can afford it. Having these clinics and insurance for the everyday American makes it much easier and less stressful for many people to stay healthy.  It also allows some to have resources when they become sick. 

Urgent care and retail health clinics have many benefits for them. From accessibility due to the many locations of both and the areas in which they are located. Many Americans find these clinics and doctors to be one of the first places they will visit for their sickness. Adversely, Medicare, as stated earlier, could be negatively affected by transportation situations alone. They also are known for their quickness and time efficiency.  Again, this in-and-out mentality could lead to misdiagnosis and further complications.  From personal experience with these places, they are sometimes not the quickest, but they serve well for small things like a cold, the flu, or minor injuries. However, how can the average American get the services they need without insurance when they are forced to go to the hospital for something more significant like a broken leg or sickness? Although there are many avenues for Americans to choose from when they become sick or injured, sometimes the hospital or calling an ambulance is the only option. The average cost of an ambulance ride in the US is around $1,000. That is for both insured and uninsured Americans. Even with insurance, many Americans find themselves only calling an ambulance if it is a life-or-death situation due to the high costs of the ambulance. Treating a severely injured or ill family member is the priority in those instances.  The after-effect of the piling of medical bills begins to happen shortly after.  It is a vicious cycle that many Americans face on a day-to-day basis.   

Taking a closer look at the breakdown of the US healthcare system, every state may vary in cost effectiveness. Again, in the article, US vs. Canadian Healthcare: What is The Difference?, it states, “ In 2023, the nation’s best state health systems were Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Each of those states incorporates one or more of the Commonwealth Fund secrets to healthcare success. Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Mississippi were the lowest-ranking state health systems. It does matter which state you call home, but healthcare access and quality in the United States also vary greatly according to race, ethnicity, income, and level of education.”  Our inconsistencies make it that much harder for Americans to find quality healthcare in our own states.  Think about having to relocate for a job.  In your current state, you can receive adequate healthcare at a decent cost.  Moving a few states away could drastically change your cost, quality of service provided, and other incidentals you may not even be aware of at the time of relocation. This is just one of the many downfalls of the US healthcare system.

Urgent care can only provide so much for the everyday American needing a doctor’s visit. It comes down to the costs of a simple checkup compared to something more serious that costs an arm and a leg at the emergency room. This is one of the most significant downfalls in the US healthcare system. Americans without health insurance find themselves in a panic when they have a severe injury or sickness that forces them to go to the hospital or need surgery—leading some who need surgery to leave the country and seek medical services in other places.  It is sickening that a first-world country can not provide for its citizens.  Many Americans have astronomical medical bills due to the high costs of the healthcare system throughout the US. The article, “90% of Americans With Medical Debt On Their Credit Report Face Setbacks; New Rules May Help”, states, “In a survey of 1,000 American adults conducted by Tebra, a medical practice management company, 25% of respondents reported that they’d had unpaid medical bills show up on their credit reports. Of those, 91% reported having experienced financial setbacks as a result.” These medical bills are piling up on Americans who are insured and uninsured. How is this possible with all the great insurance that is supposed to be helping Americans stay healthy, yet it is causing many setbacks? It also states in the article, “…$88 billion in medical debt clogged up Americans’ credit reports, and medical debt is a top source of consumer complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), any relief should be welcome news to millions of Americans.”  So, we should be thankful for the 88 billion dollars of medical debt across the board for Americans. This is absurd because many other countries have free healthcare that their citizens can access anytime. And so they do not see a national debt in their countries due to healthcare. 

In conclusion, there is no perfect healthcare system.  There are flaws that are very obvious to us as Americans in, or unfortunately not privileged enough to have healthcare.  National funding and dissemination of funds need to be revamped to provide Americans with the healthcare they deserve.  Working citizens pay taxes.  Working citizens get sick.  It is the due diligence of our government to provide us with a service that rightfully deserves, considering what Americans put back into the government, both state and nationally.  I hope in time, there is a change.  As we know and many of us have witnessed, change takes time, but for the millions of people who have waited and are hopeful, this change in a positive direction is so desperately needed in the US healthcare system.

Need References

Working Less Can be a Good Thing

Everyone who is currently working has only known that of a five day work week, but never questioned why that is. I believe that with a little bit of knowledge on the subject and with the way that our world has progressed throughout the years, we should make the leap to a four day work week. Now everyone would love to just cut their work one day short without any repercussions to their pay or hours, but that doesn’t seem realistic. If we look into the history of why the work week is set the way it is we find that prior to the work week mandate in 1927, there wasn’t a set work schedule throughout different industries, and some people would even work “fourteen- to sixteen-hour days, six days per week,” as stated in “Four-Day Work Week: Old Lessons, New Questions.” However, in 1927, many companies and influential CEOs including Henry Ford proposed their own regulations in regard to work time to the Labor Union. After a short trial period, Henry Fords five, eight hour day work week was integrated. This way of work has remained largely unchanged for nearly 100 years. 

It wasn’t until nearly 50 years later that people here and there bring up the topic of further decreasing the work week, as we can see in “A Look at The Four Day Work Week” written in 1971. In this paper, it brings to light some of the companies that offer a position with a four day work week. Yet in these positions, you are expected to work 10 hour days, essentially canceling out the shortened week. Due to this, there was a lack of people willing to trade the day off for longer time in the office, and less than 75 thousand workers in the U.S. worked only four days a week. At the time, an 8 hour day was still seen as something that was fought for and rewarded to workers, and to throw that out the window and return to longer days seems counterproductive. 

Now, 50 more years later, a “boom” in technology has exponentially sped up most of if not all work done in not only the U.S. but the entire world. With the introduction of the internet, cell services and advancements in machinery, you would imagine the amount of work someone can do today within a week would be equivalent to the work someone in the same position 100 years ago would quite possibly take a month or more to get done. And yet, we still have the same schedule. With these advancements, with the right amount of enticement, most people would even be able to complete a week’s worth of workload in 4 days. What could this enticement be, possibly the same pay and hours, just as long as the completion quality and quantity does not decrease, they would only have to work four days a week. 

In a study done in January to December of 2022, 3000 workers of 61 companies participated in a trial of a four day work week. The conditions they proposed were the same as previously stated, complete the same workload in the 4 days of working 8 hours instead of 5 days, and have the quality of work be consistent as it was before. The article called this the “ 100-80-100 model: workers get 100% of the pay for working 80% of the time in exchange for delivering 100% of their usual output.” 

On the company side of the experiment, upon completion, 92 percent of the companies stated that they would continue with the four day work weeks. They went on to say that one of these companies was receiving 88 percent more applications for work, and their productivity even increased 22 percent, even though the time at work was shortened. As expected on the employees side, most if not all were overjoyed by the extra day on the weekend. Roughly 90 percent of the employees said they would like to continue with the 4 day work week, while 15 percent of these employees went on further to say that they wouldn’t even take any amount of money to go back to a five day work week.

In more recent news, there have been strikes and employee walkouts demanding 32 hour work weeks while keeping benefits such as wages and healthcare. One example of this is the 13,000 members of the United Auto Workers at three assembly plants in Michigan, Ohio and Missouri. When negotiations with the Detroit automakers didn’t come to a conclusion for a new labor contract, these workers began protesting and going on strike. To the outside and ignorant viewers, it would appear that the workers’ demands are outrageous. When in reality, they are only demanding what should rightfully be adapted with the way the world has steadily progressed.

Why should our employees work almost 100 percent more proficient than that of an individual 100 years ago, and yet work the same amount of hours and days. Hearing it started like this, it seems outrageous just thinking about how when the bill for 5 day work weeks was passed, people would work five days a week at ford for roughly double what was seen as a base salary. In comparison, the people in the same position today are making minimum wage and working the same hours. Yet, the amount of production in the company and stock value of ford has grown exponentially. Not only this example, but it is the same for almost every company out there. And because of this, it should be mandated that work weeks be shortened to 32 hours while keeping every benefit otherwise offered for a full time employee.

Many individuals all over the world have a common goal in mind, that is to work less and earn more. Unless you’re at the top of a prosperous company or born into money, this goal is certainly hard to achieve for the average person. The correlation between the hours that one works and the amount of money they receive has been in place in many companies for over a hundred years. Minimum wages can barely keep up with market inflation and due to this more and more people fall into poverty. The market for jobs is a strenuous one, especially nowadays with more and more college graduates unable to find work due to demands of years of experience in certain fields. 

Without work and still having to pay off enormous college loans and miscellaneous bills, many people will find themselves working high demand jobs with low pay just to get by. One of the many jobs that draws these types of individuals in is a delivery driver for companies such as Amazon. The pay is relatively decent compared to minimum wage and you are paid hourly. The kicker though is that you always have a set amount of deliveries per that day. Due to this, the drivers who are more efficient in their deliveries finish faster. That would all be fine if they were not punished for it, and yet due to the pay being hourly and no set hours, the faster you complete the job the less you are paid. This situation has caused many in this position to draw out the delivery process in order to earn more, and be less productive. This also implies that if two drivers had the same amount of deliveries but one driver took twice as long to finish the task, they would be getting paid double the more efficient driver.  

This doesn’t completely justify the fact that working longer hours is never better than working faster. But what it does do is bring up the idea of efficiency in one’s work. Unlike a retail worker that will work a set shift from opening to closing, many jobs out there are more or less work until the job is complete. In this type of work, as long as it is completed to the satisfaction of the company, the workers will be paid their wages for the time they put in. If it is completed in 40 hours, they receive 40 hours of pay, 30 hours will earn them 30 hours of pay. Even if the job were to have been the exact same task. In the article “The $2,000 Hour: How Managers Influence Project Performance Through The Rework Cycle”, the rework cycle is a chart in place to roughly manage the work done. It compares the amount of work completed to the quality of said work. The comparison of work time and quality work hours is what’s demonstrated by this chart. As the article stated, employers would pay nothing for the hours put in where workers had not performed well, and thousands for the hours that had actually made progress on their project. In this case unlike the delivery drivers, working less, yet actually being efficient and thorough is rewarded. 

Of course, the position in a corporate chain like the ladder is very much different than an entry level job at a delivery company or similar jobs. Yet in both cases the work is performance based. Why is one rewarded and the other punished for being efficient and productive? The problem is that in the system we have in place, the correlation with money earned and time spent at work have been so indoctrinated into the way we live we wouldn’t even think to question why a 9 to 5 job is so common. Work 8 hours, get paid for 8 hours of work. In many cases, the average worker is not slaving away for 8 hours, and maybe gets 5-6 solid hours of productive work done at that time. There is a point in which working tirelessly long hours hinders work performance, in which quality diminishes. If companies were to offer incentives to those who produced quality work for the entirety of their time on the job, this may not be the case. If your house has a leak and you need someone to fix the roof, would you choose a person who offers work for an hourly rate, or someone who has a fixed price. In most cases, the person with the fixed rate. Why? The price may seem a bit much, for example if the fixed rate was 220 dollars compared to the company that offers 80 dollars an hour. The fixed rate may be finished in only two hours, and seemingly you paid 110 dollars an hour. But for someone offering an hourly rate, they would have worked less efficiently and taken 3 hours. Therefore you are paying 20 dollars more than the fixed rate. 

Efficiency and quality are the only things that should be considered when being paid. If a company were to offer a position where you work less hours and are paid the same amount, then the question of work quality and efficiency come into play. As in the previous examples, this is very much prominent, as work is more or less on the employees time. Rarely are employees left with overdue work and not enough time to complete it, and on the flip side, many people are dragging out their work in order to receive the pay that they deserve. If companies had greater incentives to employees, this would not be the case, and efficiency would skyrocket. 

One of the lead arguments protesting the shortening of the work week is brought to light in an article written by Liberty Vittert called “A Four Day Work Week Would Destroy Everything That Made America Great.” In this article Vittert states that due to the shortening of work weeks, companies that offer customer based services would have on less day of reaching the customer and being able to make sales. Due to this, those same companies would have to hire more help during the active days to make up for the lost day. This would further burden the company for having to spend more money on the extra help, and could eventually cause the company to stop making profit all together and inevitably lay off all work and go bankrupt.

An example Vittert gave of this was a short period of time between 1988 and 1996 in Japan. The work week was shortened form “46 hour to 30 hours” and as a result, the economic output fell nearly 20 percent. Though in the article, Vittert fails to explain the main reason for the economic crisis in Japan at the time. In “The Japanese Economic Crisis of the 1990’s” by Naoto Ohmi, Ohmi talks on the important factors that played into Japans economic downfall of the time. Ohmi talks on a subject known as asset price bubble in which the prices of stock and real estate had been greatly inflated. Due to this there was many who took out loans and with the banks giving little to no regard to whom they distributed money to, they had grossly devalued the price of their yen which led to the economic struggle at the time.

Vittert goes on later to say that Microsoft had implemented a four day work week for a trial period in one of the Japanese offices. In that span, which was only for the month of August, the workers had the Friday off work, and productivity for that month was reported to have increased by 40 percent. The counter argument Vittert gave in this case was that it was due to the month having been a low productivity summer month and that if it were really to be the case then why have they not implemented this style of work week into other branches.

This claim can also be refuted by the author of “Microsoft’f Latest Innovation: The 4-Day Work Week,” Evelynn Orr. In the article Orr, states that due to the success of the trial, they will be doing more trials throughout the months due to the fact that a mone month trial is limited. Throughout the trial, it was stated that paper used for printing was down 60 percent and electric usage was down 23 percent in cost. This is further backed by the results published on an in depth analysis of the trial called “Four-Day Workweek: The Microsoft Japan Experience” written by Courtney Gatlin-Keener and Ryan Lunsford. The results spoke of are shown in a graph provided by the article.

Due to results such as the increase in productivity and decrease in costs, it would be presumptuous to believe that they would have just stoped further implementation of this style of working. This further brings me back to the main issue at hand with switching to a four day work week, and that is that it would cost companies more money and eventually lead them to go bankrupt.

Most companies are not on the scale of Microsoft in terms of the amount of people they employ or the profits they bring in. Yet, in any case, it would be reasonable to assume that even if this were the case, keeping a lower cost of running the business is still in the best interest of the parties that run a company. If a company were able to cut electricity costs by nearly a quarter of the usual usage and also save on costs such as paper, this could be of great benefit to those who are in charge. In the article “25+ Warehouse Energy Consumption Statistics You Need To Know,” they state that for some companies, electricity can cost a company up to 50 percent of their yearly expenses. If that were lowered, there would be money to be able to higher employees as they see fit, and not be at risk of loosing money. For these reasons, the argument that companies could go bankrupt and effect the economy is almost laughable in comparison to what it would actually provide as benefits that the company owners would gain in return.

References

“25+ Warehouse Energy Consumption Statistics – Meteor Space.” Www.meteorspace.com, 5 Jan. 2023, http://www.meteorspace.com/25-warehouse-energy-consumption-statistics-you-need-to-know/.

Cooper, Kenneth . “The $2,000 Hour: How Managers Influence Project Performance through the Rework Cycle.” Project Management Journal, vol. XXV, no. 1, Mar. 1994.

Gatlin-Keener, Courtney, and Ryan Lunsford. Four-Day Workweek: The Microsoft Japan Experience. 2019.

Hedges, Janice Neipert. “A Look at the 4-Day Workweek.” Monthly Labor Review, vol. 94, no. 10, 1971, pp. 33–37, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41838141?casa_token=8J-mzxCxzDcAAAAA%3AYF9QvQZhLVpaFdbRyFzwrwbLdPLU3KW_Uhh6gaGwTCI8dIHNDJvPXwFDGrJOWp_1uk_FRGAkucbb69spWfnN3bOmcr-2oZToHmpBeu6ONKBBcQtWe2M&typeAccessWorkflow=login&seq=1. Accessed 16 Oct. 2023.

Liu, Jennifer. “Workers Report a 4-Day Workweek Improves Health, Finances and Relationships: It “Simply Makes You Happy.”” CNBC, 24 Feb. 2023, http://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/24/worlds-biggest-4-day-workweek-experiment-shows-big-health-benefits.html#:~:text=Employers%20and%20workers%20around%20the.

Orr, Evelyn. “Microsoft’s Latest Innovation: The 4-Day Workweek.” Www.kornferry.com, http://www.kornferry.com/insights/this-week-in-leadership/microsoft-four-day-workweek-employee-engagement.

Peirce , Philip S, et al. “The 4-Day Work Week – ProQuest.” Www.proquest.com, 1 Feb. 1974, http://www.proquest.com/docview/1293721454?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&imgSeq=2. Accessed 11 Dec. 2022.

Vittert, Liberty. “A Four-Day Workweek Would Destroy Everything That Made America Great.” The Hill, 4 Oct. 2023, thehill.com/opinion/finance/4228933-a-four-day-work-week-would-destroy-everything-that-made-america-great/.