"I think it does sound good to a lot of people -- but, hey, an economist is here to show people the pitfalls in a lot of things that sound good. And I think there are a couple here," says Dr. Walden, a professor of agricultural and resource economics.

"On the one hand if you were to say, OK, you are going to work less hours a week. but you are still going to earn the same amount per hour, that means people's incomes would go down. So people wouldn't have as much money to spend on all the things they want to buy -- from food, clothing, houses to all those nice toys they want to have," he adds.

"On the other hand if you said ... as has been done in some countries in Europe that 'all right, people are going to work less, but they are going to get the same pay as they did when they worked more.' Well, that's what everyone dreams of doing," he says. "But from a business’ point of view, they are going to see that as an increase in the cost of labor, and they are not going to hire as many people. And in fact that's exactly what happened in many countries in Europe where they have these short workweeks but very high unemployment rates.

"The middle solution I think here is simply sort of the one that we already have. If you want to work less, find a job that allows you to do that with flexible hours," he concludes. "On the other hand, if maximizing income is your goal, then you are going to work more."