Republicans, Young Adults Most Willing To Take 4-Day Workweek Pay Cut

Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent, and Representative Mark Takano, a Democrat, have introduced a bill that could open the door to a 32-hour American workweek. When a new survey asked adults what they would give up for a shorter week, though, the political group most willing to accept a pay cut was Republican respondents: 41% said yes, versus 33% of Democrats and 31% of independents.

Overall, 34% of respondents said they would take a pay cut in exchange for a permanent four-day workweek, with 26% choosing a 10% cut and 9% choosing 15%. Another 63% said no, and 3% reported that they already work four days a week. For a worker earning $60,000 a year (an illustration, not a figure from the survey), a 10% cut would mean $6,000 less, and a 15% cut would mean $9,000 less.

Sanders and Takano’s proposal would also try to stop employers from cutting pay or benefits when hours shrink, so survey respondents were weighing a different, hypothetical deal: less money for fewer days. BadCredit.org, the personal finance site that ran the survey, cautioned that the results say nothing about backing for the bill or how anyone might vote.

Republicans top a survey of 1,000 adults on the four-day workweek pay cut

BadCredit.org said it ran the survey to measure interest in a four-day week and to learn what people would give up for one fewer day at the office. It polled 1,000 U.S. adults in late spring 2026. Pay-cut and financial trade-off answers rest on 760 of them, and the data are raw and unweighted, meaning responses were not adjusted to match the makeup of the U.S. population. If the sample were purely random, the margin of error (the wiggle room around each percentage) would be about 3.1 points for the full group and 3.6 points for the 760-person group. On that math, the 34% pay-cut figure could land anywhere from roughly 30% to 38%, though the release does not describe how respondents were chosen, so even that range is a best case. Smaller slices of respondents, such as party groups, carry bigger margins.

Party labels in the release refer to respondents who said they supported each party. Republican respondents sat 8 points above Democrats and 10 points above independents. With party subgroups of unknown size, since the release does not say how many Republicans, Democrats or independents answered, those gaps are best read as a pattern in this sample rather than a firm national split.

Erica Sandberg, consumer finance expert at BadCredit.org, called the party split a standout and said it might not match expectations: “One of the more interesting results of our study is the difference between party voters.” No explanation for why Republican respondents leaned toward a cut appears in the release.

Gen Z is the most willing to trade pay for time

Generation produced a wider spread than party. Gen Z respondents, aged 18 to 28 when surveyed, were the most open to lower pay, at 48%. Millennials came next at 40%, then Gen X at 30% and baby boomers at 23%, a drop at every older step. Even at 48%, Gen Z fell short of a majority, so most of the youngest respondents did not choose a pay cut either.

BadCredit.org offered one possible reason: older generations may have piled up more debt and may have more people to support financially, making a smaller paycheck a harder sell. That idea is framed as a possibility, not a finding. Whether the party and age patterns overlap is also unaddressed in the release (younger respondents, for instance, might lean toward one party), so the two gaps may not be independent of each other.

Debt payoff and savings absorb a four-day workweek pay cut

Saying yes to a smaller paycheck is easy on paper. Respondents, including some who had said they would not accept a cut, were asked what they would give up if reduced pay led to financial strain, and they could pick several answers.

Slower debt repayment was the most common choice, at 24%. Cutting back on emergency savings followed at 21%, then contributing less to retirement (18%), delaying a home purchase (16%), putting off having children (10%) and taking on new credit card debt (10%). Altogether, 52% chose at least one of those moves, while 48% said they would accept no financial strain at all.

Sandberg said that once a tighter budget, missed goals, excess debt and trouble with credit card payments enter the picture, the shorter week “suddenly starts to become a lot less exciting.” All of these answers are hypothetical, so none reflects what workers actually did after a real pay cut.

Many respondents wish their bosses would bring up a four-day workweek

Interest in a shorter week and open talk about one are different things. A separate question asked about the conversation itself. BadCredit.org argued that honest discussions between workers and bosses could help the concept gain traction. Of respondents, 45% said their employer had not offered or discussed a four-day workweek even though they wished it would. Another 31% said their employer had raised it, and 24% said it had not come up and they were not interested anyway.

Gen X, defined in the release as ages 45 to 60, showed the most unmet interest at 53%. Gen Z showed the least, at 35%. BadCredit.org offered two guesses for the low Gen Z figure: businesses that employ younger workers may already be more open to a four-day week, or workers newer to full-time jobs may not have embraced the idea yet.

A hypothetical pay cut costs nothing to endorse. Republican and Gen Z respondents were the likeliest to say yes, and the survey cannot say whether that willingness would survive a real paycheck, a mortgage payment or a credit card balance. Until an employer puts a four-day week at lower pay on the table, Republicans’ lead is a stated preference, not a trade anyone has made.

---